UC-NRLF 
 
 H4- 
 
 C\J 
 
 C-J 
 CO 
 
 ro 
 
 
PSEUDO-PLATONICA 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 RESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF ARTS, LITERATURE AND 
 
 SCIENCE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO IN 
 
 CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF 
 
 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 BY 
 
 W. A. HEIDEL 
 
 or THE 
 
 \JT inc. 
 
 UNIVERSITY ) 
 
 BALTIMORE 
 
 THE FRIEDENWALD COMPANY 
 I8o6 
 

OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 1 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 One who undertakes the task of criticising any considerable 
 body of classical literature must avail himself of the facts gathered 
 by the labor of many predecessors. But if his work is to possess 
 independent value he must exercise his own judgment to an 
 extent that renders his results in a sense properly his own. At 
 times it becomes, consequently, rather perplexing to determine 
 just what kind of acknowledgment he should make to those from 
 whose works he is conscious of having derived benefit. In the 
 following pages it has been my aim to concentrate whatever of 
 value was to be gathered from all sources accessible to me and 
 yet to be perfectly free in determining upon the precise applica- 
 tion of particular data. To give credit for a reference to a passage 
 or for an observation which was to be put to a slightly or wholly 
 different use, without at the same time entering upon an unprofit- 
 able explanation or polemic, seemed to be unfair and uncalled for. 
 I have > therefore, concluded that it would be best to make a 
 general acknowledgment of a far-reaching indebtedness to those 
 authors whose works have particularly influenced my studies. 
 
 For a knowledge of the problems and methods I owe most to 
 the writings of Schleiermacher, Ast, Socher, Hermann, Stallbaum, 
 von Stein, Steinhart, Ueberweg, Susemihl and Zeller. In regard 
 to individual dialogues special acknowledgments are due. The 
 fifth and sixth volumes of that portion of the Metzler translations 
 of Plato which contains the suspect and spurious works have been 
 of peculiar value because of Susemihl's introductions and notes. I 
 regret very deeply the failure of my efforts to procure the third and 
 fourth volumes until my essay was in press, when only a partial 
 use of them was possible. Fritzsche's admirable recension of vol. 
 VI, sec. II of Stallbaum's Plato has saved me from repeating many 
 errors of former critics in regard to Theages, Anterastae, and 
 Hipparchus, and well exemplifies the supreme advantage of having 
 a good edition of the works under consideration. Boeckh's "In 
 Platonis qui fertur Minoem," 1806, has formed the basis and start- 
 ing-point for all subsequent criticism of that dialogue, and so I 
 have felt at liberty to incorporate into my work such of his obser- 
 vations as appeared to me to be sound. Cobet's scant notes on 
 
Alcibiades I in Mnemosyne, nova series, vol. II, p. 369 ff., are 
 almost all very judicious and have been utilized very fully in my 
 section on that dialogue. In regard to the Letters proper acknowl- 
 edgments will be found in their appropriate place. To the num- 
 erous dissertations on individual works which I have consulted, 
 I am aware of owing very little, except where a reference to them 
 in my notes owns the obligation. 
 
 I would feel that I had signally failed to show due respect to 
 my teachers if I refrained from mentioning among those to whom 
 I am most indebted, Professors Kirchhoff, Vahlen, Diels and 
 Zeller, of the University of Berlin, and Professor Paul Shorey, of 
 the University of Chicago. To the personal interest and instruc- 
 tion of Professor Diels I owe my first introduction to the open 
 questions of ancient philosophy, to the solution of which his own 
 "Doxographi" has largely contributed; and to Professor Zeller, 
 quite apart from the unequaled learning with which he has treated 
 that subject in all its phases, the inspiration of his personal direc- 
 tion in entering upon its mazy paths. It would be to me a source 
 of great pleasure to feel that this study contained fruits worthy of 
 his instruction. Finally it should be said that the incentive to 
 undertake this laborious task came from Professor Shorey, to 
 whose learning and friendly criticism it is largely due that I have 
 been enabled to avoid many rash statements and unfounded 
 objections. Many of the suggestions also which have found a 
 place in the following pages originated with him, though I alone 
 am responsible for advocating them and giving them to the 
 public. 
 
 One word more by way of explanation. The order observed in 
 Part II is in general the reverse of the chronological as set forth in 
 Part I, VII S except that the Letters have been placed together 
 for convenience between the so-called dialogi nothi and the other 
 spurious dialogues. This arrangement will serve to familiarize 
 the student with the character of these forged writings before he 
 meets Alcibiades /and Epinomis, the only ones concerning which 
 a doubt may yet be said to exist. 
 
 W. A. H. 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, December, 1895. 
 
OF THE 
 
 VNIVERSIT 
 
 PART I. INTRODUCTION. 
 
 I. METHOD. 
 
 For a century, since the revival of interest by Schleiermacher, 
 there has been unusual activity in the study of Plato. 1 The ques- 
 tion as to the genuineness of the works transmitted to us as his pro- 
 ductions is of course fundamental. One would naturally suppose 
 that an enquiry prosecuted with so much zeal and erudition must 
 have resulted ere now in practical agreement at least on this point ; 
 and, indeed, the opinions of scholars are gradually converging 
 toward the acceptance of certain conclusions which are coming to 
 be regarded as quite assured. 2 But as yet there cannot be said to 
 exist any clearly defined and universally recognized method. In 
 the earlier stages of the enquiry there appeared a lamentable con- 
 fusion of the philosophical and philological modes of procedure, 
 which naturally entailed a superficial and subjective judgment 
 seriously prejudicial to the investigation. Although most con- 
 tributions to the subject even now labor under the same difficulty, 
 it is happily becoming daily more apparent that the task of criti- 
 cism lies prior lo the really philosophical treatment and that, in 
 consequence, it belongs of right to philology. Hence, though 
 a minute knowledge of ancient philosophy is indispensable, the 
 method must be philological. Ast's procedure well illustrates the 
 dangers of a want of sober method. For though he distinctly 
 declared that Platonism was not a system of tenets but a point of 
 view or a mental attitude, his criticism consisted largely in a 
 
 1 Convenient summaries of the work of earlier critics may be found in 
 Grote's Plato, etc., vol. I ; Stein, Sieben Biicherz. Gesch. desPlatonismus, 
 bk. VII; Huit, La Vie et I'Oeuvre de Platon, Paris, 1893. Ueberweg's 
 8th ed. not only gives a clear resume, but also adds the bibliography up t o 
 1894. 
 
 2 One of the most suggestive illustrations of the tendency peculiarly 
 significant because of the kind dispensation which has so prolonged his 
 scientific labors is the change which has taken place in Zeller's views 
 between the appearance of his Platonische Studien in 1839 and his latest 
 publications. His change of front is all the more praiseworthy because 
 it has been in a large measure the means of producing a like reaction in 
 the views of others. 
 
rigid comparison of individual works with his own conception of 
 Plato's philosophy. And Ast's influence has been very great upon 
 all his successors. When we remember that it was the philo- 
 sophical revival in Germany that awakened the renewed interest 
 in Plato, we find in that fact the key to the explanation of the 
 earlier method. 
 
 The Platonic canon is not an isolated phenomenon. In recent 
 years classical scholarship has been endeavoring to classify and 
 examine critically its inheritance from the past. In so doing it 
 has discovered the existence of a vast body of spurious literature 3 
 which owed its appearance to various but, in the main, determin- 
 able causes and conditions. As this process advances, the char- 
 acteristics of this class of writings begin to be ever more clearly 
 discerned, and their use as a conclusive criterion to be applied to 
 works still in dispute is greatly facilitated.* Clearly, then, the 
 question as to the authenticity of doubtful claimants to a place in 
 the Platonic canon cannot be definitely settled until this method, 
 now only fairly begun, has been quite perfected and the pro- 
 visional results gained in various fields may be summed up in a 
 comprehensive statement. Meanwhile such provisional data must 
 be gathered, and the present study is conceived as an attempt to 
 contribute to this end by examining the doubtful constituents of 
 the Platonic canon. 5 
 
 3 1 should here mention the excellent monograph by Dr. Gudeman on 
 "Literary Frauds among the Greeks "in "Classical Studies in Honour of 
 Henry Drisler," 1894, in which he has stated in compendious form much 
 that is highly instructive. 
 
 4 SusemihPs Gesch. d. Gr. Litt. in d. Alexandrinerzeit, 1891-2, has in 
 this respect rendered scholarship an inestimable service, which may con- 
 fidently be expected to mark an epoch in the criticism of suspected litera- 
 ture. Would that we possessed such a hand-book of the whole of Greek 
 literature ! 
 
 5 In a more limited sense the method here proposed was already recom- 
 mended but alas ! not followed by Hermann, Gesch. der plat. Philoso- 
 phic, 1839, p. 411 : " Und so kommen wir denn allerdings darauf zuriick, 
 dass es bei weitem nicht so sehr allgemeiner Kennzeichen der Aechtheit als 
 besonderer der Unachtheit bedarf, um die vorliegende Sammlung von 
 ihren unterschobenen Bestandtheilen zu reinigen," and by Steinhart in 
 Zeitschr. f. Phil., vol. 58, p. 57 : " Hier ware es wol gerathen, einmal als 
 Gegenprobe den umgekehrten (Weg) einzuschlagen, und von jenen Dia- 
 logen auszugehen, die schon von den alten Kritikern verworfen wurden, 
 um an dem anerkannt Unplatonischen das als platonisch Ueberlieferte zu 
 priifen." 
 
- 
 ( UNIVERSITY I 
 
 OF 1%V y 
 
 11. THE ATTESTATION OF PLATONIC DIALOGUES. 
 
 When we speak of the attestation of one of Plato's works it is 
 not sufficient to cite the catalogues of Thrasyllus and Aristoph- 
 anes of Byzantium 6 ; for it is now universally conceded that the 
 attempt of Grote 7 and others to vindicate them as authentic and 
 definitive was wholly unsuccessful. The question then arises 
 whether criticism is entirely without an adequate external support 
 and committed to subjective criteria. Now we have, as is well 
 known, a wholly unique tribunal for the adjustment of claims to 
 Platonic authorship in the works of Aristotle, and to it are finally 
 appealed, so far as external evidence is followed, all cases in 
 dispute. As regards Aristotle's testimony, indeed, there has been 
 some doubt ; but it is now quite generally conceded to constitute 
 certainty where it can be clearly made out. As I cannot here enter 
 upon an elaborate critique of this question, I shall refer the 
 student only to Bonitz's Index to Aristotle s. v. Plato and to 
 Zeller's discussion which supplements it (Phil, der Gr., II A, p. 
 443 ff.). I may tne more readily do this, because the method 
 pursued in this study approaches the question from the other side ; 
 but there still remains something to be said. We may fairly 
 ask whether later tradition, as represented e. g. by Aristophanes, 
 though possessing in itself no independent evidential value, may 
 not be available as confirmatory in cases where Aristotle shows 
 acquaintance with a work but does not expressly attribute it to 
 Plato. To me it seems clear that in all these instances the unan- 
 imous verdict of antiquity must be conceded to be presumably 
 right. Accordingly, unless more valid objections are raised than 
 hitherto, I think we may safely accept for the provisional standard 
 of genuineness in contrast to which the spurious may be placed, 
 the following works as amply attested by Aristotle : Republic, 
 Timaeus, Laws, Phaedo, Symposium, Phaedrus, Hippias Minor, 
 Meno, Gorgias, Menexenus, Apology, Theaetetus, Philebus, Par- 
 menides, Protagoras, Euthydemus, Sophista, Politicus, Lysis, 
 Laches, Charmides, Crito, Cratylus, and Hippias Major. In 
 his youth Aristotle is known to have written dialogues in imita- 
 
 6 On Thrasyllus see Diog. L., Ill 56 ff. ; on Aristophanes, ibid. 61 f. 
 
 7 Grote, Plato and the Other Companions of Socrates, vol. I. See 
 Zeller's criticism, /. c., and for general points, Ueberweg, Grundriss der 
 Gesch. der Phil., vol. I, 8th ed., pp. 144 ff. 
 
8 
 
 tion of his master, 7 adhering closely to his style and doctrine. 
 Years afterward, when he founded his school and wrote the extant 
 works, his interest in the lighter Platonic dialogues gave place 
 to criticism of the later writings and teachings of his master and 
 his successors, 8 against whom he had to maintain his charter of 
 independence. That his citations of those earlier dialogues, 
 certainly made in large measure from memory, became in conse- 
 quence rather vague can occasion no just surprise. 
 
 III. GENUINE WORKS NOT ATTESTED BY ARISTOTLE. 
 
 It will be observed that there are some dialogues not enumer- 
 ated in the foregoing list which are not included in the Pseudo- 
 Platonica which follow. These are the Critias, Ion, and 
 Euthyphro. On these, therefore, it seems necessary to say a few 
 words, to which some brief notes on other works may be added. 
 The Critias is so inseparably connected with the Timaeus, that, 
 though a fragment, it is impossible to athetize it without rejecting 
 the latter also. 9 The only objections urged against the Euthyphro 
 are philosophical and entirely subjective, hence it must be accepted 
 unless arguments of a different nature can be produced. If it has 
 no direct attestation earlier than Aristophanes, 10 neither is there 
 anything to cast suspicion upon its authenticity, and it would be 
 surprising indeed if it should ever be proved to be spurious. The 
 Ion, too, has been a suspect. Perhaps the best statement of pos- 
 sible objections to it has been given by Zeller. 11 It comes in the 
 
 7 Zeller has shown this of Aristotle's Eudemus, which imitated the Cnto ; 
 see Hermes XV, p. 547 f. On his imitation of the Laws in Ilept <J>/Aocro0mf 
 see note 9 on Epinomis and By water in Journ. of Philol. VII, p. 64 ff. 
 
 8 Aristotle's own juvenile productions have suffered the same fate, as we 
 possess only scattered fragments of them in the late eclectic literature. 
 
 9 On the Critias see Susemihl, Jahrbiicher f. Philologie, etc., LXXI, p. 
 703 ff., and Ueberweg, Aechtheit u. Zeitfolge der Plat. Schriften, p. 186 f. 
 
 10 The evident use of Euthyphro 7 B in JIept Atitaiov 372 probably is later 
 than Aristophanes. See Introd. IV and VII and note 3 to n. A. But the 
 Minos, which also imitates Euthrypho, is earlier than Aristophanes. See 
 notes 25 and 26 to Minos. 
 
 11 Zeller in Zeitschr. f. Alterthumswissenschaft, 1851, p. 261. The stric- 
 tures passed upon the Ion by Susemihl in his translation published in the 
 Metzler series add some new points of view, but do not suffice to prove the 
 dialogue spurious, as he himself admitted. Subsequently Susemihl (Gesch. 
 d. Gr. Litt. in d. Alex. I, p. 23) rejected the dialogue outright, following 
 Zeller and Wilamowitz, Eurip. Herakles, I, p. 12. Wilamowitz himself 
 (Aristoteles und Athen,!, p. 188, n. 4) has lately in his peremptory manner 
 presumed to pronounce the Ion evidently spurious because of the mention 
 
end to this : Though the leading thought and the treatment are 
 clearly Platonic, there is nothing in it so characteristic but that an 
 imitator might readily have contrived it by collating and applying 
 the scattered utterances of Plato which bear upon the subject. 
 Many such passages may be pointed out. And it is not probable 
 & priori that Plato would have felt called upon to treat of the art 
 of the rhapsodes, who were of little consequence in his day. 
 Against this charge it may be sufficient answer to point out that 
 if Plato had touched upon this theme he could not have done so 
 in any other spirit than that here appearing, and that the sup- 
 posed imitations, being free and wholly germane to the subject, 
 may very well be only the result of a naturally fixed point of view 
 arising from Plato's theory of art. Besides, it is clear that what 
 is here said of the rhapsodes is intended also for actors, who 
 cannot be considered very insignificant factors in the Athenian 
 life of that day ; and, if we have no direct attestation, there is 
 at least one unmistakable reference to the Ion as early as the 
 Eryxias I cannot, therefore, discover adequate reasons for 
 believing the Ion spurious. Concerning the Parmenides which 
 it is still the fashion in some quarters to reject, it must suffice to 
 say chat the arguments adduced against it are either philosophical 
 or purely linguistic. The former are, I am convinced, mistaken, 
 and the latter wholly mal & propos^ At any rate, according to 
 
 of Apollodorus of Cyzicus in 541 C, whom he identifies, without the least 
 show of evidence, with Apollodorus the Athenian, who was general in Asia 
 Minor in 340 B. C. His judgment on the Menexenus (ibid. II, p. 99, n. 35) 
 is equally arbitrary. 
 
 ^Eryx. 403 D to Ion 532 D ; see note 6 to Eryxias. 
 
 13 On the Parmenides see Zeller, II a, p. 463 and 475 ff., and Steinhart in 
 Zeitschr. f. Philosophic, vol. 51, p. 250 ff. The trite objection that the 
 argument rptroc avOpuiroc is used (alleged to be the invention of Aristotle by 
 Schaarschmidt, Ueberweg, etc.) S. meets by showing that the Megarians 
 employed it against Aristotle's distinction of rrpurr] and devrepa ovoia. 
 Professor Shorey has repeatedly pointed out that the argument occurs also 
 in Rep. 597 C and Tim. 31 A, and that the Republic contains in parvo every 
 important thought in the Parmenides. See Shorey, Ue Platonis Idearum 
 Doctrina atque Mentis Humanae Notionibus Commentatio, esp. p. 26, p. 
 30 n. 4 and his notes on the Timaeus and on Jowett's Plato and Jowett and 
 Campbell's Republic in A. J. P., vols. X, XIII and XVI. 
 
 14 1 cannot here enter into a discussion of the evidential value of the 
 researches of Pittenberger, Frederking and Ritter. The severely dialectic 
 and logical form of the Farm, naturally entailed monotony in the use of 
 language, and particularly of particles of transition, and hence no legiti- 
 mate conclusions can be drawn from observations of that character. 
 
10 
 
 the method herein proposed, there appears to me to be no suffi- 
 cient case against any of the foregoing. 
 
 IV. THE CANON. 
 
 This leads us naturally to consider the origin of the canon. 
 We do not know what, if any, precautions were taken in the 
 Academy to guard the integrity of its founder's literary bequest. 
 The certainty, however, that we possess all that Plato published 
 betokens effective care on this side ; but what assurance have we 
 that measures were adopted to prevent the intrusion of the works 
 of others into the list ? The artistic perfection of the master's 
 dialogues, incapable of being fairly epitomized, doubtless pre- 
 served them from the fate of Aristotle's works. But criticism 
 shows that in the canon as transmitted spurious writings are 
 included. When, therefore, did it assume its present form ? 
 
 There probably existed lists of the works in the library of the 
 Academy, but it is questionable whether they specially classified 
 the scrolls by authors. Plato's immediate pupils of longstanding 
 would not require such, and others might enquire of them. Per- 
 haps, therefore, several generations may have passed before an 
 authentic catalogue was attempted. At the Alexandrian library 
 such procedure was more necessary ; but even there we have no 
 evidence of a canon before Aristophanes, ca. 200 B. C., who pos- 
 sibly was the first to constitute one. Of his method of verification 
 we know absolutely nothing, but his arrangement into trilogies 1 * 
 was in part violent and unmeaning. Yet he did not reduce all to 
 this scheme. D. L. says, after enumerating them, ra <5' AA xaO* 
 Iv xal ardxTCDs, which seems, at first sight, to imply the whole 
 traditional list. There is, in fact, only one point at which the 
 catalogue of Thrasyllus adds something which, as will later appear, 
 may not have been known to Aristophanes. That is in regard to 
 the 'ExiffToAa!, which, as a mere rubric, might be added to in- 
 definitely until, as in Thrasyllus' list, the letters were themselves 
 catalogued according to the name of the addressee. If we adopt 
 this view of the essential completeness of Aristophanes' canon, 
 we can readily account for the rejection of the so-called dialogi 
 nothi ; for with the single exception of the Eryxias, they doubt- 
 less did not exist sufficiently long before 200 to be accepted as 
 
 15 A. apud D. L., Ill 61 has five trilogies, as follows : I. Rep., Tim., Crit- 
 ias; II. Soph., Polit., Crat. ; III. Legg., Minos, Epin.; IV. Theaet., Eu- 
 thyphro, Apol. ; V. Crito, Pkaedo, 'ETrioroliai. 
 
 16 Cf. D. L., Ill 62: vodevovTai . . . o/zo/loyot^evwf MJwv, 'Epv!-ia, ' 
 (?), 2/av^oc, 'Af/o^of, A^odo/cof, K. r. A. 
 
II 
 
 Platonic. The Eryxias was, quite probably, not received into 
 the -list because it was referred to "some other author by a tradition 
 later become extinct. But why, we must then ask, did Aristo- 
 phanes admit Epinomis, Alcibiades //, Anterastae, and Hip- 
 parchus. It seems necessary to concede that in the case of some 
 or all of these dialogues there coexisted with the common tradi- 
 tion or assumption attributing them to Plato, another which 
 assigned them to a different source. 17 Now, A. is known 18 to have 
 used spurious Aristotelian works in his nepl c6wv and may well 
 have been similarly misled in regard to the dialogues in question, 
 his notorious conservatism leading him perhaps to disregard dis- 
 senting voices, particularly since his studies in Plato were beyond 
 not only his own peculiar province but also beyond that of his 
 predecessors at the library. This consideration applies with even 
 greater force to his acceptance of a work like the Minos concern- 
 ing which there appears then to have been no dispute. 
 
 V. CAUSES FOR THE EXISTENCE OF PsEUDEPiGRAPHA. 19 
 
 It is needless here to consider all causes operative in the ancient 
 world to produce confusion, error and deceit in the ascription of 
 literary productions to given personages. It will suffice to refer 
 to such as may have been active in the case of the Platonic canon. 
 In the case of the dialogues, in which the author entirely disap- 
 pears, the fact of their having no hall-mark, so to speak, upon 
 them may in the first instance have led collectors to class the new 
 claimants with those of Plato merely for convenience of compari- 
 son and study ; once there, it became difficult to distinguish 
 between false and true. This source of confusion was certainly 
 the more important because Plato's dialogues not only set the 
 example for all others, but so materially influenced almost all 
 writers of subsequent times that his thought and language even 
 recur on every hand. But it is impossible to account for all in 
 this way. The imitation in many cases goes so far that delib- 
 erate fraud seems to be the only possible verdict. If some vied 
 with Plato out of conceit of their own powers, 
 
 " Scilicet ut plausus quos fert Agrippa feras tu, 
 Astuta ingenuum volpes imitata leonem," 
 
 17 See my notes to these dialogues, and Zeller, II A, p. 441, n. i. 
 
 18 See Susemihl, I, p. 442. 
 
 19 Dr. Gudeman, op. cit., has touched upon this subject in its different 
 aspects, varying with the classes of literature, and those who do not wish 
 to refer to Susemihl will find his treatment sufficient. 
 
12 
 
 and claimed their productions; others were satisfied with the 
 secret exultation of having so successfully mimicked him as to 
 have the credulous public accept their work for genuinely Platonic. 
 In the Academy there can have been little call for falsifications to 
 serve the ends of propaganda; but in epistle XII we seem to 
 have an example of a "lie to conceal a lie" floated by the Neo- 
 Pythagoreans, 20 for that very purpose of propaganda. Whether 
 pecuniary inducements, on which so much stress has been laid in 
 modern times, 21 were to any extent operative in calling forth the 
 Pseudo-Platonica cannot be determined. At all events, it is 
 probable that the incessant practice in all varieties of literature 
 fostered in the schools of rhetoric, and the growing interest in 
 biography and antiquities, had far more to do with the presence 
 of these spurious works. If, for example, Wilamowitz is right in 
 calling Antigonus of Carystus (b. ca. 290 B. C.) the originator of 
 scientific biography, we should be able to consider him as an 
 opponent of the already prevalent tendency to imaginary or 
 apocryphal anecdotic narratives of the lives of philosophers, such 
 as appear in the spurious Letters. 
 
 VI. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PSEUDO-PLATONICA. 
 
 Difficult as it is at this stage of the enquiry, it seems best to 
 attempt some sort of characterization of the Pseudo-Platonica. 
 Since, however, this can be adequately done only after the whole 
 of Greek literature has been examined, as above indicated, we 
 must confine the statement for the present to an enumeration of 
 the more important of such marks as seem to distinguish that 
 body of works from the genuine writings of Plato. But to do 
 even so much in detail in this introduction, apart from the given 
 instances, would lead us too far afield. The following table there- 
 fore deals only with the more general categories, omitting such 
 characteristics as are sporadic or admit of no satisfactory classi- 
 fication. Nevertheless, as Plato says, Legg. 859 B : w 
 
 ds 
 
 20 Cf. note 50 to the Letters. 
 
 21 The passages on which this supposition rests are principally Galen, de 
 nat. horn., I 42, and Ammonius to Aristotle's Categ. p. 10. Cf. Susemihl, 
 I, p. 25, Gudeman, p. 61, and Bernays, Heraklitische Briefe, Appendix i. 
 
13 
 
 (i). Post- Platonic and post-classical diction is naturally the 
 most obvious test, when the wreck of Greek literature permits a 
 decision. (2). Unplatonic diction is more difficult to establish, 
 when it does not fall under the preceding head, because of Plato's 
 unsurpassed versatility and freedom ; but close observers of his 
 usage readily detect the fraud when his unfailing felicity of 
 expression gives place to bungling. (3). Closely allied to the 
 foregoing is the distinct want of taste displayed in cheap 
 rhetoric, tags culled from the poets and insipidly foisted in, 
 unnecessary accumulation of illustrative examples, affectation, 
 and ostentatious parading of erudition. All this is hostile to 
 Attic grace and highly characteristic of the degenerate style 
 affected in the Alexandrian age. But, in applying this test, it 
 must be remembered that many of these tendencies had their 
 origin in the sophistic training which Plato opposed not only by 
 open remonstrance but also, and more frequently too, with sly 
 travesty now almost imperceptible. (4). Here and there a signifi- 
 cant failure in the manipulation of the Platonic dialogue-form 
 may be detected, frequently due to the overruling rhetorical 
 interest of the production. (5). Commonplaces, Socratic or 
 Platonic, are received ready-made and juggled with according to 
 the intention of the author, no effort being made to lead up to 
 them. Taking these as its points of departure, the argument then 
 becomes either wholly eristic, or, even where generally legitimate, 
 quite superficial, showing that we are not in the sphere of true 
 dialogues of search, but following an author with a position to 
 develop, though he may prefer to mask it in dialogue rather than 
 resort to direct exposition. (6). In a few instances we find 
 extensive verbatim quotations fr om Plato. (7). But far more fre- 
 quent is the occurrence of freer imitations and allusions to striking 
 passages. Here, however, great caution is necessary. Parallels 
 and correspondences between different passages penned by an 
 author are natural and unavoidable in proportion as his modes of 
 thought are individual. No writer, however fertile, can hope to 
 state his most familiar conceptions otherwise than in the peculiar 
 light in which they first or most vividly impressed him. Hence, 
 taken singly, this cannot constitute a sufficient test ; but when on 
 other evidence a production is liable to grave suspicion, nothing 
 can be more conclusive than this characteristic. For the authors 
 of these forgeries were so familiar with Plato's most quotable say- 
 ings that their style and language abound in reminiscences of his 
 
14 
 
 works. But these, in turn, range from the most obvious to the 
 almost undiscernible, and must be judged rather as a whole than 
 singly. (8). In a few works there appears an effort to establish 
 by argument the propriety of certain favorite expressions of 
 Plato ',y, as of eu Tipdrrs^ in Epp. Ill and XIII, of idv Osoq iO)y 
 in Ale. I and Theages, and of 0s (a fioipa in //. A. This indu- 
 bitably marks the epigoni. (9). Equally decisive is the turning 
 to serious account of Platonic jests, as in Theages (n. 10) and 
 77. A. (n. 3). (10). Dependence on works already condemned as 
 spurious. This test is so obvious that it needs no comment, 
 (n). Neglect of logical precision in what purports to be serious 
 reasoning, eristic quibbling, and undisguised contradiction. (12). 
 Ultra-religiousness and mysticism. (13). A philosophical stand- 
 point entirely unplatonic. (14). Not a few works reveal depen- 
 dence on the writings of Aristotle. (15). Even post- Aristotelian 
 thought occurs. 
 
 VII. APPROXIMATE CHRONOLOGICAL RESULTS. 
 
 It seems proper here to state in brief the conclusions relative to 
 the probable succession and dates of the several works herein 
 treated, to which the investigation has led. For the basis of this 
 arrangement the reader is referred to the separate discussions in 
 Part II. 
 
 (i). The Epinomis doubtless appeared shortly after Plato's 
 death under the combined influence of Plato's latest thought and 
 Aristotle's juvenile productions, but no definite traces of its 
 having created interest can be observed in the other Pseudo- 
 Platonica. (2). Alcibiades I, however, which was written abouc 
 300 B. C., found great favor with all later admirers of Plato and, 
 in particular, with the authors of later forgeries, almost all of 
 which betray a knowledge of it. (3). About the same time with 
 it appeared the Eryxias, and (4) somewhat later, Alcibiades II, 
 which is conceived, probably by another author, as a companion 
 piece to the First. Then came (5) Ep. VII, say ca. 290, which 
 seems to depend on Ale. I and //; and (6) Theages, a supple- 
 ment to Ale. I, and subsequent to Ale. II, together with (7) 
 Anterastae, clearly later than Ale. I and perhaps called forth by 
 Peripatetic criticisms of Plato. (8). Epp. VIII and III must fall 
 in about here, say 270 ; and with them (9) Clitopho, which uses 
 Ale. /as an unquestionable document for the knowledge of Plato's 
 doctrine and depends also on Anterastae. (10). Hipparchus and 
 
Minos originated about 250 B. C., and between that date and, 
 say, 200, appeared the greater number of (n) Epp. II, IV, V, 
 VI, IX, X, and possibly, though not probably, (12) Hep} 'Aperr^ 
 and Hep} dtxaiou, the latter of which depends on Minos. (13). 
 Sisyphus and Demodocus seem to have been written about 150 
 B. C. and (14) Epp. I, XI, XII, XIII, at dates ranging perhaps 
 from 200 to 50 B. C. (15). Alcyon and Axiochus scarcely origi- 
 nated before the first Pre-Christian century, nor (16) Epp. XIV 
 XVIII before the third, A. D. (17). The Definitions, first quoted 
 as Platonic by Ammonius (fl. ca. 500 A. D.), may not have 
 existed much earlier, though it is possible that they were col- 
 lected by one of the later Stoics. 22 
 
 22 They contain, besides Platonic or quasi-Platonic definitions, some 
 which are Peripatetic and some clearly Stoic. I fancy the compilation of 
 philosophical definitions in this eclectic fashion began with the Stoics 
 under the influence of the lexicographical zeal developed in the Alexan- 
 drian age. Thus the Definitions of Sphaerus, a pupil of Zeno, were held 
 in great esteem among the Stoics (Cic. Tusc., IV 24, 53). But his were 
 doubtless Stoical definitions. The eclectic procedure seen in our Defini- 
 tions must have originated later. 
 
PART II. PSEUDO-PLATONICA. 
 
 I. AXIOCHUS. 
 
 The Axiochus is one of the many works, known as "Consola- 
 tions" produced in antiquity under the primary inspiration of 
 Plato's Phaedo. 1 After Aristotle's Eudemus (or -nsp\ ^o/^0 which 
 must have been largely of this nature, 2 the most influential subse- 
 quent production was doubtless Grantor's Hep} IhvOooq. It has now 
 become the fashion to trace all others directly or indirectly back 
 to this, a procedure which seems fully justified by the facts. But 
 it appears to me that Corssen 3 has proved so much at least, that 
 the Axiochus, like Cicero's Consolatio and Bk. I of the Tus- 
 culana and Pseudo-Plutarch's Consolatio ad Apollonium, what- 
 ever other sources they may have drawn upon, used some 
 authority who blended Stoic and Epicurean 4 thoughts with the 
 
 1 On this whole series see Buresch in Leipziger Studien, vol. IX. But 
 his attempt (p. 9 ff.) to claim Ax. for Aeschines the Socratic is futile. The 
 Ax. contains thoughts and expressions from Phaedo (cf. Ax. 370 C with 
 Ph. 114 C, Ax. 370 D with Ph. 114 B), but we need not suppose that its 
 author derived them thence at first hand. The beginning of the dialogue 
 reminds one of Rep. and Sytnp., while 2 init. recalls Lysis 203 A. 
 
 2 See the long quotation from it in Plut. Cons, ad Apollonium, 115 B ff. 
 Cf. also note 7 to 'Introduction? 
 
 3 Corssen in Rhein. Museum (1881), vol. 36. I shall have to refer the 
 student to this article for details concerning the relation of Cicero, Plutarch 
 and Axiochus to each other and to a presumptive archetype. 
 
 4 On this see Corssen. In Axiochus 365 UE we have an application of 
 Epicurus' argument against the reality of death, cf. Diog. L., X 125; 366 A : 
 are irapsairapjuevTi <Dummler (Akademika, p. 281) proposes dteoTrapjuevn after 
 Plut. De Anima 3, but nothing is gained thereby> roif Trdpotc, i] tyvxv* cf - 
 Epic. ap. Diog. L., X 63 : ort r} tyvxrj auud kcrt, AeTrro/zeptf Trap' bZov TO a6poiafj.a 
 Tra.peaTrapfj.Evov (cf. X 66, in Usener's Epicurea, scholion, p. 21 f.) ; 370 C : 
 el H.T] n deiov ovrwc kvijv Trvev/na ry "^v^y t cf. the TrvevfJia. evdeppov of the Stoics, 
 D. L., VII 157. Whatever may have been the connection of the Stoic Oelov 
 Trvevfia with the aijp of Diogenes of Apollonia, this passage is purely Stoic. 
 Diimmler's argument (o. c., p. 281) is insufficient to prove his point. 
 Besides, 0ev/crdf, 369 B, may show Stoic influence (cf. Zeller, III B, p. 25), 
 though Arist. Eth. H72 b 19 and Sext. adv. Math. VII, n would seem to 
 mark it as Cyrenaic, unless we assume a Stoic recension of Aristotle. Cf. 
 Eucken, Phil. Term. p. 28, n. i. The form 'E/caep^ in 371 A is not found 
 before Callim. IV 292, "A.pyrj occurring Hdt. IV 35. 
 
17 
 
 original Platonic. Whether this was Posidonius or not can hardly 
 be determined, but it is an over-hasty conclusion to infer from 
 a resemblance in its better portions to the fragments of Teles 5 
 that it originated, like them, in the third cent. B. C. Those very 
 parts its author professes to derive from Prodicus. 6 It is, indeed, 
 only too evident that Prodicus could not have written all that 
 is contained in the speech attributed to him, but this does not 
 prove that its reference to him was wholly unwarranted. It is 
 at least very instructive to observe the gradual additions to the 
 list of hardships to which youth is exposed. 7 If there was no 
 such epideictic discourse by Prodicus, our author was at least 
 clever enough to refer to the one reproduced in Xenophon. 8 But 
 despite his cleverness, and in part because of it, he has betrayed 
 himself. 9 In spirit the Axiochus stands most closely related to 
 
 6 As Susemihl (I, p. 22, n. 65) does, following Wilamowitz, Ant. von 
 Karystos, p. 295 f., n. 6. The fragments of Teles are in Stobaeus, Floril. 
 (ed. Mein.), vol. I, pp. 123-128 ; II, pp. 65-70 ; III, pp. 77, 186-189, 234 ; 
 IV, pp. 49-53, 164. The style of Teles is clear and the language pure ; but 
 how is it with the Axiochusl See infra, notes 8, n and 12. Diimmler on 
 general grounds agrees essentially with Susemihl as to the date, fixing it 
 (Akad. p. 282) not long after Bion the Borysthenite (fl. ca. 300 B. C.). 
 
 6 Axiochus, 366 D ff . 
 
 7 1 have no doubt that there was once some such production of Prodicus, 
 though it seems impossible to attribute so much of the contents of the 
 argument to that Sophist as Dummler does, o. c., p. 280. Plato seems to 
 presuppose a work on that topic, Lysis 207 D ff. ; Sophocles, O. C. 1211 ff., 
 dwells in a general way upon the theme; it is caught up in the Epinomis, 
 973 Uff., and then it grows by regular accretion. In Teles (Stobaeus, 
 Floril. Ill, p. 234 f.) the list is long, but contains nothing impossible in the 
 third cent. ; in Cebes' Tab., c. XIII the masters specified are : TrotrjTai, 
 pqTopec, 6ia~keK.TLK.oi, povotKoi, api6/uqTtK.oi, -yeuperpai, aarpohdyot, 'H 6 o v L K o i, 
 TLs p inaT iKoi (sic), KptriKoi. It would almost seem that our author 
 tried to complete this list; but he was too well read openly to display his 
 fraud, for (see 368 D : TTOV 6s np&rjv ol dsita crpar^yot, cf. Apol. 32 B) he tried 
 to give his work the appearance of reality, and so revised the catalogue 
 (366 D f .) : Traidayuyoi, "ypa/nfj-aTiorai, Tracdorpipat, K p IT i KO i, yeufieTpai, 
 TdKTiKoi. Socrates could not mention Peripatetics and Academics, but he 
 could single out the (now) famous gymnasiums AVKEIOV nal 'AKadqftial Even 
 if the Axiochus should not be later than Cebes' Tablet, which I would date, 
 with Zeller (II A, p. 242, n. 6) and Wilamowitz (Antig. von Karyst., p. 293), 
 not earlier than the ist cent. B. C., it cannot, as will appear, be much earlier. 
 
 8 Ax. 367 A: fypovTidei; avTiK.pV viridvaav K.al dta^oyifffj.oi ( JmAoyoi as in 
 Plut. 2, 180 C ?), Tiva Trjv TOV fiiov 68bv kvaTrjaeTai, cf. Xen. Mem. II i, 21 ff. 
 
 9 In 367 A mention is made of measures adopted by the Areopagus in the 
 3rd cent, to correct the vices of the young. These were probably instituted 
 
i8 
 
 Alcyon, and the mysticism with which Socrates is surrounded 
 reminds one of Theages Its style, which is quite uneven, is in 
 some passages very like that of Seneca, 11 and some of the words 
 employed reveal a kinship with the Pseudo-Pythagorean and 
 forged medical literature. 12 The first century B. C. is as early as 
 we can date a dialogue, which is so uncritically eclectic. 
 
 11. ALCYON. 
 
 This dialogue is usually published also among the works of 
 Lucian, although no one supposes it to be one of them ; for there 
 is reason for believing that it was written before his time. 1 The 
 
 so much before his time that he thought they might have originated in the 
 5th cent.; his avoidance of too evident anachronisms (cf. note 7) making it 
 seem unlikely that, if those ordinances were recent, he would have referred 
 to them. The use of the tell-tale word KpiTinoi was probably a mere un- 
 conscious bit of padding. His cleverness is shown in his fondness for rare 
 words, but this rendered his dialogue strikingly unplatonic, over 100 words 
 and phrases foreign to Plato occurring here in ten pages. Then Plato 
 located Hades in the earth; here (371 B) it is at the nadir. The Stoics' 
 interest in astrology and meteorology misled him into such words as these 
 (370 E) : jueTeupohoya /ecu AiEipi TOV attitov KO.I Qelov dpo/uov. Again, how impos- 
 sible with Socrates is this, 370 C : rd TOV noa/uov Tradq/uara TrapaTr^aadat irpbf 
 TOV aluva, el fjitj TI delov OVTU<; ivrjv Trvevpa Ty ipv%y ! Cf. Cicero, Tusc. I, 63 : 
 "Ne in sphaera quidem eosdem motus Archimedes sine divino ingenio 
 potuisset imitari," and see the cQaipiov in the Letters^ n. 45. 
 
 10 Clinias says, 364 C : bfyQivTog aov fiovov paicei, cf. note 10 to Theages. 
 
 11 Note the profusion of epithets in 368 D, 369 A, 371 E. 
 
 12 I cannot here go into details ; but for GKJJVOS, 366 A (which occurs, to be 
 sure, in Democr., frag. 6, Mullach), see Anton, De Origine Libelli lie pi 
 "ih^af K60JU.G) teal fyvaiog Tnscripti, p. 270 ff.; for a^ig, 365 D, Anton, p. 360 f.; 
 for faeypovr), 368 C, Anton, p. 420, n. 612. The case of ff/c^wf, however, 
 shows that this point must not be strongly urged. 
 
 1 Diog. L., Ill 62: 77 'A/l/ci>aw Aeovrof TIVOS elvat do/ccZ, na6d ^ac $a(3uplvoc ; 
 Athenaeus, XI 506 C : nal ij 'A/l/cwyv Aeovrof TOV 'A.Kao'rjfj.alKov, &c tyTjai Niidac 
 6 Ni/caet;f. Of Leon we know nothing. Of Nicias' date we are likewise 
 ignorant, but he probably lived under the early Empire (cf. Susemihl, I, p. 
 505 f.), in which case he may still have been Favorinus' source. Brink- 
 mann (Quaestionum de dialogis Platoni falso addictis specimen, Bonn, 
 1891) makes Nicias a contemporary of Sylla, and hence dates the Alcyon 
 in the 2d or 3d cent. B. C. I wish here to acknowledge my indebtedness 
 to Brinkmann, with whose results I generally agree. His dissertation, 
 however, reached me only after I had collected largely the same materials. 
 I shall therefore refer for further details to his work, as it seems unneces- 
 sary here to repeat all that is contained in it. 
 
strict observance of the laws of hiatus 2 and the affectedly poetic 
 color of its diction 3 suffice to mark it as a post- Platonic production, 
 while its vocabulary forbids placing it earlier than the 2d cent. 
 B. C. 4 The Stoic bias of the author is so manifest that Brink- 
 mann's elaborate argument seems almost superfluous 5 ; but the 
 imitation of Plato is sufficiently apparent to justify the treatment 
 of this dialogue among the Pseudo-PIatonica. 6 The enthusiastic 
 description of nature in halcyon days with which it begins and the 
 scenic setting of its close, when compared with the corresponding 
 parts of the Phaedrus, reveal unmistakably the conscious imitator. 
 Again, Chaerephon's question, 11 : *&<; nors %pi) ^icdr^ai rolq i% 
 atzparss, wq it; opviOiov yuvalzgs Ttore tylvovro rj opvtdes x 
 ; is substantially the same as that put to Socrates in 
 Phaedrus 229 C. Here, however, it serves only to introduce a 
 Stoic defence of the miraculous conducted with due fervor and 
 unction. The ultra-religious mysticism displayed is as little 
 Platonic as the pantheistic identification of God with nature. 
 Finally, the naivett with which Socrates' supposed bigamy is 
 
 2 See Brinkmann, p. 7 ff . 
 
 3 I: Trohvdpqvoc, KohvdaKpvc, Kovpidiov avdpa, 7ro0cj tyikiaq ; 11: CLKV/LKIVTOV, 
 ; 111 : /fyovrdf ave/juv r' k^aicia /ue-yedtj (cf. Ps.-Plat. Ep. VII 351 D : 
 Se egaiaiov nal cnrpoadoKrjrov peyedoi;) ; IV : 7iai2.ai^ ; V ; /c yever^c* 
 v ; VI : a^erp^Tov; VII : dvav/lo^, fjiiMrrav airsdett-e (this use of 
 arcodsiKvvvc'.t and similar verbs was widely copied from Plato, see note 2 to 
 Hipparchus] aofyrjv Oeiov nihiroq epydrtv ; VIII: adavdruv = detiv, u 5pvi Vpqvuv 
 
 *I: 7r^a^o//v^, late or poetic; 11: fjX ov * Hellenistic; ^avdpiav (cf. 
 VIII: <j)ihavdpov) love of husband' is late; 111: e^/crwy = 'possible' and 
 ave<j>iKTa, with eiTrelv ttyiKTov (V) and deupelv <f>tKvov/j,vot^ (VI) are all late ; 
 IV : Tv%bv lauq is Hellenistic, and IV : ewf rov vvv is not Attic. Abstract 
 plurals, like eiidiai?, 11, and advva/uatg, V, occur indeed in Isocrates, etc., 
 but become common only in Hellenistic times. 
 
 5 Here I shall refer to Brinkmann, p. 16 ff., mentioning only the figure of 
 the potter, in IV, or moulder of wax images so common with the Stoics, 
 and the thought, VII : rf^vouf, o>f "k6yog TLVUV, iepalc aidipoc; peydhov Trpooxpu- 
 jLievjj, which is equivalent to naming that sect. 
 
 6 The author indulges in Plato's favorite postponement of irepi, the use of 
 Travrof pa^/iov, the frequent addition of rig, rl, and other familiar devices. 
 Again, av^vd dk /cat 6ia vrj'Ki^rfjra (ppevtiv ra OVTI jap vrjTuog etiticev elvat rraf 
 avdpuTroc, nal 6 Trdvv yepuv, ETTEI TOI //i/cp6f ndvv ical veoyMbf 6 rov (3iov XP& VO ? 
 Trpof rov wavra aluva, gill, may just possibly be a reminiscence of Tim. 22 B 
 (cf. Epin. 974 A and Rep. 608 C). The word dypa^/zdro^, VII, seems to 
 occur in this sense of 'illiterate ' only in Tim. 23 B and Critias 109 D in 
 classic authors. 
 
2O 
 
 referred to is another mark of a late and unsuspecting scribe. 7 It 
 seems most probable that the Alcyon was written during the first 
 cent. B. C. 
 
 III. Uep\ 
 
 This sketch 1 is related to the Republic somewhat as Hep} 
 'ApsTTjs is to the Meno ; but its author is more independent of 
 his original. His independence, however, serves only to disclose 
 the fraud ; for it consists chiefly in selecting without philosophical 
 insight statements made by various characters in the first book of 
 the Republic 1 in utter disregard of their subsequent acceptance 
 or rejection, and in ignoring, like the Clitopho, the masterly 
 solution of the problem of justice set forth in the succeeding 
 books. The conviction thus created of the work's spuriousness 
 receives confirmation from the observation of its indebtedness to 
 other dialogues, 3 and not only to genuine ones, but also to the 
 spurious Minos? We have no adequate data upon which to base 
 
 7 This libellous story seems to have originated with Aristoxenus or 
 Demetrius Phalereus, and, since Luzac, has become universally discredited. 
 
 x This dialogue and its companion piece, II. A., are not even expressly 
 mentioned in the list of dialogi nothi (D. L., Ill 62), but Hermann (Gesch. 
 der plat. Phil., Ill, p. 154) suggests that they belong to the eight httityakQi 
 there noted (if one accepts his conj. d/ce^a/lot if for 'A/ce^a/lof rf) as spurious. 
 See my note 27 to the Minos. 
 
 2 This is too obvious to require proof. Note, f. g t , how in 374 B. C. our 
 author uses the argument (from Rep. 332 B ff., 335 B ff.), showing that 
 justice cannot be defined as doing good to friends and harm to foes. 
 
 3 n. A. 372, fii] /not OVTUG, cf. Prot. 318 B ; the examples in 372-373 A are 
 derived with little change from Euthyphro 7 B ff.; for TO vTrepe^ov, 373 E, 
 see Hipp. Maj. 294 B ; with 373 E : TO fj-ev KO.TO peirov kv roig vyotf /3a/o{), TO 
 Se avu Kovtyov, compare Tim. 63 B ff., esp. 63 D : xovtyov ovv CLVTO Trpoastpf/Ka- 
 fj,ev /cat TOU T6nov etf bv (3ia6/j.0 J avu, TO d' evavTiov TOVTOL^ Trddog 8apv /cat KO.TU ; 
 in 375 A we have T/LIVEIV /cat /catftv /cat la^vaivscv, for which see Gorg. 521 E 
 and Pol. 293 B. 
 
 4 Page 372 reproduces Minos 313 B, except that in the latter we read b^ig 
 and A<5yof where in the former were bQdatydg and <j>wvrj. This difference 
 leads finally to the confusion of diKaioovvq (the correlate of 6i/;tf, Adyof and 
 
 in the following quotation) and diKacTtK^ (the correlate of btydaA/udc and 
 , as well as opyavov) in II. A. 373 A : rd dinaia /cat raJt/ca rivi GK.OKOVVTES 
 dta-yiyv&CKOjuev bpydvu, /cat //era TOV b pydvov TIVI Tex v V K p 606 ev 
 (=ye Kp6e), and what follows. Hence Socrates, after asking <rt TTOLOVVTE^ 
 dianpivovGiv ol Jt*caarat> irspl TOV diKaiuv /cat adiituv ; helps his hesitating com- 
 panion by suggesting, 373 C, ^yovrec, dddi. This exceedingly unplatonic 
 turn is thus translated by Susemihl : " Sie (denken nach und) sprechen 
 
21 
 
 a judgment as to the precise time when this sketch was written, 
 but the use of xpoffOev = ' insuper ' 5 suffices to show that it 
 originated after the decay of the Greek language was far on its 
 way. 6 
 
 IV. 
 
 If not an unsuccessful sketch made in good faith by a novice to 
 assure himself that he had caught Plato's manner as well as the 
 substance of his doctrine respecting virtue, Usp\ 'J^erj^ is a 
 cunningly contrived plagiarism from the Meno? omitting the dis- 
 tinctively philosophical suggestions 2 of its original while doubly 
 emphasizing its half-mystical conclusion. In the Meno, as else- 
 where in Plato, the teachableness of virtue is made to depend 
 upon the prior question as to its true nature, which is here not so 
 much as raised. On the other hand, that demotic virtue, which 
 Plato there concludes must come to man Oslo, poipa, is here 
 made supreme ; and a mere jest, there casually let fall by the 
 way, is converted into the crowning argument to prove that 
 virtue is not attained yuffet, 3 an alternative very simply disposed 
 
 (dann). Sage, ist's nicht so?" The parenthesis is not in the text: it 
 means merely 'by the use of speech.' See also 373 D: Aoyof eoriv, &c 
 eoLKEVy TO. 6'iK.aia /cat aStKa npiverai, where \6joq =. <f>uvr/ t a very different thing 
 from the statement in the Republic 582 D, which our author may have had 
 partially in mind : Myoi 6e TOVTUV <sc. TOV Kpiveadai> //d/Uora bpyavov. In 
 II. A. 372 : /cat edv fj,e kprf OTGJ i/w$ ovo//a, kp& cot 6/ yryvuaKOfiev, we have a 
 possible reminiscence also of Ale. /, 127 E ff., esp. 133 C : exopev ovv e'nrelv, 
 on earl rijc t/w^f nvpiurepov rj rovro, Kepi b TO eldevai re /cat <j>povelv eartv ; OVK 
 exo/uev. See notes 28-31 to Ale. I. 
 
 5 373 A, the passage quoted in foregoing note : unless it can conceivably 
 mean ' previously,' to suggest the priority of the rk-^yn to the bpyavov ; but 
 then //era is not in place. 
 
 6 1 do not believe that either II. A. or II. A. originated before 200 B. C. 
 Possibly they appeared much later. See Intr. VII. 
 
 1 The bulk of II. A. is taken verbatim from that dialogue ; the correspond- 
 ing passages are these : 376 A = Meno 70 A ; 376 B = Meno 94 ff.; 377 B ff. 
 = Meno 93 D f.; 378 B = Meno 94 D ; 379 AB = Meno 89 B ; 379 D = 
 Meno 99 D ff . 
 
 2 Particularly the reference of apery to Qpovqaic (Meno 89 A) and the com- 
 parison hinted at in Teiresias amid the shades ' (Meno 100 A). 
 
 3 Meno 89 A : OVKOVV el ravra ovrwf %ei, OVK av elev <j>vaei oi ayaQoi. Qv pot 
 6oK.i. Kat yap av TTOV /cat rod' rjv. el <f>vaei oi ayadol eyiyvovTo, rjadv TTOV av 
 rj fj.lv oi i-yiyvuciwv T&V vcuv rovg ayadovc raf (j>vaeig, ov rjuelg av 7rapaXa(36vre^ 
 eiceivuv cnroQqvdvTwv tyvXarTo/uev kv ditpoirofai. In II. A. this becomes a long dis- 
 quisition (378 C-379 C), beginning in this serious strain : dpa $vcei fvovrai 
 
22 
 
 of in the Meno by the subsumption of a/?T7? under ypovyffts* A 
 minute comparison of the corresponding passages reveals how 
 utterly the life of the original has been eliminated in making the 
 abstract ; but the excerptor aspired also to be artistic and intro- 
 duced gratuitously an insipid jest of his own. 5 As in the Letters 
 the form of address, so xpdTTetv, was justified by argument, and 
 in Alcibiades /, and at even greater length in Theages, the paren- 
 thesis, av Oeoq kOiXy, so here we discover in the attempt to 
 establish dialectically the necessity of 6eia. fj.oipa, one of the most 
 characteristic marks of forgery. Our author has, moreover, left 
 traces of his indebtedness to other dialogues 6 besides the Meno. 
 
 V. DEMODOCUS. 
 
 The Demodocus consists of four distinct sophistical exercita- 
 tions, which receive their name from the circumstance that one 
 Demodocus 1 is addressed, at the beginning of the first, by the 
 
 ol ayadol ; /cat TOVTO ryde Try GKOTTOVVTCC; tcrwf av evpoi/nev. Who can fail to 
 detect the bungling imitator ? And yet Socher fancied this was Plato's 
 first draught ! In view of the turn given to this conceit at the close, 
 reminding one of the story of Lot (379 D : orav fiovkrirai 6eb<; ev npdgai irofav, 
 avdpag ayaOovg eveTrohjoev * orav 6s ntKkij /ca/c<yf Trpagecv 7ro/Uf, e^eZ/le roi)f av6pa 
 rot>f ayadovq e/c ravrr)$ r^f TroAewf 6 6e6f ), one wonders whether the author may 
 not have had in mind Antisthenes' saying (Diog. L., VI 5) : r<$r' etyTj rdc 
 TTO^sig cnrd^vadat orav firj dvvuvrat roi)f <j>avXov^ cnrb TUV OKovdaiuv fitaKpiveiv. 
 
 4 Meno 89 A. 
 
 5 377 D : uv Kal ov /J.QI (Jo/ceZf rov erepov ipaadqvai, continuing 377 E, a/I/,' tawf 
 av kyevovro. 
 
 6 With bang alriav e%L 6ia rqv TOVTUV 6/u.iMav co<j>6(; re /cat dyafldf yeyoi/evai 
 (376 C) compare Ale. /, 119 A : bartq alriav I%EI 6ia rrjv HeptK^eovc awovaiav 
 ao^wrepof yeyovtvat. Here, therefore, we can again trace the influence of 
 Ale. I. The following passage in 376 D : eanv ovv orw Xvatrefel fiij ev a 
 OIKEIV avdpaaiv dA/l' ev KaKol$ ; . . . . Trorepov epyov earl ruv fj,ev ayaduv 
 
 r&v 6s KaKuv tj^eXeZv, rj rovvavriov ; Tovvavriov. Oi /Lth> ayaOol apa oxj>e7iovat, ol 
 6 KaKol fiAcnrrovoiv ; No/. "'Ecriv ovv barif {3oi>?iKrat fihdirreadai /j.a'X'Xov rj 
 u(f>E^eiadat', Ov iravv. Qvdelg apa (Sovherat ev Trovrjpolg olnelv //aA/lov % ev ^fp/?aroZf, 
 is found almost verbatim, Apol. 25 CD. It is perhaps worth noting that 
 the author, though he began with ayadol and /ca/cot, ends with ^/^trroi and 
 xovrjpoi, as in the Apology. Compare also 377 A with Protag. 326 E ff. 
 
 a ln the Theages a Demodocus comes to advise with Socrates concerning 
 his son, and it may be inferred that the character was chosen with reference 
 to that fact ; if so, this is one more illustration of the schematic nature of 
 the work. The Theages was then already in existence and known to our 
 author. 
 
23 
 
 speaker whose identity is not indicated. The first section proves 
 the futility of taking counsel. This would suggest its probable 
 dependence on Alcibiades I, and in fact a few details lend further 
 color to this surmise, 2 while the Republic^ and Gorgias* may 
 likewise have been drawn upon by its author. The second seeks 
 to show the needlessness of hearing both parties to a dispute, 
 and betrays no specific imitation of Plato ; nor does the third, a 
 quibble on the ambiguity of the term ap.aprdvi\> ) leaving unde- 
 cided the question whether he who fails to loan money to a 
 friend or he who fails of effecting a loan dp.aprdvsij' The fourth 
 theme is: avdpaiKou riq xaTyydpet sUTJflstav, on ra^iwq xai rolq Tu%oufft 
 fodpwTtoir teYoufft xto-Tsuot, to every element of which exception is 
 taken until in the end the narrator says: raor y ouv teyovraw aurwv 
 rjnopoov, Ticiv TTOTE ds~i xiffTebetv xa\ rtfftv oo. The style of the whole 
 is intolerably repetitious, 6 and the diction 7 betrays its post-classic 
 origin. Its meagreness, lack of color, and the schematic char- 
 acter of the dialogue are conclusive against Platonic authorship ; 
 but the relation of the first section to the Sisyphus, though hardly 
 
 2 Dent* 380 D : fj ov ravra ol eiri0Ta/j,evot %v[j,fiov7iEvovGi Trdvref, cf. Ale. /, 
 1 1 1 A ff ., esp. 1 1 1 B : OVKOVV rovg el66rag bfj.o'koyelv re d/Uiy/lo*f /cat pr) (haQepsadai ; 
 where this idea of agreement as a test of knowledge is much insisted on; 
 but this thought is repeated Minos 316 D, and in other passages, vid. note 
 14 to Ale. /. Compare also Dem. 381 B : irepl wv (nreipug e^ovoi, with Ale. /, 
 107 B, where experience as the basis of advice is likewise emphasized, and 
 Dem. 381 E : nal ravra Trap 1 owhvbe uaddvre^ oixJ' avrol eiyxWef, we have again 
 the familiar disjunction, for which see note 8 to Ale. I. 
 
 3 Dem. 380 D: kavof ... nal elf, 381 A: Ivbf /u6vov aKovaaat egr/picei, 
 ibid. B : elf kavof earai may have been suggested by Rep. 502 B, elf kavof 
 yevo/uevos, K. r. /I.; but see also Gorg. 475 E; e/uol de av e^ap/ceZf elf uv povoq , 
 and ibid. 505 E : tva poi TO TOV 'Eirixdp/aov yevrfrat, a trpo rov 6vo dvJpef e/leyov, 
 elf &v kavof -yevco/uai ; though the thought is different. 
 
 4 Dem. 382 A : oimjf h bhi-yu %p6v(f) KCII ovraf rotrourouf, apparently speaking 
 of jury-pleading, vid. Gorg. 455 A (under similar circumstances), ov -yap 
 Srjnov bx?iov y' av dvvatro TOOOVTOV h bhiyu XP^ V V ^t^a^at OVTU ^eyd/ia Trpdy/zara. 
 
 5 Although the parallel is not complete, this quibble well repays com- 
 parison with the similar one on djuaprdveiv in Antiphon's Tetral. II. 
 
 6 It will suffice to refer to 380 A ff., as also to 383 0-384 A, where E^avifrtv 
 and iftfaivetv occur sixteen times. In parts III and IV enre recurs seven- 
 teen and olecOat delv four times. 
 
 7 Note dpxyv =' anyhow ' (381 D), av/u,7r'nrTiv = av/u(3aivetv (382 D) ; ro 
 re7of Evrvxia (382 E) would be an interesting witness to late origin if, as 
 seems likely, it is a reminiscence of ro reXof Svarvxia in Euripides' Bacchae 
 (v. 388), a play especially popular in later antiquity. In 381 E we have 
 oUare, vd. Ale. II, n. 8. 
 
24 
 
 a mere chance similarity, is not easy to determine. On the whole 
 it is most probable that the two works originated in the same 
 period and under the same circumstances. 8 
 
 VI. SISYPHUS. 
 
 In regard to the Sisyphus we are chiefly interested to know 
 when and under what influences it may have been written. 1 It 
 consists of a clever but wholly eristic argument directed against 
 the utility of taking counsel. 2 The vocabulary 3 and style 4 are 
 such that one is compelled to seek its origin in the age of deca- 
 dence, and evidence of another nature will be found to corroborate 
 these indications. The manner in which the problem of the 
 dm^affiafffjidt; TOO xvfiou is mentioned in 388 E is highly suggestive 
 of the Alexandrian age, 5 and the interest displayed in geometry 
 
 8 For further discussion see the section on the Sisyphus. 
 
 1 It is one of the dialogi nothi, D. L., Ill 62. 
 
 2 It confesses its eristic character in 388 D, 390 B and at the close. Its 
 name Sisyphus may have been selected to characterize the fruitless 
 endeavor to attain a comprehension of fiovhevEadai. 
 
 3 Note the lax use of words denoting intellectual processes, like kv vo?/aet, 
 338 B (cf. the similar use of VOIJOIQ among the Sceptics, Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. 
 II 10), TTLaT7]fjLr) alongside of eluacia and a&aa//of in 390 C. Susemihl's 
 conj. of avETrtoTqfioovvq is impossible, and Miiller's kiriaraoL^ is unnecessary. 
 The sceptical age to which we must refer the dialogue will account for such 
 unmeaning disintegration of a term once connoting a definite act of mind. 
 See also TrepiEpyia, 387 C ; CTrovdacfj.evu<;, 390 B ; Trpbs Toy Aidf, 388 B. This 
 phrase, with the article, I believe is nowhere else to be found. So fj.erapaio- 
 Aea%r} t 389 A, although juereupo^ilc^^g occurs in Rep. 489 C ; but we have 
 no evidence of /uerapcio in composition in the classical period. Again 
 7ro/Ud/f, 388 A, must be taken = * perchance ' rather than =' often''; but 
 this use of 7roA/ld/af without d or fj,rj is quite anomalous. In fiyuwf kKirvyxa- 
 vovat TieyovTES Trepl rwv avr&v TaJujdrj, 388 A, ri> is evidently to be cancelled. 
 
 4 Note the occurrence of OTTUC av with past ind. in OTTO^ av ovvqicpow r]^lv t 
 
 387 A, and oTrwf av edvvaoOe, 390 B : cf. Goodwin, MT. 335; ire pi uv av pr) 
 eTTiaraiadE, 390 A, is a construction quite impossible in classical Greek, 
 and is not really given in the MSS, which read eTriaraadE, which is 
 equally impossible ; but concerning the parallel case of Trspl uv av dioiro 
 dimrpciTTEGdat, 389 B, there seems to be no doubt, so that it may be taken for 
 granted that our author committed the solecism. There is no sense in 
 
 388 C : fiij luevTot eiriaTatro oirov eh/ it-evpEiv, ovx banf elrj 6 Ka/l/Uor/oarof, unless 
 by a violent turn you render it thus : "but was ignorant of -where C. was, 
 not of who he was." 
 
 5 This problem is treated at length by Cantor, Geschichte der Mathema- 
 tik, Ed. 2, vol. I, pp. 198 ff., and pp. 213-222. Much will depend upon the 
 
25 
 
 may be in great part due to the brilliant advance in this science at 
 that time, though Plato's example and particularly the tytffTtxds 
 Ao^o^ of the Meno were plainly kept in mind. 6 
 
 But the chief point of interest in the Sisyphus is the discussion 
 itself, which grows out of the problem of the zptrijptov. Aristotle 
 seems to have given the impulse to the questions here raised. 
 He was possibly the first to state definitely that advice pertains 
 to the future. 7 But he had also restricted counsel to such matters 
 as depend on our free will and are not necessary ; 8 and, at the same 
 time, he maintained that the law of the excluded middle did not 
 apply to disjunctive propositions relating to a future event which is 
 not necessary or which depends upon a free will. 9 Of such an event 
 one may say only o T /z^AAe c, not o r c eVrai. 10 Now we know 
 that the Stoics, after declaring that everything occurs according 
 to fate, denied this exception to the rule of the excluded middle, 11 
 and chiefly because of their interest in fate and divination. 12 
 
 view taken of the letter quoted as written by Eratosthenes to Ptolemy 
 Euergetes. See Susemihl, I, p. 420, n. 64, 65. It is certainly difficult to 
 decide in what relation Plato stood to the problem if it had taken on just 
 that form in his day. Rep. 528 A f. and Legg. 819 D ff. show conclusively 
 that he was busied with stereometry in matters closely allied to the Delian 
 problem, and it is possible that these passages really led to the mythical 
 stories related by Plutarch (De Ei. 386, de Genio Socr. 579 B, Quaestt. 
 Convv. 718 E f.). However that may be, any reader of Plato must see that 
 the abrupt manner in which the problem is here foisted in is wholly foreign 
 to Plato's wont. 
 
 6 Meno 80 ff. But the Sisyphus entirely omits reference to anamnesis, by 
 which Plato sought to refute the eptariKoc ^6-yog. We may seize this oppor- 
 tunity to remark that Socrates' appearance in Pharsalus is perhaps due to 
 a vague thought of the Meno, for Socrates thus returns Meno's visit to 
 Athens. 
 
 7 Arist. Rhet. I358 b 13 : xP OVOi ^ endarov rovruv elal rti /u.ev avfj,(3ov/ievovri 6 
 fj.~}iAuv ' Trepl yap ruv GO/J.EV(JV cvjjLJ^ov'keveL rj irporpeTruv rj cnroTpeTruv. Cp. Sis. 
 390 D : ov% anavres ol re ev flovhevd/Lievoi /cat ol /ca/cd>f Trepl fj.eA.'Xovruv nvuv eaecOai 
 /3ov/\,evovrai ; 
 
 8 Rhet. 1359* 32 : oca 6e ef avdyKqc r/ EGTIV TJ carat TJ advvarov q elvat rj yevecdai, 
 Trepl <5e TOVTUV OVK. eon av/u,(3ov%,7/ ... 38 : Totavra J' earlv baa TreyvKev avdyeaOat 
 elf ^//df, /ecu uv rj apx^ T^G yevecrewf 0' rjp.lv kariv. Cf. also Eth. Nic. F 4 ff . 
 
 9 De Interpr. c. 9 
 
 10 De Gener. et Corr. 337 b 3. 
 
 11 See Simplic. Categ. 103 /?. Vd. Prantl, Gesch. der Logik, I, p. 450, n. 
 136. 
 
 12 This becomes certain from the significance which is attached to Aris- 
 totle's dictum. Cf. e.g. Ammonius' Commentary to Section II of Arist. 
 De Interp. (I quote from Orelli): TOVTO /uev rot rb ttewp^a rb vvv VTT' 'Apiaro- 
 
26 
 
 Hence, too, they limited divination to necessary results. But 
 their means of knowing what was necessary, as their opponents 
 pointed out, were inadequate. Now this discussion of prophecy 
 became most exhaustive in the school of Carneades, and that the 
 Stoics' account of the disjunctive propositions was singled out by 
 their critics as a weak point is shown by Cicero's Academics. 
 And, though Cicero does not mention this argument among those 
 against prophecy which he borrows from Carneades in De Div. II, 
 it can hardly be doubted that Carneades did so employ it. From 
 divination to such knowledge of the future as may serve to give 
 advice concerning it there is but a short step, and it has been 
 taken in the Sisyphus^ In the first part of the Demodocus the 
 conclusion is reached that consulting is vain, and therefore, sug- 
 gests the Sisyphus, one should rather learn of those who know 
 than exchange views with those who do not know, At this point 
 then the question is enlarged upon in Sisyphus, and it is said to be 
 impossible to give or obtain competent advice because it is con- 
 versant, with futures which do not exist and hence cannot be 
 known. 15 The question then 391 D : TT/JOC ri ouv xore 
 avOpwxoi npa.yfj.a aKOxaXouffiv avdpti)-oo<; evfioukooq rs xai 
 iivaiTtvaq] is probably to be answered in the spirit of Carneades 
 by saying that he is a good counsellor who advises what is prob- 
 able, if he condescend to venture even so far. 16 One can hardly 
 
 reAovf KIVOV/J.EVOV, donsi p.v elvai Aoyt/cw, /card a^detnv de Trpof iravra juopia ~f)$ 
 0tAoffo0t'af icTiv avayitaiov Kara re yap rrjv rjduirjv fyikoaofyiav irdoav dvdyKT) 
 Trpoa%a/i/3dviv t a>f ov Trdvra iari re /cat yiverai eg dvdy/CT/f, d/l/i' Ian riva /cat 
 0' fjfuv, /c. r. A. 
 
 13 Cic. Acad. Prior. II 97. See also De Fato passim, esp. cc. 10 and 16. 
 Alexander Aphrod. De Fato, c. X, XI, XXVII, and Prantl, I, p. 438, n. 109. 
 
 14 The author shows his latent identification of the two activities in 
 various ways ; cf. dianavrevojuevov, 387 D ; et/cdovra, ibid., with which cf. 
 Arist. Rhet. I358 b 20: rd ^eXkovra. TrpoeiKa^ovrEg ; ai>TOGxe6idovT(; /cat Siafiav- 
 Tev6fj.evot, 390 B. Compare Menander, frag. I, '0 Kfalarov vovv t^w \ Mdvrtf 
 r' dpiaroc ecrt cvfj,^ov"X6g 6' d/za. Of course divine foreknowledge 
 and prophecy were intimately involved in this discussion of fate, as was 
 also astrology. Cp. Wendland, Philon's Schrift u. d. Vorsehung, Berl. 
 1892, and Alex. Aphrod. De Fato, ch. XXX ff. 
 
 15 Sts. 390 E: rd jueMiOVTa OVTTCJ ECTL . . . Jo/ct ovv COL dvvarbv dvat TOV [iff 
 ovrof Tv%iv Tivi ', It is clear that this is a sceptic exaggeration of Aristotle's 
 statements which he would not sanction. Cf. Aristotle's oTrdrep' rv%ev and 
 degrees of probability. See Minos 316 B : of av apa TOV bvro<; d^aprdvij, TOV 
 
 VOfjLifJ.OV dfJ.apTQVl K. T. A. 
 
 16 Aristotle who thought : ol dvOpurcoi ?rpof TO d/l^f iretyvKaciv t/cavwf /cat rd 
 
 -vyxdvovat rfjq akrfQdaq (Rhet. 1355 s 15 f.), and who defined TO fiovfav- 
 
27 
 
 doubt that we are here in the atmosphere of the New Academy, 17 
 although the corrupt style of our dialogue makes it improbable 
 that any of Carneades' immediate pupils composed it. 18 Arcesi- 
 laus' revival of the Socratic method 19 may have joined with the 
 constant inspiration of the Platonic dialogues 20 to call forth those 
 late attempts which we meet in Hipparchus, Minos, Sisyphus, 
 Demodocus, 11. A. and II. J. 
 
 VII. THE LETTERS. 
 
 Could the Letters be omitted from a treatise on the Pseud o- 
 Platonica, we might perhaps dispense with this section ; for, 
 though details may yet be added, their spuriousness is no longer 
 an open question. 1 I shall endeavor to present the arguments 
 against them as briefly as seems consistent with justice. 2 
 
 eodai as cvA^yta/uos Ti (II. Mvq/uqc;, 453 a 13), would say (as Rhet. I359 a 14 ff.) 
 hvaynalov aal rw avpfiovAevovri /cat rcj diKa^o/nevG) nal rcj sTtideiKTiKti x LV npoTaaei? 
 irepl dvvaiov Kai adwarov, aal el yiyovzv r) /zr), nai el ecrai rj [if]. On the Stoics' 
 divergence from Arist. regarding the ativvarov see Zeller, III, a, p. 108, n. 3, 
 and Prantl, I, p. 464 ff., n. 165 ff. I hope very soon to publish a paper in 
 which the connection of this problem, together with others, with the system 
 of Aristotle will be fully discussed. I shall then touch also upon the 
 relation of Dio Chrysostom, Orat. XXVI, to Demodocus and Sisyphus. 
 
 17 Compare Cic. Acad., II 36, 117 : "Finge aliquem nunc fieri sapientem, 
 nondum esse : quam potissimum sententiam eliget et disciplinam ? etsi 
 quamcumque eliget, insipiens eliget." Sisyphus'- mention of Anaxagoras 
 and Empedocles with the rest of the fj.erap<uo'kiGx al > 3^9 A, accords well with 
 Carneades' habit as illustrated in Acad. II. 
 
 18 Both Carneades and Clitomachus were noted for their eloquence. 
 
 19 Cf. Diog. L., IV 28 : irpurof rby l.oyov knivrjoe rbv VTTO IlAarwvof TrapatieSo- 
 uzvov KOI eiToirfOK 6t J epuT?/GEU(; not a.TTOKpiaU(; eptariKCJTepov. 
 
 20 Perhaps the first definition of fiovfaveaOai in 388 A came ultimately from 
 Euthyd. 275 D. It is possible too that there occur a few reminiscences of 
 Ale. I. Compare Sis. 389 C with Ale. /, 106 E and 107 D, and Sis. 390 A 
 with Ale. io6D. Attention has already been called (n. 5) to our dialogue's 
 debt to Meno. 
 
 1 After the work of Ast, Socher, Hermann, Steinhart, and Karsten, the 
 question becomes one only of detail, though students of the subject will 
 find much new matter in what follows. Besides the foregoing I am indebted 
 to Wiegand's translation and notes as well as to Zeller, and Susemihl's 
 Gesch. der Gr. Lit. in der Alexandrinerzeit, ch. XXXVII. Reinhold's De 
 Platon. Epistulis, 1886, on which see Zeller, Arch. f. Gesch. d. Phil., 1888, 
 p. 614 ff., has vindicated the Letters in some points, but could not prove 
 their genuineness. 
 
 2 1 cannot, of course, here cite my authority for each statement or give 
 credit for every suggestion received from the works of predecessors. 
 
 , UNIVERSITY 
 
28 
 
 Whether or not Aristotle's correspondence is to be considered 
 the first genuine collection, as Wilamowitz conjectures, 3 the year 
 322 B. C. in which Aristotle died is a probable terminus post 
 quern for all spurious letters of this sort. And since the catalogue 
 of Thrasyllus (ap. Diog. L., Ill 61) specifies each of our Letters 
 according to the addressee, these that is, the first thirteen can- 
 not be dated later than about the first century B. C. Epp.V, VII 
 and IX have the rjreyious express attestation of Cicero; 4 but 
 beyond this point we have little external support, though the fact 
 that Aristophanes of Byzantium (ap. Diog. L., Ill 62) received 
 certain letters (number not specified) into his trilogies about 200 
 B.C. may aid the task of criticism. 
 
 On what grounds then are we led to reject the Letter s~t In 
 general these points may be stated : (i) The best portion of our 
 collection and that least unworthy of Plato consists in no true 
 sense of letters, but rather of manifestos or harangues, 5 directed 
 mediately or immediately to a very general public, and often 
 
 3 Antigonos von Karystos, p. 151, note 15: "Die Existenz einzelner 
 gleich fur die Publication geschriebener Briefe ist wesentlich von einer 
 Privatcorrespondenz verschieden, wie die aristotelische und epikureische 
 war. Die letztere hat ausser dem Schulkreise wenig zu bedeuten gehabt ; 
 somit scheint mir die aristotelische das epochemachende Ereigniss. Da- 
 nach ist dann der platonische Briefwechsel und die iibrigen sokratischen 
 gefalscht und diese Fabrication immer weiter gegangen." These Aristo- 
 telian letters, be it understood, are not those published in Hercher's Epis- 
 tolographi. The scant fragments of other letters preserved are not suffi- 
 cient to base a judgment upon as to their genuineness. Wilamowitz 
 appears now to accept some of the Letters. Thus he writes of Ep. VI: 
 "Den platonischen Brief konnte ich sehr wol fur jicht halten " (Aristot. 
 und Athen, I, p. 334). Elsewhere in the same work he declines to decide 
 the question. 
 
 4 Ep. V, 322 A, in Cic. ad Fam., I 9, 18 ; Ep. VII, 331 CD, in Cic. ad 
 Fam., I 9, 18 ; Ep. VII, 326 B, in Cic. de Fin., II 28, 92, Tusc. V 35, 100 ; 
 Ep. IX, 358 A, in Cic. de Fin., II 14, 45, de Off. I 7, 22. The citations in later 
 authors are given in detail by Westermann, De Epistolarum Scriptoribus 
 Graecis ; to his list add Ep. VII, 325 C, quoted by Julian, 243 A. (Hert- 
 lein, Juliani Imperatoris quae supersunt, etc., ad loc. fails to recognize this 
 quotation beginning in Julian xafaTrurEpov and in Ps. -Plato TOCTOITCJ 
 TT&Tepov, and so is misled into conjecturing in his note : ' malim 
 Toy,' a reading which is at once to be dismissed when it is seen that 
 TTurspov stands within the quotation.) 
 
 / 5 This criticism dates back to Dionys. Hal. de Demosth. c. 23, and, 
 singularly enough, applies equally to the (in my opinion) likewise spurious 
 Epp. I and II of Demosthenes. Cf. Susemihl II, p. 591, n. 47. 
 
2 9 
 
 conveying as information intelligence of what, if true, must have 
 been quite well known to those ostensibly addressed. 6 This 
 peculiarity may be explained as due to the purpose 7 of rendering 
 to the world an apology 8 for the philosopher's dealings with the 
 court of Syracuse ; which object, real or feigned, is attained in 
 VII only at the cost of great length. 9 The Letters (2) also 
 represent Plato as boastful and prone to rather undignified self- 
 assertion, 10 and as ambitious and solicitous for the applause of the 
 multitude and posterity. 11 But he becomes even (3) in tone quite 
 oracular and mystical, displaying great anxiety lest his secret lore 
 be divulged by publication to the uninitiated, 12 and correspor.d- 
 
 6 See IV, 321 A ; VII, 330 C, 334 B f., 337 E ; VIII, 352 B ., 353 E f. 
 
 7 The purpose may have been real if the author (or authors) was a 
 philosopher and a member of the Academy, or merely feigned if he (they) 
 was a skillful rhetorician, as seems more probable. 
 
 8 See VII, 327 C, 328 C, 330 BC, 337 C, 339 A, 347 B, 353 A. Besides both 
 III and VII (cf. Ill, 316 B and VII, passim) present features which indi- 
 cate that Plato's Apology served the author (or authors) as a model. 
 
 9 The author indeed feigns a desire to be brief, but this is mere rhetoric, 
 and cheap at that. See 327 E : si Kal juaKporepa etTrelv, and 329 B: ov yap del 
 fj.rjKvvEiv. This is a trick well known to rhetoricians, cf. Ep. XI : ^a/cpaf 
 erepac deotr 1 av e/naroA^f, d TL<; Ttdvra diet-tot, and XIII, 363 C : el 6e JUT/ irdvv 
 ju,aKpa KioToAf/ f/v, typcvfya av a eAsye, vvv 6s Aerrrivov Ttvvddvov. See also a/tAd 
 Trspl /nev TOVTUV ovK kv kxtOToXfy Trpof as fj.TjK.vvr iov in Ep. Socraticorum XXX 
 (Hercher), which is attributed by Mullach (III, p. 83) and others to Speu- 
 sippus, but is clearly a forgery probably from the same " Fabrik " with 
 the older Ps.-Platonic, as its rhetorical character, literary criticism, etc., 
 sufficiently prove. See also Bernays' Phokion, p. n6f. Our author 
 finally reverts to his theme (VII, 334 C) with the words quite a propos : 
 ravra elpyrai irdvra rijq avfifiovArjc eveica, K. r. A. 
 
 10 See II, 310 C : /leyag eyu dpi ; 310 DE : e/nol de 6rj nal aoi KTA.; 312 BC ; 
 314 A ; III, 316 D ; 317 B : alax^vofiat 6% teysiv /crX; VII, 327 CD ; 328 DE ; 
 341 B-342 A ; 344 D ; 345 C. Against this charge Plato effectually secured 
 himself in his dialogues by concealing entirely his personality behind the 
 masks of various characters, chiefly that of an idealized Socrates. 
 
 11 See II, 310 E-3H E; 312 A-C ; IV, 320 A ff.; VII, 328 E ; 345 B ; 
 347 A. Cf. the spurious letter of Speusippus to Xenocrates (ap. Mullach, 
 III, p. 89) : HMruv, xaddirep Kal cv olaOa, /cat kv ov ry rv^ovcy Ti-urj rijv kv 
 J AKa6rjfj,ia dia-pif3jji> r/yev, vo/j.i^uv etvai TL nal irpbq 66^av bpO-r/v, Kal Trpb TOV avrov 
 fiiov (!) Kal TTJV vvrepov Trap' dvdp&Trotc /nveiav kcofiivrjv. 
 
 12 In this connection writing is disparaged as likely to result in publica- 
 tion. See II, 312 D : fypacriov df) cot di' alviy/u&v, iv' dv TL r) Je/lrof . . . TrdBr/, 
 6 dvayvovc ^ yvti /cr/l. to 313 E; 314 A: ev^af3ov /uevrot [trj TTOTS EKTreay ravra 
 if dvdpuirovc dTrai6ei>TOV . . . B : irpbs TQ-vr 1 ovv GKOTTUV v"kaflov . . . 
 
30 
 
 ingly hierophantic in his gratuitous expressions of piety, which 
 thereby become degraded to mere cant. 13 
 
 After thus enumerating some characteristics common to the 
 more excellent letters, we may turn to examine them one by one. 
 And, first, we may distinguish three groups according to degree 
 of excellence and probable date of origin. The first begins with 
 VII and includes VIII and III ; the second consists of II, IV, V, 
 VI, IX, and X; the third comprises I, XI, XII, and XIII. 
 
 Ep. VII is not only the most extensive but also the most 
 important, and upon it depend directly or indirectly all those 
 which have political bearings. Its value as a document for 
 Plato's life would be unique if it were genuine, and even as it is 
 
 Se (j>v?iaKr/ TO ^.rj ypafyeiv d/l/l' eK/u.av6dveiv ' ov "yap ean ra ypafyevra ^ir) OVK e 
 dia ravra uvdev TTUTTOT' kyu Kept TOVTUV yeypafya, ovd 7 eon av-yypaju/Lia ovtiev ovd* 
 earai, TO, Je vvv Aeyo/ieva 'ZtdKpdrovc; earl na'Aov /cat veov yeyov6ro^. e/ipuco Kal 
 TteiOov, Kal rrjv ETTLGTO^V ravrrjv vvv Trpurov 7ro/i/ld/f avayvovq Kardicavaov ! Or is 
 this only a facetious attempt of a litterateur to make game of some of his 
 fellows who had written the other letters? It is absurd enough to lead one 
 so to interpret it. But there are similar mystic passages, e. g. VI, 323 D ; 
 VII, 341 C-E; 342 A; 344 C-E ; VIII, 359 D f.; XIII, 363 B (a cipher). 
 Note, on the other hand, Plato's ridicule of the airopprjTa of the Sophists 
 (Theaet. 152 E, 155 E). One might fancy the author of the Ps. -Aristotelian 
 Ep. VI was ridiculing these letters ; for, when Alexander objects to the 
 publication of the d/cpoan/cd, Aristotle is made to reply: "Fear not" 
 ZWETOI -yap etat fiovoig roig ?}fj.uv (IKOVGCIGIV unless this be a fling at the sketchy 
 character of those writings. There is an instructive parallel to the pass- 
 ages in our letters in Pseudo-Heraclitus' Ep. VIII which shows how com- 
 mon such things were in later writings. Heraclitus says to Hermodorus : 
 
 TV%tV OOl floi)^0[Jiai Kal TTpl T O/l/lWV TTO.VV CV%VG)V Kttl TTpl aVTUV T(JV 
 
 v <of Hermodorus> j3pa%a eliretv. eypafyov <P av avrd, el /u?/ Ttepl 
 Vfj.rjv cnroppijra [ielvai. ovtisv de OVTU atuTrarat a>f evt hahuv elf .... 
 ov diafyepovGi Kepa/uiuv aaOpuv, c!)f firjSev areysiv tivvaadai d/lA' VTTO 
 6iappe.lv. 'Aflqvaiot 6vre avro^oveq eyvcjcav (piiaiv avdp&Truv, on yevdjuevoi /c 
 /57f ecrO' ore dieppuyora e%ovoi vovv. TOVTOVC eTtaidevaav tyvTiaK.ijv cnroppf/Tuv dia 
 
 13 Note: avv dtp inreiv (II, 311 D; IV, 320 B f. bis); av debf edeAy (VI, 
 323 C); Beta rtvl rv X r, (VII, 327 E, 336 E) ; Oeta fiotpa (II, 313 B; VII, 326 B); 
 6eo(j>i2.eaTepav (II, 313 E); ovAAa/^avovTuv 6euv (VII, 327 C); /uera Oeuv (VIII, 
 355 E); x^( HV viuvov (VII, 336 C, prob. from Menex. 249 B); bpviQuv (VII, 
 336 C). Of this feature Karsten (p. 27) has well said : " Non aliena qui- 
 dem talia sunt a Platone ; contra omnes eius dialogi, maxime autem libri 
 de Legibus piam deorum reverentiam prae se ferunt; sed ut ibi talia dicta 
 sponte e re nata et loquentis ex animo profluunt, ita hie quaesita et consulto 
 inculcata sunt." 
 
we may hardly doubt the general historical basis on which it 
 proceeds ; for, though it is certainly spurious, the rhetorician who 
 wrote it was no mean scholar and must be presumed to have 
 known the outlines of Plato's biography as he undoubtedly did 
 the import and tenor of his works. The letter is later than 
 Aristotle 14 and seems to presuppose the publication of letters 
 forged under the name of Dionysius II of Syracuse 15 and Archy- 
 tas 16 of Taras ; but there is no reason for dating it after Arcesi- 
 laus. 17 It betrays its rhetorical parentage 18 by the reminiscences 
 of Platonic passages 19 and the imitation of external tricks of 
 
 u Note the Aristotelian term, techn. ro TTOIOV n, VII, 342 E. 
 
 15 VII, 339 B : Trpof 'yap fify Kavra ravra f]v irapEGKEvacfJiivri rqv dp%7/v e%ovaa rj 
 emaro^, rrfdi TTTJ typa^ovaa. Aiovvatoc; TlMruvt. Cf. Susemihl, ch. XXXVII, n. 
 78. There is mention of such letters also in III, 317 B ; but it is of course 
 possible that this whole correspondence is purely imaginary. 
 
 16 339 D : 7T0ToAat 6e aTJ^ai t^oiruv Ttapd re 'ApxiiTov Kal TUV kv TdpavTi. 
 
 17 A date fixed by Steinhart because A. wrote nothing and our letter dis- 
 parages writing. The latter fact is plainly due to a false effort at consis- 
 tency with the PhaedruS) and, strictly on S.'s hypothesis, our Letters should 
 never have been written. 
 
 18 The following characteristics appear in all the earlier forged letters, 
 especially e. g. Ps. -Demosthenes Epp. I and II, and also in forged 
 speeches. 
 
 19 In the nature of the case these vary in degree of evidence and can 
 not be adequately classified. I therefore give the more noteworthy in the 
 order of their occurrence. Ep. VII, 324 A: OVK eiKa^uv a/l/l' euJwf, cf. Men. 
 89 B and the spurious Ale. 7, 105 C ; 324 E : Sw/cpdr?? . . . OVK av 
 alaxwoipiv einuv 6iKat6raTov elvai TUV rdre, cf. Phaedo, 118, and for story of 
 Leon (ibid.) see Apol. 32 C; 325 E: re^evruvra ihiyyidv, cf. Theaet., esp. 
 175 D ff.; 326 AB : KCLKUV ovv ov Mfcuv TO, avOpuirLva ysvq, Trplv av rj TO TUV 
 <j)(.2,ooo(j)ovvTa)i> . . . yivo<; elf apxo-S %0ri . . . rj TO TUV dvvaoTevovTuv (j>iXooo<j)^ari 
 (see also 328 A, 335 D), cf. Rep. 473 C ff. and Zeller, II A 4 , p. 405, n. i ; 326 C : 
 ovx OVTU davpaaTri tyvcsi upaOqaeTai may have been suggested by the homun- 
 culus, Rep. 588 ff.; 326 E: Tivl TUV KpeiTTdvuv (see also rvxn TI<; avdp&Truv 
 KpeiTTuv, 337 D), cf. Euthyd. 291 A (this was a perfect kppaiov for later 
 rhetoricians; see e. g. Ps.-Aristotle Ep. V, kn TUV Kara TlhaTuva /cpetrrdvwv); 
 328 C : eva fiovov inavuc, cf. Rep. 502 B : elf luavcx; -yevdjuevo^ ; 330 C, cf . Rep. 
 425 E ff. and Pol. 298 A ff.; 331 AB : orav Tig /not %v/u.(3ovhV7}Tat irepi 
 TLVOQ TCJV peyiGTuv irepi TOV ai)TOv j3iov, olov rcepl xpqfictTuv KTrjaeus 
 fj -Kepi otiftaToe rj fyvx'ns Enifteheiac seems to reflect the spurious Ale. /, 
 118 A to end a very significant fact (see note 27 to Ale. /); 331 C : VOGU 
 Ttapa<l>poavv7]<; exop&v&vf, cf. Legg. 881 B : juavia^ ^o//evof, with vdaw possibly 
 suggested by Ale. //, 139 D ff., a still more significant fact, if true ; 331 B : 
 OVK atyoaiaad/Lievoc /u6vov, cf. Legg. 752 D ; 331 D : Afye/y (tev . . . si 
 
 firjTs /zara/wf epsiv p/T a-KoQavElaQat. heyuv (see Ep. V, sirel TTUVTUV av 
 
32 
 
 style, 20 while we find quite naturally a fondness for antithesis and 
 other rhetorical devices 21 together with words and phrases not 
 found in the writings of Plato, some being apparently post-classic 
 and revealing a special fondness for poetic precedent. 22 
 
 [sc. n/ldrwv] KaQcnrep Trarpt OVVE^OVASVEV avr(J, el fir/ /LUITTJV /uev nivdwEVGEiv wero) 
 apparently reflects Rep. 496 D ff.; 332 A, for Darius see Legg. 694 ff.; 
 
 332 B, for the Athenians see Legg. 701 AB ; 335 B : KaOdirep Qr/piov /crA., cf. 
 Rep. 586 A; 337 A f.: dvayndouoiv av-ovf xpqadai rolg vofjioig Jtrratf ovcaig 
 avdynaig, aldoi /cat <j>6($(j>, cf. Legg. 647 AB, 698 BC, 699 D, 715 A-D ; 341 C : 
 EK Tro/l/lf/f ovvovoiag . . . /cat TOV ov^fjv k!-al<f>vr)(; olov cnrb irvpbs TrqdqoavToz i^atydzv 
 0wf iv ry ipvxy yv6/Ltvov [cf. Arist. Rhet. 141 ib 12 f.: rbv vovv 6 deb? 0wf 
 dw/i)>v kv rij i^vxy] avrb eavrb fjdri rptyEi (compare 344 B: [J.6yig de Tpif36[i.Eva 
 
 d/M;?/la /cr/l.) is apparently taken from Rep. 434 E f.: Trd/ltv en-aivovref ETTI 
 7rd/Uv Paoa.viovfi.ev, /cat rd^' av Trap'' a?i/l^/la OKOTrovvres /cat rpiflovreg cjcnrep K 
 c/c/ld//i^at Trotf/aatjuev rrjv dutaiocijvrjv ; 342 A ff . is a rather confused 
 exposition of Dialectic based chiefly on Legg. 895 D ff.; 343 A : rd -ye-ypa/u.- 
 (Jieva -vTTOic, cf. Phaedr. 275 A ; ibid.: /cwc/lof e/caorof ruv kv ralg rrpd^Eat -ypa<j>o- 
 fievuv, cf. Phaedr. 271 DE, Soph. 234 E; 344 C depends obviously on 
 Phaedr. 277 D ; 344 D : i-Tro/tv^drwv ^dp/v, cf. Phaedr. 249 C ; 345 A : ITTU 
 ZevS, Qqalv 6 9^/3atof, cf. Phaedo 62 A : /cat 6 Ke/fr/f . . . trrw Zevg, E(f>jj (see 
 Phaedr. 260 E : rov tie /Ifyetv, ^rjclv 6 Ad/caw) ; 349 A : TravroJaTra ^pw^ara rjnev, 
 prob. suggested by Lysis, 222 B ; 350 E : boa ye 6tj TavdpuKiva, cf. Crito, 
 46 E : boa ye ravdpuTTEia. 
 
 20 Note use of avu(3f/vai ysvdfisvov in 327 B, 328 A, 330 B, and also in Ep. 
 VIII, 353 B (bis) and D ; the redundancy of 6elv in 323, 328 C, and of oieodai 
 in 324 B, and the occurrence of yiyvecOai Qifal in 337 B. In the same spirit 
 Ep. Ill uses w Oavudoie, 318 B, and w rdv, 319 E. Note also the introduc- 
 tion of conversations, as in 327 E, 329 D, 345 C ff., 348 C ff., 350 C ff., and of 
 a speech, 328 D. 
 
 21 Observe litotes, 324 B : vew /cat /tsy v6>, 328 D : ov a/tzt/cpotf, 325 A : ov 
 ofiiKpa, 333 B : OVK b?dya ; periphrasis, 324 B : rd KOIVO. r^f Trd/lcwf, 325 B : rd 
 Koiva /cat rd Tro/Urt/cd, 327 B : rod flavdrou rov Tre/ot Aiovvoiov yevojuevov, 328 B : 
 rrjv kfj.f]v 66gav . . . et^e 0d/3of, 329 B : r^f tyihoaotyov /uotpac, 334 C : o y' E//OC 
 /loyof, 334 D : ifrvxuv fjOr) ; parallels, 328 D : oirfaruv /cat iinrEUV . . . %6yuv 
 /cat KEidove, 333 A B : i^J3a^ov . . . /care/toAov, 333 B : OVK bMya . . . kv 
 6/Uycj xP& vl t>> 347 C : rai)r' kppijBrj, ravra Trpoou.uohoyyoa/iiEv. In 327 D we have 
 the familiar naTJaorov /cat dpiorov. It is certainly quite unplatonic to intro- 
 duce without some mitigating phrase such expressions as %pva6v in 324 D 
 (this caught the eye of Plut. vit. Timol. c. XI), or epyw . . . ivovdE-qoev in 
 
 333 B, and fotof, 340 C. 
 
 22 1 may mention : ?}/lt/cmv, f)v . . . yiyovsv, 324 A ; aloxwoifjLrjv in a curious 
 sense, 324 E (cf. II, 310 D, III, 317 B); Exavyyayov, ' retired," 1 325 A; i^Eip- 
 ydoaro for iTrobjOEv, 327 D; dTro<j)Evt;eio6ai, poet. fut. 329 A; /cara//a/l0a/a6>, 
 329 B; etf t^vof isvat, 330 E; /c/3e/3/l^ueVaf = 'devastated? 332 B; rov 
 Atuveiuv <j>i%uv, 334 C, as if Dion had founded a school a use of proper 
 adjectives which, if I mistake not, became common only in Alexandrian 
 Greek; Trapanovofj-druv, 338 D, 340 B, cf. Trapa/codf, 341 B; e/^earof, 338 D; 
 
33 
 
 It would seem that the author wished this letter to be viewed 
 as an application of the principles of the Laws to Sicilian affairs 
 since those of the Republic had been rejected ; 23 but the deeper 
 philosophic problems of the Laws are not clearly apprehended. 24 
 Considering all this and certain probable historical errors, 25 we 
 seem justified in dating this letter not earlier, nor much later, than 
 290 B. C. 
 
 Now that we have done with Ep. VII, the most pretentious of 
 all, we may deal more briefly with the remainder of our collec- 
 tion. Ep. VIII, like its predecessor, to which it directly refers 
 back, 26 is addressed to the adherents of Dion. The theme in 
 both letters is the same, but its treatment in VIII is such as to 
 prove that it everywhere presupposes VII, and this is in itself 
 conclusive as respects VIII, 27 in which also the same charac- 
 
 irodrjyuv, 340 C; jSafaiv kv atria, 341 A; kirixeipqatv . . . "Xeyouivr]i>, 341 E, 
 containing apparently a conscious use of an Aristotelian term ; on rd^of, 
 345 E; vaviKa$ in peculiar sense, 347 E, cf. Ill, 318 B; the awkward turn, 
 n/ldrwv yap, f^, 348 C, unless, indeed, we are to read II/ldrwv, yap e<^?, as 
 in the late Platonist quoted in Stobaeus (I, p. 33, 1. 6 Wachsm. " orof," 
 yap tyi}, /ovl; ftETano/LnrJ}, 348 D; avefoexfy, 349 A. I cannot satisfy myself 
 that 6iafio7(,<j)v Trpdf rr/v rvpavvida A<wvof Trept, 329 B, is correct Greek ; and 
 there are three passages which are insipid or even absurd: (i) ov6' av 6 
 AvyttEVf ifielv iroirjoeie TOV$ TOIOVTOV, 344 A; (2) dyavanreiv re k^fjv < possibly 
 fire (3ov?ioiu?)v etre firj . . . sSonei dij xaheiraivsiv uzv ov delv E/J.E &tovvai(f) 
 euavrti, 345 D ; and (3) 348 C D. It is impossible to discuss here 
 each of these cases. 
 
 23 This seems to be the sense of 337 DE: ravra yap kori atietya uv re Aiuv 
 uv r' iyu eTTExeipqaauev Zvpaitovoats ev typovovvrec; ovjuirpagai, devrepa (j.j]Vi rrpura 
 d' fjv a TO irp&Tov k'Ke.x l Pffl' r l f* 81 "' &VTOV &IOVVGIOV 7rpa%6tjvat irdot KOIVO, ayadd, 
 6e rtf dvdpuTcuv KpeiTTUv dietydprjoe ra 6e (TO 6e ?) vvv vaelg neipdads e 
 ama dyady Trpdgat uoipa Kal 6eia Tivl rv^. 
 
 ^Particularly in the obscure exposition of Dialectic in 342 A ff., the 
 main features of which are derived from Legg. 895 D ff . Both Mtiller and 
 Karsten failed rightly to interpret it. Wiegand's rendering is essentially 
 correct. 
 
 25 1 refer to the account of the Thirty in 324 C, of Dion's nephews in 
 328 A, and Darius' keeping the Persian Empire intact till Plato's old age, 
 332 AB. Reinhold's attempt to justify these accounts is not very success- 
 ful ; but I cannot enter upon this discussion, as, with the fall of the letter's 
 claim to Platonic authorship, the questions cease to interest me. And that 
 claim seems to me to be exploded. 
 
 26 VIII, 356 C : ucTrep Kal irp6Tpov tppfjQr), referring to VII, 337 B. 
 27 Susemihl says (ch. XXXVII, n. 25): Mit Recht bemerkt Sauppe : 
 
 ' Gerade das Vorhandensein des 7. und 8. Briefes neben einander weist auf 
 ein Schulthema hin, von dem wir jetzt zwei Ausfuhrungen vor uns haben.' " 
 
34 
 
 teristics recur, 28 though with less to criticise in point of diction. 29 
 One discrepancy from the Laws is due doubtless to careless 
 reading, and in 355 A : 6edq ds avOpw-Kotq ff<b<ppo<n voVoc, a<ppoat de 
 ydovrj there seems to be a quasi-Stoic xenium to the Epicureans. 
 This letter in general tone and in a few details 31 has much in 
 common with III, and I am inclined to attribute both to some 
 rhetorician ca. 270 B. C. who was a close student of Plato's style. 
 Ep. Ill begins by accounting for Plato's use of e5 rcpdrrsiv 
 instead of %aipstv in addressing his friends, 32 a theme taken up 
 again in XIII. The general character 33 of III, which is addressed 
 
 But, in view of the reference specific and general of VIII to VII without 
 any from VII to VIII, this existence of duplicates would prove only that 
 VIII is spurious. 
 
 28 VIII, 352 E: evxy TrpooeotKE, a common turn in Plato, cf. Rep. 450 D, 
 456 C, 540 D, etc.; 354 C : tytvytiv (j>vyy t cf. Symp. 195 B, Hipp. Maj. 292 A 
 (Epin. 974 B); 354 C : v6/no^ eiretdf/ Kvpioc kyivero ftaciXev^ TUV avdpuiruv, d/l/l' 
 OVK avdpuTrot rvpavvoi I><$ / UG>I>, probably from Protag. 337D : 6 6s vdjuof, rvpavvof 
 &v TUV dvdpuKuv (cf. also Symp. 196 C); 354 D: pj TTOTE cnr^jjoria ehEvdepiac 
 aitaipov ,Ttv6<; i TO T&v irpoyovuv v6oq[j.a ijUTTEauoiv, cf. Rep. 562 -564 A ; 
 355 B : dvTw rpiov, ipv^s K.CU au/naro^, en 6e xprmdruv /crA. points clearly to 
 Legg. 697 B ff. ; for the vojuotyvAafcec, 356 D, cf. Legg. 704 D ff.; 357 B : sort 
 6e ravra OVK. ddvvara r/l., cf. Rep. 499 D ; 354 A, a periphrasis : b y' e/^of 
 Adyof av drj t-v[t{3ovXo(; ; 355 A, a speech introduced ; note gevinal ipivvec, 359 A. 
 Here too we meet an historical blunder. Dion's son, who ace. to Plut. 
 Consol. ad Apollon. 119 AB, died before his father, is recommended (355 E) 
 by Dion's ghost to succeed him with two other triumvirs. 
 
 29 Note eK(3ap(3apu6ioav, 353 A ; dei^uov, 356 A ; eTr/^aprof , 356 B ; dvtioi- 
 ovp-/6e, 352 C. 
 
 30 Lyturgus is here said (VIII, 354 B) to have instituted the board of 
 Ephors, an innovation attributed to another by Plato, Legg. 690 D f. 
 
 31 Compare e. g. Ill, 316 D : elre avdpufrof CITE 0edf EITE rvxn C with VIII, 
 353 B : eZre deiav rig qyEiadai [3ov2,Tat Tv%qv KO.I 6sbv Eire rrjv TUV ap%6vTuv aperr/v 
 sire Kal TO t;vi>a.fA<p6Tpov (one feels instinctively this is too Platonic I}. Com- 
 pare also VIII, 354 A and 356 B with III, 319 CD. 
 
 32 It is difficult to say whether this is based upon a genuine tradition or is 
 a mere inference from Charmides, 164 D. At any rate it were absurd for 
 Plato to expatiate upon it in such wise, and, if possible, even more absurd 
 for him to recur to it as in XIII. 
 
 33 The beautiful expression, 315 C: rroppu -yap rjdovijg WpvTat Kal AAJITTJ^ TO 
 dslov may be an echo from Phil. 33 B or Rep. 377 E ff. (cf. also Epin. 985 A); 
 for Trpooiftia, 316 A, cf. Legg. 722 ff.; 316 B, cf. Apol. i8A f. (and supra, n. 8); 
 317 D : dLavoTjdeis, wf ovdiva Sel TUV fj.uv tyikuw E/J.E aiTtdadai, of fiia T^V kfi^v 
 padvfiiav rd c^irEpa irdvTa. it-bv fir) (nrohiaQai J^Aero, doubtless a reminiscence 
 of Crito, 45 E f.; 3186: rov /co/lo^wva . . . enEdqitaf, cf. Legg. 673 D, Euthyd. 
 301 E; 319 B: virap dv6' ove/parof, cf. Polit. 278 E; for Stesichorus' palin- 
 ode, 319 E, see Phaedr. 243 AB. At best the mention of it here is insipid ; 
 or is the author threatening Dionysius with blindness? 
 
35 
 
 to Dionysius II, is much the same as that of VII and VIII, though 
 the diction is perhaps purer than that of either of them. 34 
 
 We have now to consider the second group, viz. II, IV, V, VI, 
 IX, X, which may be dated somewhere between 250 and 200 
 B. C. 35 Ep. IV, to Dion, itself an insignificant production, 
 appears to presuppose III and VII, 36 and is very similar to them 
 in character. 37 Ep. V, on the other hand, is more interesting, 
 
 34 But note avrapnelv, 317 C ; Iva ovrwf eiTrw, 318 D ; rr/v kfiijv aal orjv 
 hiav, 318 E ; ei$ "koyov 6 /l<tyof TJKEI poi, 318 E ; /ze^w/zevwf, 319 B ; 
 
 ibid., unless we are to read aTr^arwf ; wf 77 erf 66%a ftavreverai, 317 E, cf. 
 Gorg. 486 E : f] erf ^vxq dodei. 
 
 35 Vid. infra, note 47. 
 
 36 The mysterious phrase roi)f olaOa dqrrov, 320 C, probably harks back to 
 oi>c olaOa ov, III, 318 A. Again, 321 B : rf ovv "kavdaveru oe, bri did TOV dpeaKeiv 9 
 roig dvdptmoig Kal TO Trpdrretv eoriv, jj 6' avdddeia epij/nia ZVVOIKOC the last words 
 are possibly a tag from a tragic poet repeats the admonition of VII, 325 D, 
 331 0-332 C. I consider this thought, however, to be a tell-tale mark of 
 presumptive spuriousness ; for it is an inexhaustible theme of the episto- 
 lographi. See Ep. I, 309 B : av 6rj <sc. Atovvaio<;> TOIOVTOC &v rvpavvo^ 
 
 flavor ; Ps. -Aristotle Ep. IV, rj yap TUV svvnovvruv btyig &O7rep kv 
 
 . . . yrj ; ibid. Ep. I, del yap rovg vovv e^ovr 
 ju.ij did rdf dp%d dlihd did T&V dpx&v 6av/jd^a6ai ; ibid. Ep. II, dib Treipti rrjv 
 dpxqv jay elf v0piv d/M' e<f evepyeoiav Karari6ea6ai ; and [Periander apud] Diog. 
 L. I, 97 : eliTE re rov^ jne^ovraf dff^a/lof rvpavvfjaeiv r?) evvoia dopvtyopeioOai /cat 
 (J.T) ro2f OTT/IO^. The Ps.-Aristotelian letters (except the VI) are only rhet- 
 orical variations on this theme. How should we entertain a better opinion 
 of these which claim to be works of Plato ? 
 
 37 The passage 320 B (note avdpeia, akrfidq, dutaioavvri, /teya^OTrpeTreia) was 
 probably composed with Rep. 400-402 in mind. In 320 C : ^vfj,(f>airj rig av 
 roi)f dvTnroiovjuevovs rd roiavra Ti[ig,v ekorwf TUV aXkuv diatyspeiv. vvv ovv drj^Mv [lev 
 kanv b Jieyij, dvafUfivTjGKeiv de 6//wf del rjfJidg avrovc, OTI irpoGT/nei Trlieov rj iraiduv r&v 
 dA/lwv dvOpuKuv diaQspeiv rovg olaQa dr/nov [for irheov TJ Traiduv cf. Phaedr. 279 A, 
 Prot. 342 E, Theaet. 177 B] we have still another favorite theme of the 
 rhetoricians ; cf. e. g. Ps.-Aristotle to Alexander, Ep. II : KOI baov rale 
 d<j)opfal(; rf/c, TVX^ diatyepeic, TOGOVTOV nal ralg dperalf TUV na^uv irpureveiv ere del. 
 The same holds good of 320 D : ware roi)f et; aKdarjg rijg oiKov/Lievrjs, el ml 
 veavmuTEpov eonv e'nrelv, elf eva rdTrov dirofiteTreiv, nal kv TOVT^ fj,d^,iGTa Trpdf oe ; 
 cf. Pseudo-[Speusippus ?] to Philip (apud Mullach III, p. 89) : v6(j,i(,e de 
 irdvraq Trpocexeiv GOI. rbv vovv, and Ps.-Aristotle, Ep. II, at yap Kahal rov 
 didaGKaTiuv Trapaiviaeig Kal irpoTpityeis dearijv exovai rbv ai&va. Compare also the 
 superlative language at the beginning of Ep. IV, ibid. The mention of 
 Cyrus, 320 D, probably points to Xenophon's Cyropaedia. I note also 
 these expressions : rd /nev ovv elf TO irapov, 320 B ; ^rjTi 6rj, without preceding 
 negative, 321 A; akrflua = ' truthfulness? 320 B, a usage foreign to Plato. 
 
36 
 
 and though apparently later than Theages was already current 
 before Cicero. 39 The mere fact of its being addressed to Perdiccas 
 suffices to mark it as spurious. 40 In Ep. IX we possess another 
 political pamphlet, addressed to Archytas, in which mention is 
 made of letters by the latter, probably at the time when it was 
 written, already in circulation. 41 In the main it is a reminiscence 
 
 38 In spite of the once proverbial character of lepav 
 
 321 C, I incline to think our author had Theag. 122 B in mind when he 
 wrote the words. 
 
 39 See note 4 above. This letter also seems to reflect VII. Compare V, 
 
 322 B : 7m Tvavruv av ijdiCTa naOcnrep war pi awefiov'kevev awry, el pj ^arrjv (iv 
 KtvSwevoeiv ^5ero, Trheov d' ovdev Trotrjaetv, with VII, 331 D : 'Aeyeiv p,iv . . . el 
 /ze/l/W [tyre yuaratwf epelv p,rjT aTcodaveladai heyuv, both passages of course 
 reflecting Rep. 496 B ff. and Apol. 31 C ff. The curious conceit of the 
 discernible voices of the several polities, 321 D f., is merely a readapta- 
 tion not singularly apt, to be sure of Rep. VIII, esp. 544 D ff., with 
 substitution of fyuvrj for rpowo^ ; but it is not improbable that the inspiration 
 to write the passage was derived from Arist. Rhet. 1360* 19 ff.: ev yap roiq 
 vdftoif eariv rj ouTqpia rfjq TrdAewf, WOT' avaynalov eltievai Troaa re eon TrohtTeiwv ddri, 
 Kai Trola av/Lt<j)epei enaarri^ KOI vrrb rivuv (ftOeipeodai TretpvKev not o'lKeiw rfjq Tro^ireiaf 
 KOI evavriuv, K. T. "k. to dpfidrTovoiv. 
 
 40 1 believe that, in the gradual change of sentiment in Greece towards 
 the Macedonian dynasty, Plato's intense Hellenism became obscured in 
 his school; and, when the Peripatetics boasted of Aristotle's services to 
 Philip and Alexander, Academics were keen to invent a previous friend- 
 ship between Plato and Perdiccas or even Archelaus, forgetting the 
 judgment passed on the latter in Gorg. 474 D, which applied equally to 
 Perdiccas III. On Plato and Archelaus see Bernays' Phokion, p. 35 ff., 
 from whose view, however, I dissent ; cf. Zeller, II A, 425, n. 2. When once 
 the story had been fabricated, it passed into the hands of the rhetoricians, 
 and we may still discern in the forged letters an echo of the rivalry between 
 the two schools out of which it sprung. So in Epist. Socrat. XXX (attrib- 
 uted frequently to Speusippus) this tale is told to refute Plato's inveterate 
 detractor Theopompus (cf. Athenaeus, 508 C, and Zeller, II A, p. 427, n. 3), 
 who may well have caught up the quarrel and disparaged Plato's political 
 inefficiency as compared with Aristotle in relation to Alexander, and 
 Isocrates in relation to Philip. Be that as it may, we have here and in the 
 (probably) likewise spurious letter of Speusippus, mentioned by Athenaeus 
 XI, 506 E, if he is not referring to the foregoing, as well as in the 
 Ps.-Platonic Ep. V and Epist. Socrat. XXXI, the outcome of that rivalry. 
 See for a somewhat different view, Susemihl, ch. XXXVII, p. 586 ff. 
 
 "Two such are preserved in Diog. L., one to Uionysius regarding Plato, 
 III 21 f., another a reply to Ps.-Plat. Ep. XII, in 1). L. VIII 79 f. Ep. VII 
 also mentions such, 339 D, but whether they were merely imaginary or 
 really existed is difficult to decide. 
 
37 
 
 of the Republic? 1 but a few forms 43 and the anachronism concern- 
 ing Echecrates 44 show its comparatively late origin. Ep. X is a 
 brief note modelled after Theaet. 176 C ff. Of this entire group 
 II is perhaps the best, and, though more artificial and rhetorical, 
 is clearly related to those of the first series. 45 Ep. VI, finally, 
 like the foregoing, shows knowledge of VII and VIII, 46 and is 
 
 ^Republic, 347 C, 540 B. 
 
 43 Note virodvafopEiv, 357 E, in Hippocrates, otherwise late; Karahi/nrdveiv, 
 358 A; ovde 7ravreA5f, 357 E. But Cicero's citations (cf. note 4) fix a 
 terminus ante quern. 
 
 44 In 358 B Echecrates is called veowVrjcof, which is of course impossible 
 for the time when the letter, if genuine, must have been written. 
 
 45 II, 310 C : ovrog 6 /l<5yof aij/naivEi . . . on OVK. ap%u ruv E/LIUV eTrtrrjdeiuv 
 depends, apparently, on VII, 347 BC ; 310 E is derived (like VII, 326 A, 
 335 D, and possibly mediated by these) from Rep. 473 C ff., 499 B f. 
 Dionysius is here asked (314 E) to employ Speusippus and dismiss him 
 homeward, when according to Plut. vit. Dion. 17, 22, he was in Athens; 
 perhaps the enigmatic passage 312 E: deiirepov 6s -rrepl TO, devrepa, /cat rpirov 
 Trepl TO, rpira may hark back to Epin. 984 C, but see Wiegand ad loc.; for 
 fj '^vx'n $T]Gi, 313 A, vid. Symp. 192 C, Ion. 535 C, Gorg. 486 E, Hipp. Maj. 
 296 D (cf. tyvxn fj.avreverai and oldev efitj oofyia oSovg (frvoeug in Ps.-Heraclitus, 
 Ep. V, and /Ltavrevsrat TO e//ov $tof, oTrep IKCIOTG) da//zwi>, ibid. Ep. IX); for 
 313 B : not eyu elirov, on rovro el Qaivoird aoi ovrug ex eiv > n"o/Uv av 
 EfjiE aTToAf/lwtof, see Euthyd. 282 C : ev 7rot'^craf *a7raJl/iafaf //e <T/cgi/>ewf Tr 
 Trepl TOVTOV avrov. Note the cheap rhetoric in 313 A, 311 A, the harsh tran- 
 sitions in 314 C and D, and the expressions : qavxiav ayuv, twice, 310 B and 
 
 312 C ; /ue-yas eifii, 310 C ; EUTriTrreiv, 314 ABC, ' to be published"*; Tr 
 
 313 D; and the gem: 6 ff Efj,7ropvad(j.evo . . . rfjg e/aTcopiag ravrriq 
 pEVGerai, 313 DE. The phrase wf eyw ^^, 310 C, is characteristic; in Plato 
 it occurs only in speeches, e. g. Apol. 37 C, 38 E, 39 C ; Protag. 322 E; 
 Gorg. 450 C. Here it fits into the stilted style ; in Ale. /, 106 C, Socrates' 
 playful humor somewhat excuses it. Finally TO 6s afyaipiov OVK bpO&g t'xje.i 
 fijlhuaei dE aoc 'Apjeo^/zof, ETrsidav iWq, 312 D, doubtless has reference to a 
 sidereal globe, which probably did not exist in Plato's day; cf. note 9 to 
 Axiochus. 
 
 46 The enigmatic or mystical passage (cf. also II, 312 D ff.) in VI, 323 D: 
 Kal rbv ruv Travruv debv rjye.fj.6va ruv re OVTCJV KOI ruv jLie^dvrciv TOV TE riyefiovo^ nal 
 alriov Trarspa Kvpiov eTroftvvvTag K. r. /I. seems to be only an elaboration of VII, 
 345 C : TTW? av firj davfiaorbg hv avdpuTrog rbv rfyE/nova rovrcjv K.al Kvpiov ovrug 
 ev^-epwf ririfiaGE TTOT' ai> ; cf. also VIII, 354 C. Originally such passages as 
 Tim. 28 C, 37 C, 41 AU, Phaedr. 246 E, Prol. 337 U, Symp. 196 C, Legg. 
 690 B, etc., may have given rise to the thought, whatever it may be, on 
 which thought, so hierophantically uttered, it seems bootless to speculate ; 
 but see Wiegand's notes to the Letters. The words ry r&v elduv aotyia, 
 322 D, are plainly post-Platonic, while a//wn/c^, 322 D, as opposed to 
 is an Aristotelian term ; cf. Hist, animal. 488 b , 8, etc. Note also 
 
38 
 
 only a sort of sublimation of the mystical passages contained in 
 them. Once this is perceived, it is clear that it represents a stage 
 on the path from Platonism to Neo-Pythagoreanism. In fixing 
 its date we may be aided by observing the use of yijiJ? tya>, 322 D, 
 an idiosyncrasy of Arcesilaus much imitated by his adherents. 47 
 
 We come now to the third group I, XI, XII, XIII. Of these, 
 I is an absurd rhetorical exercitation consisting of common- 
 places and citations from the poets, 48 and XI, also sharing 
 these characteristics, is even worse. 49 Worst of all is XII, 
 which presupposes the existence of the Pythagorean 0x0^7} par a, 
 especially of Ocellus, which appeared not earlier than 100 B. C. 50 
 Ep. XIII, on the other hand, is a better literary product, the style 
 and verisimilitude of which are maintained chiefly by the fact 
 
 av6t;eatv, 323 B, the author's coinage and sole property, and a 
 jjQrj, 323 A, ' characters, ' 'persons? 
 
 47 Cf. Diog. L. IV 36: <}>vaiKG)(; 8z mjf ev TU diaMyeaOai XPV TO T( j> tfltf ' 7^ 
 .... 6 /cat Tro/l/lot TUV fiaBijTuv zfyfkow nal rrfv pijropeiav KOI TTCLV TO G%jjfia. The 
 expression occurs also in Minos, 319 D. This dates our letter after, say, 
 250 B. C. Even Qjjfu eyu occurs only once in Plato, viz. Gorg. 463 C. 
 
 48 The beginning is a commonplace (see Lysias, XII 93, and Isocrates, IV, 
 167) which is in substance as old at least as Tyrtaeus, frag. 8, Bergk. In 
 309 B we have a very awkward sentence and then a threat couched in a 
 contrast sufficiently insipid : avroKpdrup 6e 7ro/l/ld/f TTJV vfiCTepav irohiv 6ia<pv%d- 
 faf aireire^d'rjv aTijLtorepov r) TTTW^OV vfttiv cnroaTe^6vTO)v rrpoc^KEi nai 
 eKTrfavaai, TOGOVTOV Trap' vfuv dtarpitpavTa %p6vov. eya) ovv irepl Efiavrov 
 
 TOV < ro ? > TiotTtov TpoTTov airavOpuTTOTepov, av 6s roiovTof uv Tvpavvos o'iKT/oet(; [i6vo<; 
 (cf. supra, note 36). We cannot wonder that question should have arisen 
 whether Plato or Dion were to be considered as the author of the letter, as 
 it is appropriate to neither. Note the use of Aaftpdvu for Sexo/uat, 309 C, 
 and of 6i6n for OTL, 309 E, which shows the decay of Greek diction. How 
 characteristic is TO xp^iov TO Tia/uTrpov, 309 B ! 
 
 49 Susemihl says (ch. XXXVII, n. 22): "Die elendesten von diesen 
 Fabrikaten sind der n. und 12." Here we have a gem declaring Plato's 
 obscurity, 358 E f. : ov[ifiovh.Evoai phroi e^w aoi re nal Tote ot/armuf, b 
 [iev e/Liov, <j)j]alv 'TcLaiodof, 66^at av elvat (j>av?iov (favorite word !), xaXzirov 6s 
 Socrates is said, 358 E, to be still alive, though ill with oTpayyovpia, while 
 Plato is too old to undertake a voyage : ovds T& OU/LIOTI did rffv rpwdav \Kavuq 
 ex<J TrhavdoOai ! Note also %v/j,fidauv in 359 B. 
 
 50 This is shown by the spurious letter of Archytas (ap. D. L. VIII 79 f.) 
 to which our XII is represented as the answer. This was a common trick 
 with the forgers, to float their forgeries by means of others quoting or 
 referring to them. See Diels, on Heraclitus in Archiv f. Gesch. der Phil. 
 Ill 3, and Ein gefalschtes Pythagorasbuch, ibid. p. 451 ; and on our letter 
 in particular, Zeller, III B, p. 96, n. i, and Susemihl, ch. XXXII, n. 462 ff. 
 and ch. XXXVII, n. 21. 
 
39 
 
 that the author is dealing with such trifles as he was conversant 
 with. 51 
 
 We need hardly discuss in detail the five remaining letters, 
 XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII. They are all very sorry produc- 
 tions, and are doubtless all of a later date than 300 A. D., some 
 probably as late as the Byzantine period. 62 
 
 VIII. MINOS. 
 
 The Minos begins quite abruptly by asking 6 VG//OC rjfj.lv ri e<m ; 
 The first answer is : rd vop.i^6p.sva j 1 but as Ao^ is not rd Aeyo/jieva, 
 nor dxoy, rd dxoi>ojj.eva, that definition is rejected. 2 A second reply 
 identifies VO/JLOS with d6y/j.a xoAews or 3dga Kohrwij? It is agreed, 
 however, that voV<>c must be xaXov and tyaOdvf and, since not all 
 d6y[j.ara can be pronounced good, this definition also, at least as it 
 stands, is inadequate. 5 Yet vo/*oc seems to be some sort of doga, 
 viz., a xpyaTr) doga, which is an dJ-ydyr doga: since, therefore, 
 doa is TOO ovros i^sopsffiq^ VO//GC fiouXerat TOO ovroq slvat 
 
 51 It seems probable that XIII was also, added about this time, see 
 Zeller, ibid., toward end of note, for here also (360 B) we have mention 
 of TUV re Hvfktyopefav KOI T&V diatpececjv as in Ep. XII. As in III, but 
 here, 360 A, with greater emphasis, iv TrpdrTeiv is given as the distinguishing 
 mark of Plato's letters (what need could Plato then have had to mention 
 it ?) and in 363 B the words 6e6s and 6eoi (Plato's monotheism !) are marked 
 as signs whereby sincerely meant letters of recommendation are to be 
 distinguished from those not so intended ! Plato's mother was still alive 
 (361 E); and then, 363 A: " Why, you must know Cebes remember the 
 Phaedo!" Cf. mention of Echecrates IX, 358 B. Note also Trohiav6/u.ei, 
 363 B. Is the entire letter a burlesque ? 
 
 52 On these see Susemihl, ch. XXXVII, n. 21. Ep. XIV is, I believe, a 
 caricature or misanthropic perversion of Rep. 586 AB. Here occurs rvx6v, 
 not found in Plato, but in Eryxias^ 339 B, and Ale. 77, 140 A, and cnrodev, 
 nowhere found in the canon. In XV is the form kvdexo^evrjv, much affected 
 by post-Aristotelian writers. Again, in XVI we have the Aristotelian 
 term Trpoaipectv, and the very late word ovax^ai^eiv occurs in both XVII and 
 XVIII. 
 
 '313 B. 2 3*3C. 
 
 '314 BC. To be sure, 66a irohiTiK?) would ordinarily mean only " an 
 opinion on some matter of state," but here both phases of the 66-y/aa TrdAewf 
 and 66^a 7ro/lm/c^ are intended. 
 
 * 3 i 4 D. 5 3HE. 
 
 6 This definition is introduced as a Platonic commonplace, and probably 
 was due to Symp. 202 A : TO yap TOV bvrog Tvy%avov TTU^ av sir/ ajuaOia ; 
 ICTI 6e 6r) irov TOIOVTOV rj bpQrj 6 6% a. That our author used 66-y/ua TrdAewf was, 
 
40 
 
 Why then do laws actually differ so widely in various 
 countries? 8 Men agree everywhere that just acts are just and 
 unjust acts unjust, precisely as that which weighs more is every- 
 where the heavier, that which weighs less, the lighter. 9 There- 
 fore it may be said universally that rd ovra vofitterat, ou rd /J.TJ 
 ovra ; 10 and the laws which are not good are not real laws and 
 cannot be said to conflict with such as are. 11 In every sphere, 
 therefore also in matters of state, those who prescribe the laws 
 (provided they really know, are iictffrqfwves) will agree and not 
 introduce changes; 12 wherefore stability is an excellent test of 
 codes. 13 The laws of Minos, being the oldest known to the 
 Greeks, therefore call forth an encomium on their author. Finally 
 the question is raised, what the vo/o0nyc, who according to Homer 
 is a notjjLijv la&v and so a vo/jteuc, ' distributes ' (dtavfyst') to improve 
 the souls of men, and it is felt to be a disgrace that no answer is 
 forthcoming. 14 
 
 perhaps, owing to Legg. 644 D : 66-y/ua Trd/tewf notvbv v6fj.of erruvd/Ltacrai ; but his 
 reference of a true law to afaflfa doga certainly evinces his dependence upon 
 Meno 97 A ff., where statesmen are shown to possess afaydrfc 66%a in so far as 
 they hit upon the right course, though they lack ETriaTtfpr}. It seems strange 
 that, when he comes to speak of the discrepancies in legislation, he does 
 not more strongly emphasize the difference between the ordinary lawgiver 
 and the ideal legislator, and points out only the need of agreement on the 
 part of those who know instead of insisting upon the knowledge of the 
 ayaB6v of the state or of true principles (amaf Aoyr//, Meno 98 A). 
 
 7 315- A. This statement is identical in meaning with Hipp. Maj. 284 D : 
 orav apa ayadov djudprcjotv ol eTT(%eipovvTe roi)f w/jiovf riOsvai, vo/ui/j-ov re KOI VOJLIOV 
 rj/uapTT/Kaatv, but the abstract statement of the Minos is doubtless due 
 to the identification of vdpof with afajOt'K 66a nofarucfi. More hereafter of 
 Hipp. Maj. 
 
 8 315 A. Here, if anywhere, we might expect Socrates to point out 
 clearly the distinction between existing laws and the true laws discoverable 
 only by reason. 
 
 9 316 A. The author does not even seem to be aware how sophistical 
 this reasoning is. 
 
 10 3 i6B. 
 
 11 This conclusion is not clearly expressed, but must be inferred. 
 
 "3168-318 A. 
 
 13 3 1 8 C : rtf 6e Myerai ruv Trafai&v fiaatlieuv dyafldf vofj,o6 er^f yeyovivai, 
 ov TL aal vvv rd v 6 pi fj,a fievei wf 6eta fora; (wf 6ela bvra seems to be 
 added here only because the same words were used of the tunes of 
 Olympus and Marsyas just previously, and has no special significance.) 
 
 14 321 CD. We can only guess that the answer expected was diKaioovvq. 
 If then the question had been urged, and the full working of AtKcuoavvq had 
 
4 1 
 
 Such in brief outline is the argument of the Minos. The incen- 
 tive and the leading thought of the dialogue seem to have been 
 derived from Plato's Hippias Major 284 6-285 B > 15 though the 
 beginning of the Laws doubtless exercised a decided influence on 
 the account of King Minos. Like almost all of the Pseudo-Pla- 
 tonica the Minos also betrays its dependence upon Alcibiades 7, 16 
 and we seem to be justified in dating it later even than Anter- 
 astae? 
 
 The best evidence of its comparatively late origin is found in 
 the spirit of the Alexandrian age which pervades it and manifests 
 itself in various forms. First, we may note a preference for mon- 
 archy as it existed, shown in the encomium on King Minos and 
 in Socrates' wholly unplatonic question by which it is introduced, 
 318 A : ol de TOO rboq vopot apiffrot ralq <}>o%al<; ru>v avdpatxiov ; ou% 
 ol roD Paffdiwq] tpddt. The manner, also, in which the remarks 
 about the variation of customs and laws respecting burial and 
 human sacrifice are intruded is as unlike that of Plato as the 
 pedantry displayed in them is foreign to his works. 18 In the 
 
 been inquired into, we would have had the demand of the Clitopho repeated. 
 The connection of 6iKaiocvvj] with /3e/lr/w troielv is developed in Anterast. 
 137 BC, and it is possible that one passage refers to that. See note 9 to 
 Anterast. 
 
 15 Mention of this relation has already been made in note 7. In Hippias 
 Maj. the discussion formed only an episode, and therefore permitted our 
 author the greater liberty in combining in his discussion the other thoughts 
 which he had culled from various sources. Besides the general concep- 
 tion and the passage cited in note 7, it may be well to call attention to 
 Hipp. Maj. 284 E : TCJ fj.kv aKptfiel Adyoj, & 2o>/cparef , ovrug e%ei ' v {&VTOI elaOactv 
 
 (so I read for Hermann's avOpuTroi) bvo/u.detv ovru<;. Tidrepov, <y 
 ta, ol eldoreg rj ol pj eldore^, with which compare Min. 317 C : 6 6oKei vo/u,og 
 dvai rolg p,r/ elSooiv. 
 
 16 Min. 316 D: ravrd dqtrov TroAA?) avayKrj earl roi>f eidora^ avrovg avrdlf 
 i-vwofii&iv (see also 317 B, etc.) applies the test of knowledge so strongly 
 insisted upon, Ale. /, in BC ff. (see note 14 to Ale. /), though it also 
 occurs elsewhere, and in particular in Hippias Maj. 294 CD. Min. 317 E: 
 ol TOV avhrjrov /cat KiOapicrov. '0 vofj,LK.urarog apa iv TovTOt t OVTO$ avTirjrinuraTo^^ 
 must likewise, when we regard the entire context, be pronounced a reminis- 
 cence of the discussion in Ale. 7, 108 (note particularly /uovoiK&repov, 108 E). 
 
 1T Reference is here had chiefly to the fact mentioned in note 14, though 
 the proof of the Minos' later origin does not rest upon so slight a basis. 
 
 18 Socrates says 315 B: eirel fyepe Idu/biev, edv apa rjfdv ev6ev6e Kardd^ov 
 ysvrjTai, eire roZf av~ol<; del v6ju,oi xpufteOa r] dA/lore d/l/lo^f, nal el aTra^ref roZf avrolg 
 rj d/l/lof d/lAoif. This is a direct demand for such information as his com- 
 panion offers, and yet S. with strange irony replies in 315 D: ovdev rot 
 6avjuaoTov iorw t & fie^TiCTe, el cv fj,ev bpOu^ heyets , i/ue 6s TOVTO 
 
42 
 
 same strain is the claim that Attic tragedy originated, not with 
 Thespis, but in a far earlier time. 19 Such a remark is well suited 
 to a period when Thespis was represented by spurious tragedies 
 and purely mythical predecessors were being invented to rival in 
 antiquity Susarion, Chionides and Magnes in comedy. Similarly 
 319 A: tJ.~f) yap rot. ol'oo kidoos /j.ev slvat Ispovq xai cuAa xa} opvsa 
 xa\ oystq, dvftpdi-oos ds /JLTJ, seems to fall in quite aptly with 
 the religious syncretism of the Alexandrian age. 20 The influence 
 of the same period is apparent also in the affected interpretation 
 of Homer 21 and the play on words in which the author indulged. 22 
 It is difficult to decide whether 316 A : OD-/.OOV xai & nipvaiq ourats 
 w? kvOdds vofit^srat was derived from Aristotle or was half prover- 
 bial, 23 and equally so, whether or not yyn' t^w, 319 D, is due to 
 the well-known mannerism of Arcesilaus. 24 But there can be no 
 doubt that our author has borrowed largely, and not always judi- 
 ciously, from Plato, 25 and we may safely affirm that he intended 
 his dialogue to pass for Platonic. 
 
 19 320 E f. 
 
 20 Euhemerus spoke of Zeus as a king of Crete ; doubtless he also men- 
 tioned Minos in that connection. Did he then advert to his cruelty to show 
 the folly of men in worshipping him ? If so, the Minos may have been 
 written partly to exonerate him, though its author was himself infected 
 with the views of Euhemerus. The fact that Minos, as a lawgiver and 
 statesman, is included among the Qeiovg avdpuKovg (318 E) is undoubtedly 
 due to Meno 99 CD. Only the argument as quoted above indicates the 
 date of the Minos. 
 
 21 319 B ff. The treatment of Talos is likewise characteristic. Here 
 (320 C) he is a vofcotyvAal; ', with bronze tablets of the laws, making annually 
 three visits to the villages to administer justice. Elsewhere he is repre- 
 sented as a brazen giant who thrice a day makes the round of the coasts to 
 keep off invaders. See Ar^>llodorus I 9, 26. 
 
 22 1 shall not here dwell on the juggling with v6fj,o^ t vo/Ldfa, VO/M/LIOC;, vo/Ltei'> 
 etc. But evreivovrec;, 321 A, is clearly a pun, confusing evrsivo) (sc. as ei<; 
 iAeyetov, e. g. Hipparch. 228 D), i. e. * versifying? with etveivu ' attact,' 
 ' torture. ' 
 
 23 See Arist. Eth. Nic. H34 b 26 : uarrep TO irvp KO.I evddSe nal h Hepaaic; Kaieu 
 The situation is the same in both passages. Grant, ad loc., thinks the 
 expression proverbial. 
 
 24 See Letters, note 47. 
 
 25 Much evidence of this fact is contained in the preceding notes. Here 
 only the more striking examples not already mentioned can be noted: 
 314 C : r&xa $ &$ a/uetvoi; elco/ueOa, cf. Gorg. 450 C, Euthyphro, 9 E ; 314 B: 
 a Se ol Oeol dtavoovvTat, &<; fyaaiv ol /j.dvreig, fAavrtny, points also to Euthyphro, as 
 3140: TO juev atjl^ei rdf TTOASIZ /ecu rd/l/la Trd^ra, TO 6s a7r6A%vci Kal avaTpiirei does 
 
43 
 
 We can hardly be far wrong in dating the Minos about 250 
 B. C. Much earlier it cannot have been written, and if it appeared 
 later it would scarcely have been catalogued by Aristophanes. 26 
 The effort to claim this dialogue, together with others which 
 begin by a saltus in medias res without scenic introductions, for 
 Pasipho of Eretria is too uncertain to elicit much interest. 27 
 
 IX. HIPPARCHUS. 
 
 The Hipparchus displays almost all the characteristics already 
 observed in the Minos, but, unlike it, not only wants the express 
 attestation of Aristophanes, but was, in addition, apparently 
 doubted even in antiquity. 1 Its argument clearly seeks to develop 
 
 to Euth. 14 B ; 316 B : e'f av <*v re /card oavrbv /ley??f, /c. r. /I. is an exceedingly 
 misplaced imitation of such passages as Prot. 334 E ff.; 316 C, the absurd 
 phrase ^ir/ypafi/nari <-|-rm? Boeckh> rcepl v-yieiag ruv Kap>6vruv and the 
 following discussion may have been suggested by Pol. 295 C ff., or Gorg. 
 464 f. ; 317 A: ol TTohtTiKoi re Kal ol jSaathtKoi, cf. Pol. 259 C ff., and Euthyd. 
 291 C ; 317 C : Tcepl TroAewf diaKoa/uf/ceus, cf. Symp. 209 A ; 317 D : ol TOVTOV 
 v6/j,oi Kal diavo/Ltal kra. ravra bpdai elaiu, cf. Crat. 430 C, where such etymological 
 puns come more naturally; 318 A: ovrog TIJV avftpuTcivrfv ayeTtffv rov cu/ia-of 
 vefieiv /cpdncrrof, is a rather absurd abuse of language : Boeckh supposes that 
 the author had in mind Pol. 268 B or 274 E, but possibly the suggestion 
 may have been derived partly from Lysis 209 A : ovre rov <7w//arof, dA/id /cat 
 TOVTO d/Uof Troiftaivei ; but compare Euripides, Frag. 634 (Nauck) : ocnq vefj.ec 
 KaA^iGTa rrjv avrov tyvciv, \ ovrog tro^df Tretyvue Trpdf TO Gv/utyspov ; 3186: TOVTW rd 
 avkrnia.ro. detorard art t KOI fiova lavel KOI SK^ai vet rovg r &v Qeuv kv 
 Xpzia ovraq is a bungling attempt to reproduce Symp. 215 C ; for Min. 
 
 319 C : 6 Zei>c co<j>iarfc eon, see Symp. 203 D, Crat. 403 E, Euthyd. 288 B; 
 
 320 A: OVK. eariv o'irtvec; arrexovrai cvpnociuv .... d/lAo^ rj Kp^ref Kal AdKedat- 
 /Lidviotj merely reproduces Legg. 637 Aff. ; 321 A : eari rfe rfjq Troi^ceug 6^/aorep- 
 Trearardv re Kal tpv^a-ycj-yiKurarov rj rpayudia doubtless reflects Legg. 658 D; 
 
 321 C: /ca/uQf re Kal 6ia fipaxeuv aTcoK.piv6fj.EvoL, cf. Gorg. 448 E. 
 
 26 D. L. Ill 62. It formed the third trilogy with Leges and Epinomis. 
 
 27 Susemihl (I, p. 20 ff.) has said what can be said upon the subject, and 
 even he finds the case hopeless. Diog. L. II 61, the passage upon which 
 the whole discussion depends, is too vague, and perhaps even inextricably 
 confused, to admit of profitable discussion. I do not believe that there 
 existed in antiquity only one work on each of the subjects Trepl aper^, TC. 
 6iKaiov, TT. <^Ao/cepdoi)f, TT. vo/zov, and so the conclusions, suggested by the 
 attribution of works so entitled to different philosophers, can of course 
 produce no certainty. On the connection of Minos and Hipparchus see 
 notes 12 and 13 to .the latter dialogue, and compare notes 21 and 22 above 
 with note 7 to Hipparch. and the text. 
 
 1 Aelian. V. H. VIII, 2 : Tieyei 6e IIAdrwv ravTa, el 6ij 6 " 
 
44 
 
 the paradox latent in the ambiguity of ydozepdrjs, which term 
 implies a censure certainly not so prominent in its components, 
 xipdoq and ^pdelv. Given the discussions of the Eryxias, one can 
 readily perceive how a later Platonist would desire to utilize them 
 in producing a dialogue in imitation of the founder of his school, 
 and such, in fact, appears to be the relation of Hipparchus to 
 Eryxias? On the other hand there is sufficient evidence of the 
 usual kind to prove the desire to copy Plato. 3 Yet the imitator, 
 as was but natural, failed signally to catch Plato's habitual delicacy 
 of manner; 4 and even where success was more readily attainable, 
 
 2 The subject-matter of itself compels a comparison. Many have re- 
 marked upon the uncalled-for rebuke administered by Socrates, Hipp. 
 22$ B : fir) fioi ovrug ekr/, uaTrep TI ^duqgjjulyo?, but nobody seems to note that 
 the author probably had in mind Eryx. 395 A : hemp TI atiiKovfisvos. So too 
 the discussion of value as more important than quantity in determining 
 wealth (231 CD) points to Eryxias, 111 ff. Note also 231 E : rd 6e at-tov 
 av /leye/f KEKTTjaOai TO dvw$e/lef r) TO utyehifiov, where the utyeliifiov, as in the 
 Eryxias, is made the criterion of value. Even the words of Socrates' 
 companion, 232 B : rjvayKane . . . /zd/l/W efie ye r) TreTm/cev, are probably an 
 echo of Eryxias' words, Eryx. 395 D : eyu fiev, u Sw/cparff, ov TOIOVTOV^ ufirjv 
 delv TOVQ A(5yovf elvat, olf fifjr' av irelaai 6vvaiT6 Tig firjdiva TUV TrapovTov K. T. A., 
 when protesting against Socrates' eristic arguments. 
 
 3 Naturally the imitation is not confined to the general structure of the 
 dialogue (though even here, as in the use of tyip in 228 A on which see 
 Stallbaum and Schleiermacher ad loc. there seems to be lacking the 
 perfect mastery), but extends chiefly to familiar Platonic phrases. Hipp. 
 225 B : fir] /not oirwf, cf. Prot. 318 B ; with the play on tipa nal x&pa and its 
 justification, Iva K. r. A., 225 C, cf. Gorg. 467 B : /MOTE IIwAe, iva K. r. /.., 
 Symp. 185 C ; Tlavaaviov 6s 7ravGaju,evov, diSaanovai. yap fie, K. T. /., Phaedo 102 D: 
 Trape^wv vTTEpe^ov, Rep. 498 DE (cf. Axiochus 370 DE) ; for the phrase, Hipp. 
 228 B : 6f aAAa re 7roA/ld nal /caAa ipya co<j>ia^ airedei^aro, see Menex. 237 B and 
 239 A: TTO/Ua 6rj Kal /ca/ld Ipya air0$varo t which Dionys. Hal. (de vi decendi 
 in Demos. 27) criticises as defective Greek, saying : ep-yd&Tat rd epya, 
 aTo0aaea> d' agtovTat rd d/^Trra (cf. also Alcyon, n. 3, and Ale. /, 119 E); for 
 position of <f)qaiv, 229 A, vid. Prot. 345 D ; Hipp. 229 E : ucirep ireTTsvuv, cf. 
 Gorg. 461 D, Prot. 354 E; Hipp. 231 C : TrepiTpexetS <C T O avTo, cf. Thtaet. 
 200 C ; Hipp. 232 A : <i avdpeioTare TTCIVTCJV, cf. w TtavTuv avdpeioTaTe in Pol. 
 263 D and Legg. 905 C, having the advantage of avoiding the hiatus and 
 
 producing a metrical rhythm, w wv^. Hipp. 228 D repeats 
 
 the disjunction so much emphasized in Ale. I (see note 7 to that dial.), 
 rp r' efiaOe /cat i]v avTog kt-ifvpev. Considering the turn given to it in Ale. /, it 
 seems strange to note the emphasis Leutsch lays upon efyvpev in Philol. 
 XXX, p. 128, in seeking to use the Hipparchus for an authority on the rise 
 of gnomic poetry. 
 
 4 The repeated charges of unfairness, made with great brusqueness, in 
 225 D, 228 A, 229 DE, are in themselves quite unplatonic, though intended 
 
45 
 
 in the conduct of the argument, he allowed himself such license 
 as is inconceivable in Plato. 5 
 
 With the dependence of Hipparchus upon Eryxias there is 
 given also the certainty that it dates from the Alexandrian period. 
 But the entire episode which introduces Hipparchus, and which 
 evidently constituted the most interesting part of the author's 
 production even to himself, is such as could have originated only 
 then. 6 The literary notices of Homer, Anacreon and Simonides, 
 
 228 BC, and of Hipparchus' epigrams, 228 C ff., breathe the 
 spirit of that time, and the new interpretation of the tyrannicide, 
 
 229 CD, is conceivable only in such an age. The useofvac/ 7 
 and the ratio of gold to silver 12:1 also point directly to the 
 period of Alexander's successors. 8 But we should gain an even 
 more definite date if it were certain, as it is probable, that the 
 Theages* was already known to our author. Be that as it may, 
 
 it seems clear that in the distribution of Tpoy?} into ypd and V?", 
 
 230 E, we have a trace of Aristotle ; 10 and if that be so, it becomes 
 
 as imitations of such passages as Meno 76 A, 80 B, etc., but the absurd 
 way in which they serve at 228 A to introduce the Hipparchus episode 
 makes them quite ridiculous. Then, too, how inept is 227 B: kpov 6r/ /cat 
 e/ue, el ov KOC kyh\ Possibly this crept in because of an idiosyncrasy of some 
 popular philosopher. Scarcely less unplatonic is the repetition of //# fwi -ye 
 in 229 E. See also note i. 
 
 5 The juggling with a^Log and its cognates is almost though not quite as 
 bad as that with v6fj,oq in Minos. To illustrate the argument : After saying 
 olecdat 6elv Kepdaivetv, 225 D, the 6elv is at once dropped in oleadat Kspfiaiveiv, 
 
 226 AB, only to reappear in 226 D ; from the admission : ayaSov TO Kep6o<;, 
 
 227 A, he draws the inference : rovf ovv TO ayadbv tptXovvTa ^/lo/cepdsZf /caAeZf, 
 and TTCIVTEC; av <^Ao/cpdeZf fyaivovTcu, 227 C, whereas only ay ad 6 v T t <j)tfa>vvrec 
 would strictly follow. Again Socrates asserts, 227 D : TO KepSaiveiv apTi 
 (jjftoAo-yr/aafj.Ev elvac axpefetadcu, while that was only to be inferred from the 
 statement in 227 A: /3hcm:TovTai VTTO Trjq (,rj[j.iag apa avdpuiroc . . . havTiov 6e TTJ 
 &/jLiia TO Kepdog. 
 
 6 See note 4 for the manner of introducing this episode. 
 
 7 232 B. The word occurs, aside from Sophocles O. T. 684, only here and 
 in Callimachus, Ep. XXIX, 5, and LV, 3, and is one of those poetical 
 flosculi in which the Alexandrians delighted. 
 
 8 231 D. See Hultsch, Metrologie, 30. 
 
 9 The profusion of examples adduced, Hipp. 225 B ff., occurs with few 
 variations in Theages, 123-127 ; but it must be said that largely the same 
 list is found in Ale. /, 124 ff., from which that of the Theages was derived. 
 
 10 This use is common in Aristotle (see Eth. Nic. in8b 10 f . ; -n-epl (,tiuv 
 -ysveoeuf;, 720* 4, 725 b I, 726* 17 ; nepl t^uuv fiopicov, 671* 3, etc.), but does not 
 o my knowledge occur before. Of course the fact that Plato like every 
 
4 6 
 
 quite probable that the use of pdMov and ^TTOV in 230 A-D is an 
 application of his dictum that obaia does not admit of more nor 
 less. 11 The same thought occurs in briefer form in the Minos 
 and from the general similarity of plan and composition, together 
 with special resemblances, 13 we may safely conclude to an approx- 
 imately common date if not to common authorship. 
 
 X. CLITOPHO. 
 
 The ostensible purpose of the Clitopho is one which Plato might 
 well have wished to carry out, viz., to show the inadequacy of the 
 Socratic ethics ; but so soon as it is made clear that the Platonic 
 and not the historic Socrates is here subjected to criticism, it 
 should also be evident that Plato did not write this harangue. 
 The anonymous reference to various disciples of Socrates is 
 plainly only one of the fictions employed to relieve the monotony 
 of Clitopho's extended recital. It is, therefore, quite fruitless to 
 seek to determine who each or any of his feigned collocutors 
 were, the more because all the answers he reports are found in 
 writings which were regarded as Platonic. That he did not care 
 to whom Plato had attributed the various views, our author has 
 sufficiently shown in treating the question, whether justice con- 
 sist in doing good to friend and harm to foe. 1 Add to this that 
 
 other mortal spoke of atria /cat rrord {Phaedo, 64 D, Euthyd. 280 B) means 
 nothing, because even atriov is not dry (as Aristotle says of Thales, Met. 
 98 3 b 22 : /la/3v laws T %v vTro/^tptv ravrjjv en rov irdvruv bpav rr/v Tpo<j/v vypav 
 ovaav). The thought does not concern us; it is the terminology. With 
 Hipp. 229 B : tyyvq re cjv 'AOyvaloi, hairep eirl Kpovov {Saaifavovroc cf . Arist. 
 Pol. Athen. 16, 27 (Sandys) : 610 /cat Tro/toa/af iOpv^elro, a>f 77 Heiaiarpdrov 
 rvpavvif 6 7Tt Kpovov /3io$ elrj. 
 
 11 Our passage might be considered a development of Meno, 74 DE. but 
 the reference to Aristotle is more natural. Cf. Arist. Categor. 3b 33 ff. 
 
 12 Minos, 313 AB. 
 
 13 To omit the mass of materials gathered by Boeckh, I mention only 
 Hipp. 232 A : fivr)p.ovveig ovv, b6ev r]fuv OVTO<; 6 Aoyof yeyovev ; . . . el 6e fiy, h/u 
 as virofj,VT/au ; Min. 318 B : laut; ova kwoelq, a/I/,' eyw /3<nX ae virofivyau : Com- 
 pare also the end of Hipparchus (ova apa bpdtis bvei6iei K. r. /..) with the 
 emphatic caution not to blaspheme in Min. 318 E. On the whole it seems 
 more probable that they are both due to one author. On Pasipho see 
 note 27 to Minos. 
 
 1 Clit. 410 AB : elTref (sc. Socrates) pot, diicaioavvqc; elvai roi? JJ.EV %6povf 
 (3A,dirTeiv, roue ^ <j>ihove ev Troielv varepav 6e kfyavr) fihaiTTeiv ye ovdeTrore 6 dinaio^ 
 ovdeva. This makes it appear that Socrates gave the definition (and this he 
 never did, set. Meno, 71 A, Rep. 332 C ff.) and that Clitopho refuted him". 
 
47 
 
 he used Alcibiades /, Theages and Anterastae* as genuine 
 sources of Platonic philosophy, and one must be convinced that 
 the Clitopho is spurious. 
 
 The charge here preferred against the Platonic Socrates is only 
 a modification of that noticed by Xenophon 3 as urged against the 
 historical Socrates ; viz., that, though excelling in the art of 
 exhorting to a life of justice, he fails either because unable or 
 unwilling to specify the precise initial step and conduct of such 
 a life, or even the definite result to which the r^/vrj dtzatoffuvy leads. 
 This demand goes obviously beyond the sphere of psychological 
 ethics into that of social ethics and politics ; and it is needful to 
 remark that no cognizance is taken of the positive doctrines by 
 which Plato, in the Politicus^ and in the books of the Republic 
 subsequent to the first the only one which is here taken into the 
 account has supplemented the more or less negative teachings 
 of Socrates. Some critics have therefore inferred that this phase 
 of Platonism was not yet developed, or that the Clitopho was 
 either a discarded introduction to the Republic or even, in some 
 sort, a part of it. 5 Of course, these views suppose the impossible 
 
 The absurdity of this is at once apparent. The historic Socrates, indeed, 
 may have used that definition, but hardly seriously. See Xen. Mem. II 6, 
 35, and II 3, 14, and Zeller, II A, p. 171. 
 
 ' 2 Clit. 407 C : dia rr/v EV r Trodl Trpof rr/v %vpav a/LiETptav may refer to Ale. /, 
 ioS A : TOV adovra del Kidapi&tv TTOTS Trpbc rijv 6ijv mal flaivEtv, esp. since the fol- 
 lowing words allude to Ale. /, 112 A ff . ; Clit. 407 E: TOV /U.EV ap^ovrof apeAe'iv, 
 vid. Ale. /, 130 A ; Clit. 409 D-4io A, the discussion of fytiaa, opovoia and 
 ofjiodo^ia is a resume of that in Ale. /, 126 A-I27 D. Clit. 408 A: bant; yap 
 6ij pi eTriaraTat rf/ eavrov 7\,vpa xpqaOai, dfaov ug ov6s ry TOV yefrovof, ov6s bartc fj,ij 
 TIJ TUV aA/lwv, ovde ry eavrov, ov6' a/Uw ruv bpyavuv ovde KTV/UCITUV ovdevi, is a very 
 insipid and much misplaced imitation of Theag. 126 B. For the Anterastae 
 see my note 13 to that dialogue. I incline to think that 'Ale. I was particu- 
 larly in the author's mind when he spoke of protreptic discourses. At the 
 close of that dialogue Alcibiades says : apt-opal ye evrevOev rriq SutatoovvtK 
 krci (leveled O.L. Clitopho says in effect : Take the Ale. I for granted : -what 
 follows then? Cf. TTCJC apxecdat 6elv (fxi/Ltsv duuuooinnjf Kepi /naO-qaeuz and olag 
 BEpaTrdag del-ai,, Clit, 408 E and 410 D, and t)e<; rbv KAaro^eJira opoAoyovvra, 
 etc., ibid. 
 
 3 Xen. Mem. I, 4, i ff. 
 
 ^Polit. 306 ff . 
 
 5 Ritter held the first view. Hippolytus (ap. Diels, Dox. p. 569, 1. 26) 
 quotes Clit. 407 D, as if from the Republic^ saying : KOA, 7%iq TOVTOV 
 (i. e. the clearest statement of the doctrine that d / aapr;///ara are 
 Earl kv ry Ho7,irela. He, with others, probably regarded the 
 Clitopho as in some sort a part of it ; else, why did Thrasyllus (Diog. L. 
 
4 8 
 
 in regarding our harangue as Platonic ; and it is far more prob- 
 able that if its author took the trouble to read those works or the 
 Laws he believed those schemes to be chimerical and conse- 
 quently inadequate as an answer to his demands. It is not our 
 present business to enquire whether such a conclusion was or 
 was not warranted ; it is sufficient to know that Plato did offer his 
 solution, and that he could not have written such a criticism of 
 his own doctrines and have ignored the real issue. 6 We do not 
 know who produced this harangue, nor even the time of his 
 writing. We may, however, affirm that he did not desire his 
 work to pass for Platonic ; for, though alluding to many passages 
 is Plato's dialogues, 7 he made clear his own adverse position. 
 And his diction, while generally pure and in harmony with 
 Plato's usage, displays sufficient deviations from the latter to 
 point, as does also his use of Alcibiades /, Theages and Anter- 
 astae, to a later age. 8 
 
 Ill 60) place it just before the Republic? [This remark of Hippolytus': 
 /Ic^f TOVTOV kfifyaveara-ri, very pointedly illustrates the most striking charac- 
 teristic of almost all of the spurious works. Because the thoughts have 
 come to be commonplaces they can be expressed epigrammatically ; and such 
 pointed statements exercised a strong influence on the eclectic minds of 
 later philosophers.] Kunert dates the Clitopho ca. 390 B. C. and points 
 out many detailed allusions to the Republic, but he tries to prove too 
 much. Had he investigated the relation of Clitopho to Ale. I he must 
 have seen his error. Yxem's theory I consider even less tenable. 
 
 6 Plato might well have answered Clitopho's impertinent question by 
 saying : ' No one can tell you Just what is your duty? and all ethical writers 
 of consequence would sustain the answer. 
 
 7 In e^eTr^TTo/iiTfv O.KOVUV (407 A) allusion is made to Symp. 215 C f.; in 
 407 B : ayvoelTE ovdev T&V oeovruv Trpdrrovref, probably to Euthyd. 306 D f. or 
 Apol. 29 D f.; ibid, elirep p.aBrjrov^ vid. Meno, 70 A; the locus class, for the 
 involuntariness of wrong-doing (407 D) is Prot. 345 D ff.; rjrrov 6f av ?/, (pare, 
 TUV -ijdov&v (ibid.) is too much a commonplace to require references; for 
 KpeiTTov kav TTJV TOVTOV xpfo 1 " (47 E f-) see Euthyd. 280 C ff., 288 E ff .; 408 C : 
 ticirep KaflevdovTas eTreyeipeiv, cf. Apol. 30 E f.; the questionable expression 
 kiret;e?Jdelv 6s OVK evi TCJ Trpay/uaTt (308 D) may have been suggested by Euthyd. 
 306 CD; for cc. V and VI cf. Euthyd. 290-293; 409 BC : TO avfi<j>epov y 
 airenpivaTO, cf. Rep. 336 D ff. ; 409 D : rdf 6e T&V Traiduv fyihiac; KOI rdf T&V 
 Oqpiuv, cf. Lysis 211 E ff., 212 D ; for Trepidedpd/u^Kev elf TavTov 6 Aoyo (410 A) 
 cf. Theaet. 200 C. 
 
 8 Note /card /cparof (407 A), ^e/ler^rdv and kt-a.GK.eu (407 B), EKOVGIOV (407 D) in 
 a forced rhetorical application, cvjufiaivu (409 D), /uaKporepov and 
 (410 B), 6ioTi (410 C), fiidayfia (409 B). The use of <f>av?M(; in Trpof ae 
 
 (406) seems strange at best. A most evident mark of later author- 
 
49 
 
 XI. ANTERASTAE. 
 
 This dialogue opens in a grammarian's school, 1 where two 
 noble Athenian youths are discussing the inclination of the 
 ecliptic, while their lovers, an athlete and a professor of polite 
 learning, sit by and look on. The lads are said to be philoso- 
 phizing, and so, in Socrates' manner, the questions forthwith 
 arise whether philosophy be a fine thing and, ultimately, what it 
 is. The professor of polite learning declares it to be one with 
 TiO^utj-adia. This definition, it appears in the sequel, would make 
 of the philosopher a Jack of all trades and a master of none, and 
 so useless in the presence of specialists ; and if useless, then not 
 a possessor of any good. Socrates then takes the matter in 
 hand 2 and shows that there are some things in which the philo- 
 sopher must be a true master, second to none. These affairs con- 
 stitute the broad realm of conduct, and the arts that rule within 
 it are auxppoffbvr) and dixatoffuvy, which prove to be identical not 
 only with each other but also with fiafftAuy, rupawtxrj, Kofarurj, 
 dsff-oTtx-ij, olxovo/jL'XTJ (138 C). Yet at the very close 3 Socrates 
 reverts to the first theme to remark that it thus likewise appears 
 that philosophy is riot xol.u/j.aOia, thereby proving that the princi- 
 pal aim of the dialogue is to refute the first definition. 
 
 We have then to enquire what may have been the motive of 
 the author. And in order to an intelligent answer we shall 
 need first to ascertain the approximate date of his writing. It 
 scarcely admits of question that the dialogue is spurious. Aside 
 from the doubts expressed in antiquity, 4 almost all modern 
 critics have agreed in athetizing it. And this verdict is suffi- 
 
 ship is the expression (408 C) ruv faiKiurtiv re Kal awTn6vfj,rjT(i)v i] eraipuv ctiv, 
 rj OTrcjr del Trpdf ae Ttepl avruv TO TOIOVTOV bvo/nd^eiv. We find also a very stiff 
 and rhetorical phrase in 406 : TOV<; kpol rrepl aov yevo/uevovs "k6yov<; Trpbq Avciav. 
 Yxem considers this a fine turn of expression to mark Clitopho's feigned 
 embarrassment. 
 
 1 This circumstance points to an imitation of the opening scenes of 
 Charmides and Lysis. 
 
 2 1 37 B-i 39 A. 
 
 3 139 A. 
 
 4 Clem. Alex. Strom. I 19, 93 : el d?j rov H/ld-wvof TO avy-ypa/ujua, and D. L. 
 IX 37 : elirep ol 'Avrepaaral IIT-drwvdf elai, ffiol QpaovA^og. The latter passage 
 is corrupt and, as it stands, unintelligible, but it clearly expressed a doubt 
 as to the genuineness of our dialogue. 
 
50 
 
 ciently justified by its dependence not only on Ale. 7. 5 but also 
 on Ale. If. 6 
 
 But there is a marked violation of Plato's wonted urbanity in 
 the rivalry of the lovers, 7 which serves to heighten the unplatonic 
 effect; and the language, though generally pure, is not wholly 
 above suspicion. 8 In addition to this it is to be noted that the 
 argument consists almost wholly of Platonic commonplaces 9 which 
 are manipulated with foolish subtlety, 10 though apparently in good 
 faith. It is customary to declare the result of the dialogue to be 
 unplatonic, which may indeed be true if it be assumed that it 
 
 5 137 UE: rjTiq eva, /cat Tro/Uoyf K. T. /I. unquestionably reproduces Ale. /, 
 1146 ff., where a suggestion of the Phaedrus (260 E f.) is elaborated. See 
 note 17 to Ale. I. It is not improbable that the following definition of 
 aufypoavvr) as TO eavrbv yiyvuaKeiv (138 A) is likewise due to Ale. 7, 131 B, 133 
 C ff., rather than to Charm. 164 D. 
 
 *Ant. 136 CD, if not the whole dialogue, apparently owes much to Ale. II, 
 146 E ff.: del dpa /cat ^6\iv /cat i^x^v rrfv fie^ovaav bpBu$ j3tuoacdai ravrriq rr/q 
 <sc. Tf/g TOV j3e?iTioTov> avT%eo6ai, aTE%v(J(; ucirep aaOevovvra iarpov 
 Kvfiepvf/Tov TOV dcr^a/luf fjLiTJiovra TrAetv . . . 6 6 e 6rj T rjv naT^ov fjievrjv 
 
 re Kal TTO^VT e %viav /ce/cr^/zevof, bpfyavbs de hv 
 , ayofitvo^ tie virb juid^ K.daTT/ ruv d/lAwv, ap' ov%l ra OVTL 
 
 xprjaerat, art avev Kvj3ep VJJTOV dtarehuv ev TTE- 
 , xpdvos ov panpov 0iov Oeav, cf. Ant. 136 D : T'L 6' ; h vrfi 
 av fid^ov TriTpiroi.(; eavrdv re Kal rd oeavrov, TCJ Kv(3epvr/Tri rj rw 
 ^ Ant. 132 C, 133 AB. 
 
 8 I note advfielv irpbq TOV hoyov, 135 A. 
 
 9 The observant reader cannot fail to recognize this. I will note here 
 some of the imitations. 132 D : Iva Kal el TI 6vvaip]\> Trap' avTov u^^rjdeitjv 
 is a very frequent turn, vid. Hipp. Min. 369 E, Apol. 25 D, etc.; 133 A : 
 6 TI fj.ev ol epaoTal siradov, OVK oMa, vid. Apol. 17 A ; ibid.: del yap Trore VTTO TUV 
 veuv re Kal /ca/lwv eKTrhr/TTouat, vid. Charm. 155 C ff. ; with 133 B cf. Meno 71 B, 
 etc.; Solon's yr/pdaKu 6' del TroAAd didaaKouevoc occurs also Laches 188 B, Rep. 
 536 D; on /leTrrov vrrb /uept/Livuv, 134 B, see Phaedrus 276 B, Rep. 607 C; 
 cjuo^oyovuev Tpelg otref, 134 E, is especially frequent in the Laws; the com- 
 parison of learning with food (oiiaovv ev T&V irpoa^epo^evuv i^v%y EGTL Kal rd 
 ju,ad?/uaTa ; 134 D) occurs in Legg. 8ioE; aTropiac; ueoToi, 134 E, is found 
 frequently, vid. Fritzsche ad Meno 80 A ; 136 E : dvouofoyyaaoOai rd elpqptva, 
 vid. Symp. 200 E (cf. also Prof. 332 D : dvatoyiauuefia rd uuohoyyueva rjfuv) ; 
 on the connection of Kohd&iv and fietoioTovc Trotelv, 137 BC, see Rep. 445 A 
 and Gorg. 511 ff. (cf. also note 14 to Minos}. Of course the reduction to 
 unity of ftaoL^inrj^ TvpavvtKq, etc., in 138 C, is due to Polit. 258 E, 259 B, and 
 Euthyd. 291 B ff . 
 
 10 In 137 B ff., reaching its height in 137 DE. 
 
would make philosophy wholly practical ; n but, as representing 
 one aspect of Plato's thought, it proceeds from a basis quite 
 incontestable. 12 
 
 Though we thus find a terminus post quern in Ale. //, we have 
 not yet discovered a terminus ante quern ; but this is given in the 
 reference of the Clitopho to our dialogue. 13 We have now to 
 enquire what motive our author may have had in writing the 
 Anterastae. On the whole it seems most probable that he was 
 an admirer of the Socratic Platonism,if we may employ this term 
 to designate the original philosophy of Plato, which evolved from 
 the ethics of Socrates, in distinction from the Pythagoreanizing 
 tendency of the heads of the older Academy and the empirical 
 methods of Aristotle. Speusippus had said that, to define any 
 one thing, you must know all, 1 * thus agreeing in part with the 
 still more inductive Aristotle, who defined philosophy as the 
 knowledge of first principles which old nws xdvra rd uxoxeineva. 
 Now, it is not surprising that our author should consider this 
 only a recrudescence of the vain encyclopedism against which 
 Heraclitus had directed his saying, KoXofj.ct.Oiri voov ob dtddezst, and 
 against the Sophists' practice of which Plato had protested. 16 In 
 Ant. 135 B we have the scope of philosophy thus defined by the 
 polymath : >' u u.v TrAe^Vnyv dozav s%oi rcq el$ <piXoffo<pia.v ' 7:A.etffTir]v 
 d'av e%ot dd^av, st Sozoiy rwv re^vwv tjjutetpot el vat 
 
 11 This assumption is not justified by the dialogue. It merely asserts 
 that, against the view which would reduce the philosopher to a general 
 vTraKpos, there is at least one sphere, viz. the l practical" 1 (in the Kantian 
 sense), in which he must be first. And this contention is closely analogous 
 to that of Gorg. 459 C ff. 
 
 12 The reduction of the virtues to cufypocvvrj and diKaioavvrj in connection 
 with 7ro/Uf and oiida, as in Ant. 138 A f., was probably influenced by Meno 
 73 A ff., and is to a certain extent justified by it. 
 
 13 It can hardly be doubted that such a reference to Ant. 137 DE exists 
 in Clit. 408 AB : el 6s riq avayKr) r)v e7, 6ov?M d/ueivov f/ kfavdipy didyeiv rw 
 TOIOVTU TOV PIOV eoriv apa, KaOcnrep irtoiov Trapado^rt, rd TTTfdd^iia rrjq Siavoias a/lAcj, 
 Ttl /j,a66vri rrjv ruv dvdpuiruv K.vfipvrjTiK.r/i>, rjv Srj av TTO^ITIKT/V, w 2o)/cparef, krcovo- 
 /uid^eif Tro/lAd/cff, rfjv avrr/v 6i/ ravrrfv diKacTtuqv re KOL diKatoavvqv wf Ian "kkyuv. 
 Cf. also Ant. 136 B, quoted in note 6. 
 
 14 Arist. Anal. Post. 97* 6 ff. See Zeller II a, p. 996 f. 
 
 15 Arist. Met. 982*, 21 ff. Compare on this and what follows, Teichmuller, 
 der Begriff des irnrafdcty^vof, in Aristotel. Forsch. II, p. 55 ff. 
 
 16 It is noteworthy that in the Anterastae there is no reference whatever 
 to the Sophists, a reference which in this connection Plato must surely 
 have made. 
 
52 
 
 t de /jt^'jO/s xXeiffruiv ye xdi fjLdAtffra dztohoywv, /j.a0d) abra>v 
 raora, a npoffijxei roT? iXeuOipots fj.a0e~iv, o<ra guvgffstoq 
 e/era, py o<j a. %s t pou pytas . It has been observed that if 
 Plato were the author of the dialogue this passage would contain 
 the first distinct opposition of the liberal to the mechanical arts. 
 But the whole sentence reads like a popular restatement of Aris- 
 totle's distinction between arts Oewpynxat and Trooyruac'. 17 So 
 Aristotle says: uizoXafj.ftdvoiJ.sv dij -xpaJrov fj.ev in iffr affd ai Tidvra 
 rov ffO(f>ov ajq ivdiy^erai, fj.rj xaO* ZxaffTov e^ovra ixtffTrj- 
 /j.rjv aorwv , 18 
 
 We shall see, when we come to treat of the Epinomis, that 
 Aristotle had early expressed his views on this subject in Hep} 
 Q'.koffoyiaq, which, aside from a few fragments, we now possess 
 only in the revision presented in the first two chapters of his 
 Metaphysics. It seems not improbable that in that popular work 
 we have the real opponent against which the polemic of the 
 Anterastae is directed. 19 This would not, of course, exclude the 
 possibility of our author's deriving suggestion from other Aris- 
 totelian works, 20 and in the second argument against philosophy 
 as xoXu p.a.6 ia we may perhaps recognize an attempt to reaffirm 
 Plato's position as against Aristotle's criticism : offot [j.ev ov 
 
 17 See Arist. Met. 9823 i [Compare also Ale. I, 131 B], 
 
 18 Ibid. 982a, 8 ff. 
 
 19 Following the words above quoted from Ant., we have the mention of 
 TK.TovLKrj, TEKTuv and (tpxtTKTuv, with which compare Arist. Met. 98 1, 30 
 ff. : 6i6 nal roi)f dp^treKrovag irepl EKCIGTOV Tt/uiurepov^ nal fiaMiQV eifisvai vo/u,iofj,ev 
 T&V x i P rK X v ^ v Ka i cofyuTipovg . . . . ug ob Kara TO TrpaKTLK,ovg elvai aofarepovc; 
 
 f, d/lAd /card TO 7.6yov e^eiv. 98 i b , 31 : . . . copuTepos, 6 6e TEXVLT^ TCJV 
 j x et -P r ^X vov & apxiTinTurv, al 6g dEuprjTLnal TUV TroirjTiK&v /nd^ov. For 
 in Anterastae, 135 B, cf. Met. 982^ 25 ff. 
 
 20 It is just possible that the conceit of the TrevTad^. which struck the 
 fancy of the Alexandrians and made them suspect that Plato intended by 
 it a characterization of Democritus (D. L. IX 37), may have been sug- 
 gested by Aristotle's appreciation of the pentathlete in Eth. Nic. A, 
 JS^r 13 , 3-26. Be that as it may, the conceit itself has quite the appearance 
 of having originated with the Alexandrians. The names of IlevTadZos and 
 B?/ra bestowed on Eratosthenes (Ad TO 6evrepevetv kv rravTi eldei rratdeia^, Tolg 
 anpoiq kyyiaavTa, Suid.) by those at the Museum are evidence in point, unless 
 these were likewise suggested by the Anterastae. See Susemihl, I, p. 413, 
 n. 27. Besides, the remarks on moderation in gymnastic exercise in Anter. 
 p. 134 recur almost verbatim in Arist. Eth. Nic. 1104* n ff., and H38b 28 ff. 
 Grant supposes that Aristotle may have borrowed the words from Anterastae, 
 but the reverse is decidedly the more probable. 
 
53 
 
 xai olxovop^uov xai decrxoTixdv elvat TOV aurov, oo 
 In this manner also we can the more readily 
 account for the author's misconception of Plato's estimate of 
 learning; for his interest was polemical rather than expository. 22 
 
 XII. THEAGES. 
 
 Critics have, almost with one accord, athetized this dialogue as 
 a most manifest forgery. 1 Its eclectic character, indeed, and the 
 author's negligence in his extensive and sometimes quite literal 
 quotations from Plato, 2 amply justify their sentence. Our com- 
 piler, however, did not content himself with this, but proceeded 
 to relate anecdotes and make statements concerning the da.ip.6vwv 
 which do not harmonize with the characterization of it as previ- 
 ously given in Plato's language. 3 This test is simple and easily 
 applied, showing the uncritical character of the author's selection 
 of materials, and must not be complicated with the enquiry into 
 the real nature of Socrates' dat.p.6vtov. Different opinions may be 
 
 21 Arist. Pol. A. I252a, 7 ff. 
 
 22 For Plato's opinion see Legg. 819 A, Philebus 62 A ff. and Soph. 232 A ff. 
 
 1 Socher, Knebel, and Grote believed it to be genuine; Muller, partly 
 genuine, but with a large spurious addition (127 D to close). All others 
 reject it wholly. 
 
 2 See Theag. 127 E (also 127 A) from ECTLV kvravda /cat H.p66iKOf 6 Ketof to /cat 
 Xdpii> Trpof Tovrois eldevai and compare Apol. 19 E from uoirep Topyiag 6 A. /cat 
 IlpdrJt/cof 6 K. to /cat x&P LV npooetdevat. Here even the anacoluthon of the 
 original (TOVTOVS TreiOovciv) is retained, although Trddovoi occurred just before. 
 7^heag. 1286: ovdev yap TOVTCJV eTricTa/uai ruv [xanapiuv re /cat /ca/lwv 
 
 7ret kftovAo^rjv av, cf. Apol. 20 C : eyu ovv /cat avrbg e/caA/lwop/v re /cat 
 at>, el 7/7riOTdfj,rfv ravra a/U/ ov yap eTriara/nat. Theag. 138 C : eirel y<y otcfa T&V 
 E/J.UV ^tKtuTuv /cat oAtycj Trpeofivripuv, ol irplv JJLEV TOVTCJ awelvai ovdevbg af tot fjcav, 
 7rei(ty 6e cweyivovro TOVTU, kv iraw oAtycj xp6 V( i> KUVTUV /3e/lrtoi)f (paivovrat uv 
 Trporepov xeipovg, cf. Theaet. 154 D ; Theag. 128 D: ecri yap ri 6da juoipa TrapeKo- 
 jnevov e/not EK Traidbg ap^d/nevov 6aL[j,6vLOi>, eort 6e TOVTO favq, rj brav yivijTai, ad fj,oi 
 Oijjtaivei) b av /ue^M Trpdrreiv^ TOVTOV drrorpoTr^v^ TrpoTperrei 6e ovSeTrore is taken 
 quite literally from Apol. 31 D, with a change in the last sentence at once 
 seen to be an unfortunate attempt to vary the phrase. Theag. 129 B 
 depends in like manner upon Euthyd. 272 E; 129 E, upon Theaet. 151 A; 
 130 A, upon Theaet. 150 D and 151 E ; 130 D and 131 A, upon Theaet 150 D. 
 
 3 This contradiction becomes most conspicuous in I29E (note ovAMfiqrai), 
 which conflicts with the statement (128 D) that the daiftcviov has only a 
 negating or veto power. In dX/M ha6av (129 C) there is an admission fatal 
 to the prophetic spirit ascribed to Socrates and hardly in keeping with the 
 deification of the 6ai/aoviov (131 A). See also ?} favi/ rj TOV daiftoviov 
 (128 E). 
 
54 
 
 held on that question, based on the representations respectively 
 of Xenophon and Plato; but we are here concerned only with 
 weighing the claims of the Theages to be an authentic production 
 of Plato's. The Xenophontic account, therefore, may be entire]y 
 disregarded except as it affects the dating of our dialogue. In 
 this respect, indeed, it may be of value ; for, knowing that the 
 prophetic function of the dai^oviov was already illustrated in the 
 Memorabilia, 4 we shall not follow Stallbaum in assigning 150 B.C. 
 as a terminus post quern? 
 
 Its author quite evidently sought to impersonate Plato and to 
 have the Theages accepted as his work; not only does its scheme 
 of composition generally seem suggested by features of the 
 Protagoras and the mention of Theages in the Republic? but it 
 abounds even more than others of this group of forged dialogues 
 in imitations and reminiscences of Platonic passages easily recog- 
 nized. 7 I believe, moreover, that the particularly objectionable 
 
 4 Xenophon, Mem. I, i. 3-9. 
 
 5 Cicero (De Div., I 3, 6) mentions one Antipater of Tarsus (fl. ca. 150 
 B. C.) by whom " permulta collecta sunt, quae mirabiliter a Socrate divinata 
 sunt." Upon this work Stallbaum supposed the Theages to be dependent ; 
 hence the date. 
 
 6 Rep . 496 B : nal yap Qedyei rd fj,ev d/lAa irdv-a TrapeGKevaarai Ttpbg TO e 
 tyi/.oaofyiaZ) ?; 6e TOV a&uaros voaorpofyia cnreipyovoa avrbv TOV TTOAITIK&V 
 
 may have given occasion for the use of his name (cf. also ApoL 33 E). The 
 device of beginning the dialogue and then going elsewhere to complete it 
 may be the contribution of the Protag.; but here the walk to the Porch of 
 Zeus Eleutherius (also the scene of the Eryxias] is awkwardly accom- 
 plished in utter silence, with only an asyndeton to mark it. Most of the 
 characters mentioned are otherwise unknown, as Timarchus, Philemon, 
 Nicias, Sannion. Euathlus even (o aradtodpo/nuv) has the appearance of a 
 name chosen to suit the fictitious character. 
 
 7 Theag. 121 A : d ff^o/l?;, n. T. A. possibly after Phaedo 58 D, though this is 
 a common form of introducing a discussion see II. A. 374 B, Cebes, Tab. 
 111, etc.; in writing Theag. 121 C : r) 6e vvv Trapovoa eTTi6v/j.ia TOVTG) irdvv pe 
 yopel sort [lev yap OVK ayevvfa, otyafapa 6e, our author probably had Protag. 
 312 BC in mind. The use and reference (apparently false) to Euripides of 
 the verse ao(j>oi rvpavvoi ruv aofy&v cwovaia (125 B) was doubtless due to Rep. 
 568 AB, while ovdh kirtcrdfjievog TrMjv ye . . . ruv ipuriKuv (128 B) is a mis- 
 placed bit of pleasantry derived (doubtless) from Sytnp. 175 D (cf. Lysis 
 204 C). Perhaps Theag. 122 B : ov yap EGTI trepl brov BetoTepov av av6puTro 
 fiovJieiiGaiTo, rj rrspl iratdeiac is a reminiscence of Legg. 765 E f., and the 
 caution to define the subject-matter of consultation (ibid. BC) points appa- 
 rently to Legg. 638 C (but see Phaedrus 237 B). 
 
55 
 
 close (from 128 B) was called forth by the end of Alcibiades 7, 8 
 although we have already seen the sources whence the materials 
 were drawn. 9 In addition to this argument calculated to put a 
 fuller meaning into Plato's frequent parenthesis, v Oeos iOh} t 
 it also seeks, like IIsp\ 'Aperrjq, to turn to serious account a pass- 
 ing jest let fall by Plato in the Symposium. Finally, its affected 
 style 11 and impure diction 12 corroborate the verdict of spurious 
 
 8 Theages here expresses his willingness to accept Socrates for his 
 guide, kdv ourof eOeAy (128 C) knowing that his associates make sur- 
 prising progress ; to whom Socrates : olaQa ovvolov TOVTO kart ; Theages : vat pa 
 At', eyuyej brt kav av flovhiy . Socrates : o#/c, o 'ya^e, d/lAd ae /If/l^ev, olov TOVT' 
 eanv, eyu 6e aoi Qpdau (then follows the exposition of the mysterious offices 
 of the tiaiuoviov). All this is clearly a development of what was rather 
 abruptly broken off in Ale. /, 135 D: 'A. kav povhy ai), w 2w/cparef. 
 2. oi; /caAwf Aeyetf, & 'Afaifliddij. 'A. dA/ld iru<; XPW teyeiv; 2. on kav 6ebg 
 trie 7,i) (note Theag. 130 E : eartv ovv, w Qeayeg, roiavrrj r/ rjfierepa cvvovaia kav 
 uev r (I deC. <pi^ov 77, Ttaw TTO^V STrtducetg /cat ra^i, el 6e pr], ov. Other 
 things also point to the same dialogue : thus Theag. 122 E : OVK idtddgard ae 
 6 -ari/p /cat etraitievaev anep evfldde ol aTJwi ireiraidewTCU . . . olov ypdfifMrd re /cat 
 Kidapi&iv /cat Trahaieiv, cf. Ale. /, 106 E; Theag. 123 C ff. is strikingly like 
 Ale. /, 124-5. Theag. 125 E: cvfaifujv fj.es dv, oljuatj eyu-ye Tvpavvo^ yeviaQai, 
 iLidAtora /Liev Trdvruv avdpuTruv, el 6e fif], wf TrXeioruv ; cf. Ale. /, 104 B, and Ale. 
 //, 141 AB; Theag. 126 A: nal av y' dv, ol//at, /cat ol dAAoi Trdvref dvdputroi, 
 cf. Ale. II, 141 B : eyw fj.ev olfiai . . . Kav d/iAov ovrivovv. This passage, it 
 will be noted, displays a dependence also on Ale. II. 
 
 9 See note 2. 
 
 10 Theag. 130 E, virtue is said to go out of Socrates at a touch of his gar- 
 ment, a mere extension of the ironical jest in Symp. 175 D; cf. also note 
 10 to Axiochus. 
 
 11 Note the asyndeton in 121 B and C, and again twice in 129 C. Affec- 
 tation is evident in Trpoaa-yopei>ufj.ev and /caAov bvopa, 122 D, which are quite 
 of a piece and remind one of TO ^pvaiov TO hapirpov, Ep. /, 309 B. So too 
 77 rd ap/Lcara Kvfiepv&ai, 123 C, a metaphor which is poetical and becomes 
 common only in the faded modern languages. See Fritzsche ad loc., who 
 refers to gubernare in Mart. IX 23 and Seneca Hippol. 1069 foil. But 
 Arist. Phys. 203^ n already speaks of Anaximander's drreipov as ireptexeiv 
 inravra /cat irdvra Kvfiepvdv, and Parmenides, v. 128, mentions the Saijuuv fj 
 Trdvra Kvftepvg, (cf. also KvftepvrJTtq as applied to the daiauv in Diels, Dox., 
 p. 335 b 15). Ammon. Comment, ad Arist. de interpr., 11, c. 7, says, 
 according to the Stoics : ol Qeol TOVTOV rbv rponov rd nepl r//j,dg Kv^epvuaL. See 
 also Polycarp. Ep. ad Philipp. c. n : qui autem non potest se in his 
 gubernare (doubtless representing Kvfiepvav in the Greek original) and 
 
 ruv ocj/jtdruv j/jLiuv, Martyr. Polycarp. c. XIX. Theag. 126 B : d/2or- 
 Kal o'lKeioig aKovrioiq is a bit of foolish subtlety that was gratefully 
 caught up by the author of the Clitopho and elaborated 408 A. See my 
 note 2 to that dialogue. Theag. 130 B : olov TJV TO dvdpdno6ov is too grossly 
 
56 
 
 passed upon the dialogue by modern scholarship. Its date falls 
 later than that of Alcibiades II. 13 
 
 XIII. ALCIBIADES II. 
 
 Of the many works inspired by the appearance and success of 
 the Alcibiades /, our dialogue stands nearest to the original, 
 though by no means equalling it in excellence. Its subject is 
 prayer, a topic which, as we well know, engaged the thought of 
 Socrates and Plato, 1 and was, therefore, well suited to a Socratic 
 dialogue. Even the conclusion reached is in perfect harmony 
 with Plato's teaching : reasons, consequently, for the rejection of 
 the treatise must be derived from the manner in which the matter 
 is presented. And, first, we have to note its indebtedness to 
 Ale. I? displayed even in the repetition of its peculiarities. 
 Chief among these mannerisms is the catching up every (appar- 
 ently) chance remark as an opportunity for introducing discus- 
 sions almost or quite irrelevant to the ostensible purpose. Thus 
 Alcibiades says of Oedipus (138 C), O.MO. ffo /j.ev, a> Iw 
 
 and Socrates abruptly rejoins : TO [j-awsffdai apa 
 
 vulgar to credit Plato with it. Xen. Mem. IV 2, 29, is less objectionable, 
 and even Ale. 7, 120 B, is not so offensive. The cheap erudition of 124 is 
 more obtrusive than elsewhere in the Pseudo-Platonica. 
 
 12 1 note 121 A: idioAo-yqaaadat (Cobet's conj. 6iato-yioao6ai is rendered 
 improbable by the party sequestering itself in the Porch); do/cw /not, 121 D, 
 where Schanz reads 6oK.el poi, without MSS. authority, though retaining 
 6oK& fioi t Ale. 7, 135 C, and Ale. 77, 150 D, vid. also Hipparch. 231 B ; ofiov 
 TI TOVTU y &MV, 129 D, a construction apparently not pre-Alexandrian, 
 which Fritzsche has illustrated ad loc. Plato uses bpov only in the sense 
 of 'together with.'' Finally KarenrE, 123 B, looks suspicious. 
 
 13 See end of note 8. 
 
 1 For Socrates, see Xen. Mem. I 3, i ff.; for Plato, the Euthyphro, with 
 books V and X of the Laws. 
 
 2 The extent of this can be appreciated only after a minute comparison. 
 I can here notice only a few points : The discussion of <j>p6vifj,oL and afypoves 
 (140 E) harks back to Ale. 7 125 A ff. ; Alcibiades' ambitions are described 
 (141 AB) in almost the same terms as Ale. 7 105 A-C; for oi JLLEV irf.pl irotepav 
 TE Kai elptjvw (144 E) cf. Ale. 7 107 U ff., a reference made more obvious by 
 what follows (145 B); for 145 D : TO /card rav-rjv TT]V rkxyrfv fi&rtov, vid. Ale. I 
 108 A-E ; for 146 D : AwwrefoZ apa rolq 7ro/l/loZf /w^r' eldevai (a wrong applica- 
 tion of the principle, betraying the imitator) fajOiv jtfif' oleadai Eldevai, vid. 
 Ale. 7 116 D ff. ; 149 A: xPW- Ta ovdh e/ldrrw KEKTV/LLEVOI (sc. oi AaKedatiadviOi) 
 rrjq -f/fj-Erepaq Tnttfwf, cf. the glowing description of their wealth, Ale. I 
 
 122 E ff. 
 
57 
 
 rtD ippovelv ; This is the occasion for the long 
 digression (138 -140 D) on the paradox: ra<r aypcw nabe-cat* A 
 similarly gratuitous disquisition is that (143 6-144 C) on the text, 
 " Where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise." Were the 
 experiment worth the pains, one might be tempted to expunge 
 this entire section; for here occur the absurd illustrations of 
 Orestes and Alcmaeon, and the still more grotesque fiction of 
 Alcibiades' attempt against the life of Pericles. Another man- 
 nerism appears in a striking fondness for smart turns of expres- 
 sion, many even bearing the same general stamp. 4 Our author 
 is also a <ptX6[j.r}po<; t possibly by sympathy, but more probably 
 because of Plato's well-known indulgence in apt allusions to the 
 poet. But, while Plato in this respect also displayed unfailing 
 good taste, this characteristic is here wanting, 5 and while Plato 
 
 3 This paradox had, indeed, its origin in the teaching of Socrates, but 
 was carried to the extreme by the Stoics, cf. Cic. Farad. Stoic. IV, and 
 Alex. Aphrod. De Fato, c. XXVIII. Some have thought our author a 
 Stoic, but that was clearly an error, since he seeks to refute the propo- 
 sition; but he may well have been led to the discussion because of this 
 contention by the Stoics. 
 
 *Note the following: 142 A: VTTO ruv avitofyavruv TroTiiopKov/Lievoi TroXtopKiav 
 oi'dev fAdrrw rrjq virb ruv rro^eiuiuv (cf. xP^i uaTa ovOev e^idrru /c. r.A., 149 A); 
 142 A: evxeoOai dcrparrjyrjrov^ elvat fiaMwv rj kcrparrj-yriKEvai ; 142 C : (3ovAo- 
 fievovg av ayevrjra /udliAov elvat ij yeveoOai ; 141 D : ipaadevra rfjq rvpavvidog ovBev 
 TJTTOV fjTrep K.ivo<; TUV iraidtKuv; 143 D : ovrot rbv heyovra, wf OVK av kdk^oiq cot 
 ravra KETrpaxOai, ev^rf/aelv del oe nehsveiv, aA/d ^dAAov Tro/lw, el r/f rd kvavria Aeyoi. 
 The verb avev^ofiai (142 D, repeated 148 B, but occurring nowhere else) 
 may be classed with a-yevTjra and the equally forced d<Trpar//y^roi>f ; the reck- 
 less indifference of KO.I ri av ri$ $WVOOITO (138 A) and the unmotivated 
 abruptness of TTCL^IV av fioi 6oKel (147 E) are really vulgar. It is hard to say 
 how the Greeks were affected by avdp&v pj/Topmtiv KOSTIKOV fyvcrjua fyvauvTuv 
 (145 E). Compare Athenaeus 591 F : lore 6e bri nal A^dd^f 6 pr/rop k% 
 eraipaf eTratdoTrotqGaTo Arjuzav bv <j)pvaTTo/Liev6v Trore ETTC rov 
 
 e'nr&v Oil Gtoirfjori, [ieipaKiov, fiel^ov r^f [j.rjTpbg ix ( " )V 
 
 5 See 140 A : ovv re 6vo (cf. II. X 224) here inept, suggested by Symp. 
 174 D ; 141 D : $& re /cat Trpw'ifd (cf. II. II 303) meant to mend e%0ef /cat 
 TrpcJ^v in Gorg. 470 D, by which passage our author was led into a most 
 striking anachronism; for he thus brings in the death of Archelaus, occur- 
 ring in 399 B. C., as a subject of conversation between Alcibiades and 
 Socrates, presumably thirty years before (for Alcibiades is surely consid- 
 ered here, as in Ale. /, as still a very young man), whereas both had died 
 before Archelaus. Again, ot 6e /cat avrot a^r/Gtv eire araada/aatoiv elre d<j>pa- 
 dicuat XPV MKeiVt vnep /udpov a/lye' exovai (142 D) is from Od. I 33 f. with 
 additions from another poet made in Plato's manner. 
 
58 
 
 never attributes to Homer any works except the Iliad and Odys- 
 sey, he is here credited with the Margites. 6 Again, the fictitious 
 war between the Athenians and Lacedaemonians, with the 
 embassy to the oracle of Ammon (148 D ff.), is probably only an 
 ill-conceived invention to rival the myth of Critias in the Timaeus. 
 Yet, despite this general familiarity with the works of Plato and 
 not infrequent imitation of them, 7 the diction betrays the influence 
 of a later age. 8 This last mark is so convincing that it were no 
 wonder if the doubts as to our dialogue's authenticity arose from 
 a sense of this fact. Some one, to be sure, absurdly enough 
 
 6 First quoted in Plato's manner (147 B) ro rov TTOITJTOV, then Homer is 
 expressly named (147 D). The works of some tragic (?) poet probably 
 supplied the phrases oawTrep av Aaftporepov iirovpicri TO rfjq rvxw (147 A) and 
 dtarehuv kv ireMysi, xpovov ov paKpbv (3iov Osov (ibid). The expression papyov 
 TI (148 A) doubtless contains an extremely insipid pun on Mapytr^f, of 
 which no student of Plato can believe him capable. 
 
 7 See Rep. 474 CD for a list of euphemisms like that in 140 CD. The 
 sentence kitelvos /uev hoirep owJ' jyi^ero, oi'rP cTero (141 A) is on the model of 
 such as Apol. 21 D : iyu tie, ctaTrep OVV'OVK olda, ov6e oiopat,, or Meno 84 A ; the 
 long parenthesis (143 B-I44 C) on tne value of ignorance seems manifestly 
 based on Leg%. 638 C, and the abrupt introduction of the idea of the 
 highest good (143 D ff. , esp. 144 D) comes just as clearly from Charm. 
 174 B ff. The verse Iv" 1 avro<; avrov rvyxdvy Kpdrtarof &v (146 A) was no doubt 
 suggested by Gorg. 484 E. The clause a ri fat itaB' e/ccara teyetv (138 C, and 
 cf. 140 B : ovf ri 6et nad' enaara heyetv) was surely intended as an imitation 
 of Plato, but betrays its author, since Plato employs it only in referring 
 back briefly to things previously enumerated in detail. 
 
 8 Among expressions unplatonic or late i note these: iatcvdpuTranevat, 
 138 A; 6'tKJjv 6sduKevat, 139 D, 'repent of /'/'; (nrepyaciav and diairp&TTdvreu,. 
 140 B; fteydboifoxovf, 140 C, and fj,eya^,oipvxiav t 150 C, deprecatingly ; i]v kv 
 apxy rov Adyov, aneiTTeov elvai, 140 D ; o>f Trd^rac, 141 B, and <Jf TO. Tro/lAd ye, 
 146 C, like wf TT/leZcrra ; the poetic KEKvpyitoTa, 141 B, and /cardpa, 143 B; 
 e'nrelv (for kpurqv) el evdov eari, 143 E (cf. Diog. Laert. VII 172); ay fivvr)6u t 
 145 A, used absolutely; for rv%6v, 140 A, 150 C, see note 2 to Eryxias ; 
 , 145 D, for K.da~^v rovruv ; dvd hoyov rovrot^, ibid., where Plato has 
 vTus (cf. .fiW/^/^. 13 C, etc.) or OVTU Kara TOV avrbv "koyov (cf. Lysis 215 E); 
 EK.6e8vK.ivaL, 148 A ; 6 ri TTOTS ev vC. exeig irpb^ ravra, 150 B, cf. also 143 A; 
 <dv> idoi/ui 6e^dfj,evov e^avrdv, 151 B, a curious variant on the usual 
 av degaipjv, intended, I presume, to match the preceding words of 
 Alcibiades : brav kKelvrjv rrjv rjp,pav eWovaav Ida). Besides the foregoing 
 examples, note : ulda/uev, 142 A, 145 D (cf. oldare, Demod. 311 E); aTroKpiOqvai, 
 149 B ; 7rav/lff, 149 D, ' camp '; the forms p/6ev and ovdev, which, according 
 to Stallb. ad 141 D, are presented by all the best MSS. Hermann and 
 Schanz properly print these forms, though not consistently. 
 

 OF THE 
 
 v UNIVERSITY 
 
 59 ^ 
 
 thought of attributing it to Xenophon; 9 but it is not improbable 
 that Ale. II 147 A: aveu yap TabT-qc; <SC. rfe TOO fa 
 
 k~'.GTr i >j.r i q> , o ffu>~sp ay AafipoTpoy l-oopiffy TO T^S 
 
 TWV , TO (TOOT (p fj. t to d fj. a p T ifj fj. a T a an' auTw v dvayxatov 
 iffT', ?{?';& 6 a i , though the thought is common Socratic prop- 
 erty, 10 is only a rhetorical revision of a saying of Aristotle's (frag. 
 57, Rose, from the Protrepticus?): roT? ?dp 8taxetplvot<; ra xep\ rr t v 
 4 ] v/Jp xax&s GOT rrAoDro? our' I ff%b s o OT 7.dXXoq T S)v 
 O.Y 0.6 &v t<7Tv* aAA' o G it> ~ p dv aoT a c jj.o.XXov a. I 
 7. ad' &x e p ft o /Li)V b - d p ^ w G i , r o a o OT <p 7.a\ ttk* iu) xa\ 
 T ov xexrrjfjidvov fi Xd~r o o a i y 10 p\q (ppovijasioq 
 fj. v a c. . 
 
 XIV ERYXIAS. 
 
 The Eryxias is distinctly the most valuable contribution of 
 antiquity to the science of political economy. The thoughts that 
 wealth depends upon value ; that value means utility, and utility 
 is measured by the directness with which a given thing subserves 
 the primary needs of meat, drink and shelter ; and that intellec- 
 tual attainments constitute an important part of one's capital, are 
 here clearly enunciated. Owing to its intrinsic worth we should 
 therefore be pleased to know the grounds on which ancient critics 
 agreed 1 to athetize this dialogue. But we may be quite sure that 
 these grounds were external rather than internal ; for the form 
 and language 2 are too like to Plato's to have aroused their sus- 
 
 9 Athenaeus XI 506 C: 6 yap devrepog <'AA/c^ / 3mJ^f> far6 rtvav & 
 elvai ^eyerai. The fact mentioned in note i probably accounts for the selec- 
 tion of Xenophon. 
 
 10 There are various passages in which Plato expresses the thought, but 
 none of them corresponds so well as that quoted from Aristotle. If it were 
 not already clear that Ale. II is later than Aristotle, there might be room for 
 a possible doubt as to these precise utterances. The bxoyjiffy does not 
 occur in Aristotle, but otherwise the equivalence in the two passages is 
 sufficiently plain. 
 
 ! Diog. Laert. Ill 62. 
 
 2 In view of the general excellence of style it may seem hypercritical to 
 call attention to the painfully awkward period constituting X. The diction 
 is less pure ; note ug ?/,?, 392 C ; rd elg TTAOVTOV ijnovra, 392 E; dvrflra^otTaf, 
 395 B; 'nnraaias, 396 A; vTrsdei-co, 396 E; arufivhov and exheva^e, 397 D; 
 aAeag, 401 E; yaarplfiapyoi and otpfy/tvy??, 405 E. So /Id/off, ovg vvvl Siaheyd- 
 /*e6a, 395 A, is strange ; Tv%6v, 399 B, does not occur in Plato, but see 
 Ale. II 140 A, 150 C, Epist. XIV, and Alcyon IV ; ol bvreq avfipuTroi, 394 C, 
 
6o 
 
 picion. Yet the evidence of spuriousness is not far to seek. 
 Quite probably this dialogue grew out of the discussions in the 
 Euthydemus (278 -282), from which not only the central idea, 
 but also several lesser details are apparently derived. 3 The first 
 part (392-394 E) proceeds in a manner quite Platonic; but thence- 
 forth the argument becomes truly eristic. Were Plato its author 
 we should doubtless find the final paradox characterized as such, 
 whereas we are left with the conviction that the conclusion must 
 Stand, atffTS a.\>6.^-/.r^ av yfj.~iv (paivoivro ol xXooffidtTaroi ^o^O^porara 
 dtaxstftevot. We know, indeed, that Plato rated wealth low in 
 the scale of Goods; but the words of Cephalus (Rep. 330 D ff.) 
 are not compatible with those of Critias (Eryx. 396 E), and Plato's 
 own utterances in the Laws 4 ' show that wealth was not in his 
 view avw^sAe?, the objective point of the argument here. These 
 indications are confirmed by the fact that Plato's immediate suc- 
 cessors, Aristotle, Speusippus, Xenocrates, Grantor, opposed that 
 view, 5 which characterized the Cynics and descended from them 
 to the Stoics. Seeing therefore that the author, though taking 
 an independent position, sought to imitate Plato, 6 I follow 
 
 is noteworthy ; tyalveodai ejuoiye do/ceZ, 399 C, and eiuoiye doKtl ovru 
 
 406 B, are decidedly curious; rd Trpbg riva xp ' iav XPfat-t 10 - XP^ c ^ a 
 
 ian, 401 B, is a sample play on cognate words; the use of e^f, 405 DE, 
 
 though a word whose meaning in Plato is difficult to determine, reminds 
 
 one strongly of Arist. Met. I022b 10 ff.; finally, /.oyidiov, 401 E, is a word 
 
 characteristic of the Eristics, as may be seen from Isocrates Or. XIII, 20. 
 
 3 Compare Eryx. 393 E : o'irive? /ud/uara ev irpdrroiev, with Etithyd. 280 B ; 
 Eryx. 397 A : el 6e ye JUT? virdpxoi Tthovaiu elvat ra dvdpu-u, K.T.A., with 
 Euthyd. 281 BC. Diimmler (Akademika, p. 274) recognizes the similarity 
 of our passage to the Euthyd., but tries to vindicate the argument for 
 Prodicus. In this respect his conclusions may well be doubted. 
 
 4 728 E f .: o>f <5' airwf /} ruv xpqftdrwv /cat Kry/udruv K.rfjaig Kal ripqaeuc /card rbv 
 avrbv pvd/nbv IX L ' TQ ^ v virF.poyKa yap sada-ov rovruv ix@P a /ca * ordffeif dnep- 
 yd^erai raZc irdAeci Kal idia, rd d' iAAeiTrovra do*/liaf a>f TO Ttokv. Vid. also 
 Legg. 717 C. 
 
 5 See Cic. de fin. IV 18, 49 : "Aristoteles, Xenocrates, tota ilia familia 
 non dabit, quippe qui valetudinem, viris, divitias, gloriam, multa alia bona 
 esse dicant." Plut. adv. Stoicos, p. 1065, ol TOV ZsvoKpdrove Kal STrevaiirirov 
 KaTTjyopovvreq eirl ru fj.% TTJV vyeiav d6id(j>opov qyeloOai fj.t]6k rbv TT^OVTOV 
 
 Grantor, ap. Sext. Empir. (Bekker, p. 558, 1. 4 ff.) TOVTUV ovv 
 hfyvec rd fj.ev Trpurela rrj apery dTrod&covai, rd 6e (kvrepela ry vyeia, 
 rd de rpira ry rjdovri, rehevralov 6e rd^ovoL rbv Trhovrov (imitating loosely the 
 scheme in the Philebus] makes the strongest concessions. 
 
 6 See supra for the Euthydemus; 393 B: neap/Ka /c.r./i. is probably a 
 reminiscence of Theaet. 143 AB ; dvayo/u,evov, wf, 392 E, and dvravi/ysro . . . 
 
6i 
 
 Steinhart 7 in attributing the Eryxias to some later Socratic in 
 sympathy chiefly with Antisthenes and the movement that even- 
 tuated in the Stoa. The ostentatious display of learning in respect 
 of ancient currency 8 is in perfect keeping with such origin, a little 
 after 300 B. C. 
 
 XV. ALCIBIADES I. 
 
 Every age may be said to possess its own peculiar spirit, which 
 in some one of its leaders becomes incarnate. This individual 
 then comes naturally to be the ideal of his contemporaries and 
 for future generations the most adequate exponent of the charac- 
 ter of his time. Such was the singular eminence attained by 
 Alcibiades as the type of the Athenian temper during the latter 
 half of the fifth century B. C.; and consequently the relations 
 between him and Socrates acquired a universal significance, as of 
 something not merely individual but representative. That the 
 ancients themselves appreciated this circumstance is shown by 
 the appearance of the Socratic dialogues, entitled Alcibiades, 
 which were attributed to men of the next generation. 1 Of these 
 only two remain, both ascribed with little hesitation 2 to Plato. 
 Modern scholarship, indeed, has tended to pronounce them 
 spurious ; but, though this judgment is undoubtedly correct, the 
 
 wf, 398 E, come evidently from Charm. 155 D ; 395 B, the checkmating, see 
 Rep. 487 C ; 395 C, spelling Socrates' name, see Theaet. 203 A; in 403 D 
 Critias says : } irdvv oyddpa TOVTOVS TOV$ /idyot'f aKpo&/j,evos, oi)f /ecu av vvv 
 Tvyxdvetc 6fj diegiuv, aya/tat. Eltrov ovv eyu < Socrates > on fiot 6onei cv, u 
 Kpiri'a, ov~u kfiov xaipeiv d/epow^evoc;, (Jctrep ruv paipuduv ol rd 'O/uqpov ITTTJ adovoiv. 
 This seems clearly an elaboration of the situation in Ion 532 D : ^aipo) yap 
 CLKOVUV vfiuv ruv aotyuv, Socrates' comparison here being suggested by the 
 discussion of rhapsodes there. For 398 C : p.a66vra Trap 1 erepov fy avrbv 
 Et-evpovra, see note 8 to Ale . I. On the other hand the Eryxias was imitated 
 in Hipparchus (see note 2 to Hipparch.}. The opening sentence of Cebes' 
 Tabula also imitates the beginning of Eryxias. 
 
 7 In Muller, vol. VII, p. 14. 
 
 B Eryx. 399 E ff . I may here add that in 395 C : uaTrep ov napuv roZf 
 e/^TTpocdev hefoj/uevoic we probably have a reference to the proverb found in 
 Heraclitus (ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. V 14, p. 718 P) : aovveroi aKoiaavreg 
 KU(j)oiaiv ioinacf <t>a.Tt avroiat /uaprvpel Trapeovra^ drretvai, occurring also in 
 Nauck's Frag. Trag. Grace, ed. II, sub Adespota No. 517, and in Aristo- 
 phanes' Knights, 1118 ff. 
 
 Antisthenes, Aeschines and Euclides are named, D. L. II 61, II 108, 
 VI 18. 
 
 2 See note 9 to Ale. II. 
 
62 
 
 final presentation of the case against their claims has not been 
 made. 3 
 
 It is a significant fact that many of the ancients regarded Ale. I 
 as peculiarly adapted to serve as an eiffafwy-r] dq TOUT /7/arwvo? 
 dtaXofooq. Its merits are indeed quite considerable, 4 though it 
 hardly attains the high standard of 'A-ruov, so/apt, ar^pt-Trov, 
 avevSeiq? The very qualities, in fact, which won for it the 
 unstinted praise of the Neo-Platonists prove its spuriousness 
 beyond a doubt. What then are these characteristics? In the 
 first place, it is clear that the argument leads, with far less devia- 
 tion from the direct course than any Platonic dialogue, to a result 
 also more positively maintained than is Plato's wont. Further- 
 more, in its character as a primer of Platonism in regard to ethics 
 and politics, Alcibiades /contains a greater number of distinctively 
 Platonic thoughts than can be found in any of even the greater 
 single works of Plato. In this respect the dialogue may be pro- 
 nounced too Platonic. But there is also a reverse side to this 
 picture; for this predominating genuineness of content is pur- 
 chased at great cost to the form. True to its aim as a protreptic 
 discourse calculated to give philosophy its rightful place in the 
 life of man, it proceeds eclectically, choosing the finished con- 
 cepts and philosophical commonplaces available for its purpose 
 and combining them cleverly, indeed, but only formally for the 
 attainment of the intended result. It will be interesting to sketch 
 the argument and to indicate the sources of the commonplaces 
 which are so lavishly introduced. 
 
 Alcibiades desires to know why Socrates is his most persistent 
 lover. Socrates replies that he has perceived that A. is restlessly 
 aspiring to greater things, and not valuing himself upon his wealth 
 
 3 The defense of Ale. I by Stallbaum (V, p. 193 foil.) and Steinhart 
 (I, p. 135 foil.) was perhaps sufficient as against the objections of Schleier- 
 macher and Ast ; but Steinhart even there perceived the weakness of his 
 case and later gave it up. Zeller (Zeitschr. f. d. Alterthumsw. 1851) mainly 
 restated Ast's criticisms; but Cobet (Mnemosyne, n. s. vol. II, p. 369 foil.) 
 took some good points, though chiefly concerned with reconstituting the 
 text. 
 
 4 Particularly the comparison of Alcibiades' estate with that of the Persian 
 and Lacedaemonian kings (121 A ff.) is conceived very much in the spirit 
 of Pl'ato. 
 
 5 Albinus' ~iaayuyrj in Hermann, Vol. VI, p. 148. Kvicala (Zeitschr. f. 
 oesterreich. Gymnasien, 1863) has pointed out many of the superficialities 
 of our dialogue ; but some of his strictures upon it are quite unfounded. 
 

 V^ 
 
 or THE 
 UNIVERSITY I 
 
 nskl>V.^^ 
 
 and noble birth. His ambitions are far-reaching, but to be 
 realized only by the aid of Socrates. Hitherto the god had 
 restrained the latter from addressing him, because his hour was 
 not yet come. But now that A., almost twenty years of age, 6 is 
 about to come forward as a political leader, the silence must be 
 broken. In order to give counsel, he must possess knowledge 7 of 
 those things with which politicians deal. What knowledge has 
 he ? Such only as he may have been taught or may himself have 
 discovered. 8 He has had teachers only in writing, wrestling and 
 playing on the lyre, 9 but is not to give counsel in such matters. 
 He intends to advise concerning peace and war, 10 which involve 
 the knowledge of justice, 11 a knowledge which he has not discov- 
 ered, because he never sought, never even suspected the need of 
 seeking it, 12 and of which he can point to no better teachers than 
 
 6 1 23 D: irri oiide-u yeyovug afyodpa etKoatv. Yet Pericles is still alive 
 (104 B), so that Ale. must have been born in 449 B. C. at least, if there is 
 not here an anachronism. Ordinarily his birth is dated 445 B. C. 
 
 7 106 D. See 107 B : etcforof . . . nept inaarov avjuftov^, which is repeated 
 Demod. 381 B. Cf. Dio Chrysostom. Orat. XXVI. 
 
 8 1 06 D : OVK.OVV ravra [j,6vov olvda a Trap' d/lAwv spades % avrbg e^vpe^ ; This 
 is the first of the Platonic commonplaces, see Lack. 186 CE; Theatt. 150 D; 
 Euthyd. 285 A ; Phaedo 85 C, 99 C ; Crat. 439 B ; Rep. 618 C ; Hipp. Maj. 
 285 D. In Plato there is no strong insistence on it ; but here it is one of 
 the principal instruments of the argument. The importance attaching to 
 the disjunction here certainly accounts, in great part at least, for its 
 frequent recurrence in the later spurious works. See Eryx. 398 C ; Hip- 
 parch. 228 D ; Demod. 381 B E ; Epist. //, 312 B, 313 B ; VII, 341 C, 345 B. 
 
 9 io6 E. With 107 A cp. Arist. Eth. Nic. ni2b i ff. 
 
 10 107 D, see Gorg. 455 B ff. and Arist. Rhet. I359 b 19 ff. 
 
 11 107 D-iog C. In this connection another commonplace is introduced 
 (107 D-iog E): XPV & VX 'f PE^TIOV (sc. Tro/le^etv); . . . /cat TOTS OTTOTE /3A- 
 TLOV ; . . . /cat Toaovrov xpbvov baov a/uetvov ; This recurs 108 E, and Ale. II 
 143 BC, which latter passage shows clearly that the thought was derived 
 from Legg. 638 C : doKovai juot Trdiref ol /loyw ri hafiovrec; errcTr/devfia /cat irpodi- 
 (jiEVOL tyeyeiv avrb rj iiracvelv svdvc; prjBev ovda/uuf dpav Kara rpdirov, d/l/ld Tavrbi- 
 irotetv, olov ei 6fj nq tTtaivEaavrds rtvof rvpovs, (3p<J{j,a wf ayadov, ei>6vf TJjeyot, urj 
 6tcnrv66/Lievo(; avrov [tyre TJJV kpyaaiav fjLrjre TJ)V Trpoatyopdv, bvriva Tpdrrov /cat oiariGt 
 /cat //e^' uv /cat oTruf ZXOVTO. /cat oTrwf TrpocQepetv %ovciv. Cp. Arist. Eth. Nic. 
 iiO4b 22 f. The word aKpox^pi^aQaL, 107 E, occurs also Arist. Eth. Nic. 
 Illia 15. 
 
 12 106 D. This rests upon the general Socratic commonplace that the 
 confession of ignorance is the beginning of wisdom, and forms the key- 
 note of our dialogue, which attempts to convict A. of a false conceit of 
 knowledge in order to prepare him for entrance upon the philosophical life. 
 
6 4 
 
 the multitude. 13 But they are not competent to instruct one in 
 those things on which, as on justice and injustice, they are not 
 agreed. 14 Thus, as he has neither learned nor discovered the 
 nature of the just, Alcibiades admits that he has refuted himself 
 because he has himself made the affirmations which deny his 
 former assertions. 15 But though he confesses to ignorance of the 
 just, he asserts that the Athenians take counsel not concerning 
 what is right or wrong, but about expediency, 16 which may conflict 
 with justice. Socrates challenges A. to persuade him of that as 
 he would the assembly, 17 and proceeds to show that the just is the 
 honorable, the honorable the good, and the good the expedient. 18 
 A. now becames bewildered, thus revealing ignorance even of his 
 ignorance, for if aware of it he would not entertain an opinion. 19 
 False conceit of knowledge is the fruitful source of error. 20 If A. 
 
 13 1 10 E. Alcibiades here adduces the example of his vernacular, which 
 was derived from Prof. 327 E. 
 
 14 in B ff., an argument borrowed from Laches 186 D and repeated after 
 Ale. /in Minos 116 D, 117 B, and Demod. 380 A. 
 
 15 112 D-H3 C (vid. 114 E, 116 D). Reference is here made to Eurip. 
 Hippolytus, v. 352 : aov rdcT, OVK kuov K%i>ei<; t which was so greatly ridiculed 
 by Aristophanes, Equites. init. The questioning in 112 E certainly was 
 influenced by that in Meno 82 A foil., esp. 82 E. 
 
 16 1 13 D. This looks like the introduction of an Aristotelian distinction, 
 only to show its inadequacy by identifying the av/u^spov with the dinaiov. 
 See Arist. Rhet. I358b 20: re/lof . . . rw /UEV ov/ufiovAevovrt TO cvjupepov, and 
 ibid. 33. 
 
 37 1 14 B: {!, bucfajfffav v6/niaov Kal tirjfiov Kal inet rot ae derjaei eva eKaarov 
 Treidsiv, and 114 D: ev Efj,ol /u[j.e/iTT]oov (for which see Phaedrus 228 E: 
 /uavT6v cot /u.fj,^i~gv 7rape%eiv ov iravv dedonTai). The former passage, with 
 its amplification in 114 B-D (rov avrov tyaivsrai TTOAAOVC re Kal eva TreiOeiv) 
 harks back to Phaedr. 260 E foil., and was considered sufficiently striking 
 to be reapplied in Anterast. 137 D. 
 
 18 1 15 A-n6 D. This argument occurs with modifications in every 
 ethical dialogue of Plato, cp. e. g. Gorg. 474 and also Xen. Mem. Ill, viii 
 5 ff. There are, however, certain indications of a possible dependence on 
 Aristotle. Note, e. g. 115 C : bpa roivv\) el, y ye na/.ov, Kal ayadov. Then 
 115 B almost seems to reflect Arist. Rhet. I359 a 3 ff., 1366^ 36 ff. and Eth. 
 Nic. 1117* 28 ff. 
 
 19 n6 E-n8 B. This also is a great Platonic commonplace. Phaedo 
 79 C foil, is a very instructive passage which throws light on the whole of 
 Ale. I. See also Hipp. Min. 372 D : TT^avu/Liat irepl ravra, fifftAV brt dta rb [ify 
 eidevai. Ale. /1 17 A : ov difiov OTI 6ta TO p,rj eidevcu. Trepl avTuv, dia ravra TT?MVCI; 
 
 20 117 E : Tiv$ ovv oi d/uapTdvovT(; ; . . . O/^ML Ae'nrovTat rj oi //.# eWdref, ol6/Ltvoc 
 <J' eUivat,-, The original of this passage, which sums up another Platonic 
 commonplace, is doubtless Soph. 229 C : ayvoias A' ovv /ueya ri pot 6onti Kal 
 
65 
 
 knew, he could teach, 21 but he like other statesmen enters politics 
 untaught and ignorant of the real issues. 22 He should not con- 
 sider Athenians his rivals, but rather his co-workers, recognizing 
 as his competitors the kings of Persia and Sparta; 23 for thus he 
 would be led to sobriety of temper and wholesome self-scrutiny. 24 
 This consideration humbles A. and induces him to seek Socrates' 
 aid in his task of self-improvement. (Then follows a long and 
 trifling digression 25 on the virtue of a gentleman.) The true self, 
 however, must first be discovered before we can attend to it. 26 
 There is a distinction between the belongings of the body and 
 the body, and between ourselves and our belongings. 27 To know 
 what we are we should first know the idea of the self ; but as 28 
 
 dfyupiaduevov bpqv eldof, KCLGI rolq d?JiQi<; avrrj^ CLVTLGT pofyov 
 Holoi> 6rj ; To ///) nareidora TI donelv eldevat- tit 1 ov KivSvvevet 
 TrdvTa oca diavoia a$a^\Q fieOa yiyvecOat rrdaiv. This thought 
 is also greatly elaborated in Xen. Mem. IV 2, 26 ff. likewise in connection 
 with }vu6i aavTov (ibrd. 24). 
 
 21 u8 C foil. This tenet underlies almost all of Socrates' ethical ques- 
 tioning. If one have a virtue, he must know what it is, and consequently 
 be able to define and explain it (cf. the Charmides, for example). See 
 Xen. Mem. IV 6, I : ^UKpdrrjQ ydp TOVQ JUEV eldoTcu; ri enacTov elij TUV OVTUV, 
 tvdfjii^s nal Toif a/Uo^f dv i&ryetoBai dvvaaOai. Ability to teach then becomes a 
 test of knowledge. Ale. 1 118 D : na^bv ydp dfjirov reKftr/ptov TOVTO ruv iT 
 /J,EVUV bnovv bri EiriGTavrai, eTreifidv Kal a/l/lov oloi r' uccv (nrodel^ 
 with which compare Arist. Met. 98 i b 7 : 5/,wf re aq/ueiov rov eiddros TO dvvacdat 
 diddcKetv kariv. For the application of this criterion to Pericles and the 
 other statesmen, see Prof. 319 E foil., Meno 94 B foil., Gorg. 515 E. 
 
 22 u8 B foil. 
 
 23 1 19 C foil. 
 
 24 i24AB. Here our author first introduces the Delphic yv&Bi aavrov, 
 which recurs in 131 B and 133 C, always abruptly foisted in as autppoavv?} 
 karl TO eavTdv yiyvuGKeiv from Charm. 164 C foil. Repeated Ant. 138 A. 
 
 25 124 0-127 E. This excursus serves only as an opportunity for adding 
 an illustration of Socrates' method of interrogation ; for the discussion 
 does not in the least advance the argument. The examples here adduced 
 recur almost without change in Theag. 123 C ff . and again in Hipparch. 
 126 A foil. 
 
 26 127 E f. 
 
 27 128 A foil. This is a distinction which Plato very clearly made in the 
 Laws 717 C, 726 A foil. In this passage there are several commonplaces. 
 Ale. I \ 28 B : dp' ovv OTCIV r/f TI fiefoiov woty, rdre bpQrjv hiyeiq fatfitfaiav, cf. 
 Xen. Mem. I 2, 32 foil. For Qepairda ^vxw, crw^arof, etc., in 131 B, see 
 Rep. 585 C foil. (cf. Ep. VII, 331 AB, and note 19 to Letters}. 
 
 28 1 29 AB : (pepe 6^ TIV* dv Tpo-rrov evpedeiij avrb TO avT6] OVTG) /nev ydp dv 
 Tax 1 vpoi[j,ev ri TTOT' kujj-kv aiiToi, TOVTOV 6' ETC bvTec; h dyvoia ddvvaToi TTQV. That 
 
66 
 
 this is a difficult matter, it may suffice to become acquainted with 
 the empirical self. 29 The soul, as the agent using the body and 
 its belongings, is the true self which the Delphic ywOt aaoru^ 
 intended ; and he alone cares for himself who cares for his soul. 30 
 Self-knowledge is difficult to describe, but the example of the 
 eye beholding itself mirrored in the pupil the divinest part of 
 another eye, may present to us in figure the truth that a soul to 
 know itself must look to its most characteristic and divine part in 
 which resides wisdom and knowledge. 31 And only he who knows 
 
 the interpretation is correct follows, I believe, from the use of ai<rov in 
 128 E : Tig rex) fteATiu TCOIEL avrov] Then avrb TO avr6 means ' the self 
 itself? as av-bg 6 av6pu-oq means ' the man himself.' 1 Therefore I would 
 read in 130 D : vvv 6k avrl avrov TOV avToi> avrbv (see I28E) enaarov 
 CKju.jLie6a on kcri, nai iou it-apKeaei. It is quite plain that our author, 
 finding nothing in Plato to guide him, wrestled desperately with the 
 language to find an expression for his thought. For the concrete self he 
 retained the masc. (avrbv), for the abstract, ideal self he used the neut. 
 (CIVTO). Schlottmann (Das Vergangliche und das Unvergangliche in der 
 menschl. Seele nach Aristoteles, Halle, 1873) understands Aristotle's vovc 
 TTOITJTIKOS to be the ideal ego or self, and the vove Tcad)jriK.6<; the empirical self. 
 This is a vexed question on which I have no opinion ; but I am much inclined 
 to think that the author oiAlc.IsQ interpreted Aristotle, and wrote the 
 dialogue largely to illustrate his conception of that problem, with the aid of 
 the figure of the eye-envisaging eye. I venture this statement, however, 
 only as a conjecture. Plut. Pyth. Orac. cc. 21-23 illustrates the later 
 development of the doctrine among the Platonists. 
 
 29 130 D, quoted in preceding note. 
 
 30 126 A-I33 E ' Compare with this passage Arist. Eth. Nic. 1177^ 30 ff. 
 and n68b 28 ff. This argument is foreign to Plato, but the materials 
 worked up into it are borrowed from him. See Legg. 726 A foil. But our 
 author has Rep. 353 E foil, particularly in mind. Note c////^, 129 C, cf. 
 Rep. 353 A; 133 B: rj bfidahjuov apeny, vid. Rep. 353 B: a/a' ovv /ecu aperi) 
 
 iaTi', cf. Iambi. Protrept. 11. Ale. I 126 B : dtjjeuf ftev rcapayiyvo- 
 , ru$):6TijTos 6e airoyiyvopiviK, cf. Rep. 353 C ; cf. also 130 A with Rep. 
 353 D. With 128 A we may perhaps compare Aristotle's notice of Socrates 
 the Younger in Met. io36b 24 ff. 
 
 31 132 D foil. Charm. 167 C foil., 168 D gave rise to this discussion. There 
 the concept of self-knowledge is subjected to criticism and a parallel drawn 
 with ' sight-seeing sight ' (oi/vf oipeu^ t which seems inconceivable. Now our 
 author takes up the problem and confesses the insuperable difficulties by 
 substituting the ' eye-seeing eye ' for the former example. Thus he hopes at 
 least to convey in figure the outline of his thought. It is at least inter- 
 esting to compare this with Arist. de Anima 41 3* I : wf (P 7} o^c KOI y dvvapis 
 TOV bpydvov r] tyvxij (sc. zvTefaxeid kcTi) TO 6e o&jua TO dwdfisi bv d/JS L)OTcep 6 
 i] Kop?f (vid. Ale. 1 133 A) KOI i] di} 
 
6; 
 
 himself can know others and the nature and advantage of the 
 state, from true knowledge of which springs happiness. 32 Yet, 
 since in order to render the citizens happy A. must give them not 
 only prosperity but also virtue, 33 he must first have it to confer; 34 
 and if he act with justice and wisdom he will please God, 35 and 
 not, like the man of tyrannical soul, 36 work the ruin of the state. 
 A. now pledges himself to turn his face toward the*perfect life, by 
 the grace of Socrates. " Nay," replies the latter, " say rather by 
 the grace of God." 37 
 
 Any one who has noted the direct progress of the dialogue and 
 the manner in which the transitions from point to point have been 
 made must be convinced that our author had a definite position 
 to establish, and that the necessary materials were all furnished 
 ready to his hand. The accompanying notes have called atten- 
 
 It is of course well known that Plato, at least in his later period, attributed 
 immortality only to the intellectual part of the soul, to which alone there- 
 fore he could also in strictness give the name of soul or self. In so far the 
 Ale. I develops logically the Platonic position, in which almost all of 
 Plato's followers shared. With Ale. I 133 C compare Arist. de Anima 
 4io b ii ff. and 429* 23. 
 
 32 133 E f. Compare Xen. Mem. IV, ii, 24 : cr^oAf/ -yap av d/Jlo n ydetv, el 
 ye jur/ti' kfiavrbv h/iyvuanov and the facetious words of Menander apud Stobaeus 
 III, xxi, 5 (Hense), 
 
 33 1 34 B : oi>K apa TEIX&V ovde rpiqpuv ov6e veupiuv deovrat ai 7r6Zeic, el fjKhavon 
 evdaifjtovfoetv, oi>6 irtydovs oiiSe [tey&dovf avev a per ?;f. Cf. Arist. Rhet. 
 1360^ 14: SOTCJ (5?) evfiaifiovia evnpa^ia /uer' dper?;f. See also 
 Aristotle, frag. 57 (from Protrepticus ?): v6/j.i$e 6e TTJV evdatftovfav OVK ev rti 
 
 d KSK-ijadai yi-yveo6ai t fj.aXA,ov cP ev rti ri/v ipv^v ev 
 
 35 1 34 D: cii re /cat ?} TrdAtf 6eo<f>ihu(; Trpd^ere. In 6eo<f>iAu our author is 
 adding another characteristic Platonic touch, only not to omit it. Cp. 
 Rep. 352 AB and Arist. Eth. Nic. X, viii, 13. 
 
 36 In 135 A I would read vovv larpiKov pi e%otJTi, Tvpavvovvri de 7rf 
 ^?;(P CTT <7r/l?;rrovr i avrti, thus with the smallest change yet proposed 
 combining the readings of B and T. Whatever the reading adopted, it is 
 clear that we have here an allusion to the tyrannical soul of Bk. IX of 
 the Republic^ as in 122 A : bv-ug pacifovs, ap%uv Trpurcv TUV ev avrti, we have 
 one to the kingly soul. Cf. also Gorg. 491 DE. 
 
 37 135 U : tav /3o(vb? av, d) Icjpparef. Oi) /caAwf Tieyeic, & 'A/l/a/Smd??. 'AA/ld 
 Trwf xprj 'kkytiv ; "On eav Bebg edeAij. Here we have given the conditions of 
 Alcibiades' progress, already hinted at in the saying that the god had pre- 
 vented S. from accosting him until his time was come. In the present 
 passage, together with the interest displayed in the veto power of Socrates' 
 daiftoviov, there lies the basis of the extravagancies of the Theages (see notes 
 8 and 9 to Theages}. 
 
68 
 
 tion to the passages in which Plato has formulated the thoughts, 
 sometimes by tortuous dialectic processes, which here recur only 
 as finished products grown commonplace. 38 He who contrived 
 this cento knew well the externals of Plato's manner as he also 
 knew the import of his teaching; and in his drawing upon Homer, 
 Aesop, and the comic poets 39 he has in part well imitated the 
 master. But fce has offended grossly against the canons of Pla- 
 tonic taste, 40 and some of his utterances are to be taken cumgrano 
 salis.^ He indulges also in rhetorical ornament which fails at 
 times to beautify, 42 and numerous turns of expression emphasize 
 
 38 Aside from the numerous instances of commonplaces already men- 
 tioned, I refer to only two more. The juggling with ev Trpdrreiv in 116 B ff. 
 recalls Charm. 172 A f. and Euthyd. 279 A. In 135 B: nplv 6e -ye apTi]i> 
 e%etv, TO apxecdai dfteivbv VTTO TOV /Je/lri'ofOf // TO apxew avdpi, ov fidvov Traidi, there 
 is a general Socratic commonplace, which occurs also in Arist. Pol. I 5, 7, 
 Xen. Mem. I 2, 49 ff., and in the Republic 590 D ff. 
 
 39 At 109 DE a reference to II. 15, 39; at 131 E there is an allusion to 
 Od. 2, 365, at 132 A one to II. 2, 547, in 112 B a general reference to the 
 Iliad and Odyssey. The word Kpfryvot = ayadoi, in E (in Homer, II. i, 106), 
 occurring nowhere in prose, except here, before the affected Alexandrians 
 and Neo-Pythagoreans, is a most palpable sign of spuriousness (cf. Cobet). 
 Aesop is quoted in 123 A, cf. also Phaedo 60 C ff. Plato's fondness for 
 the comic poets was well appreciated (vid. Olympiodorus vit. Plat., Her- 
 mann, Vol. VI, p. 192). At 120 A: Metdiav TOV bpTvyon6-ov t we have an 
 Aristophanic touch; cf. Aves, 1297. According to the scholiast there is 
 in 121 CD a quotation from Plato Comicus. 
 
 40 He becomes positively rude in 118 B and 119 B; again, compare 118 E: 
 TO TlepiKAeovc viee faidiu tyevecftrjv with Prol. 320 A : d7/' avTol irepudvref 
 vifiovTdL tioTrep a<j>eToi, and ibid.: T'L d' av av Kfaiviav heyoif, fiaivo/uevov avdpu- 
 TTOV with Prot. 320 A : KXU <6f with Cobet> xpcv !; [irjvaq yeyovevai, aireduKE 
 TOVTU OVK exuv b, TC xpqaatTo am(i. See also 120 B. The whole passage 
 1 20 AB is purely sarcastic and displays none of Socrates' delicate irony. 
 
 41 103 A : y<y cJ TOGOVTUV kruv ovde TrpoaetTrov ; ibid.: daiftovwv kvavT(<jfj,a, ov 
 cv TIJV 6vvajj.Lv /cat vcTepov Trevaei, promises what Ale. I does not strictly fulfill ; 
 a fact which may well have helped to call forth the Theages. 121 D and 
 Legg. 694 D are in positive contradiction. What is said in 123 B of the 
 lands at the service of the Persian Queen for purposes of ornament is not 
 borne out by Xen. Anab. I iv, 8, 9. But Cobet is hardly justified in refusing 
 to accept Xenophon as the authority for the statement because of the phrase 
 Trapa jBaoilea, which, in this indefinite citation, might easily displace 
 e TT I 3 a a c 7. k a . 
 
 42 Note the ambiguity of reference in uv, 119 D, and of ovaTrep Aeyu in the 
 similar passage, 120 AB. In 124 D is this awkward turn : eirifufaias 6e6/u.eda, 
 uaX/lov [tev TrdvTes av6pco~oi t d~ap vcj ye nal ^ud/a fff6dpa. The final burst of 
 eloquence, in 135 E. may not have seemed as amusing to the author as it 
 does to us. 
 
6 9 
 
 the unplatonic effect of the whole. 43 From the character of our 
 dialogue we should naturally expect to find the imitations of 
 particular passages from the works of Plato quite numerous, as 
 attesting its author's minute acquaintance with his original. 44 All 
 this, and more, 45 may be adduced to refute the claims of the Ale. I 
 to be considered a genuine Platonic dialogue ; but some critics 
 have sought to eliminate difficulties by making emendations and 
 excisions. Such procedure would seem at first blush to be 
 favored by the abundant evidence of tamperings with the text ; 46 
 
 43 Note Adyov, $ vTrepirefypovrjuat;, 104 A; the abrupt XCKTEOV av elq, 104 E; 
 avTov . . . ev r\ EU/OWTT^, 105 B, if ev r. E. be not, as I suspect, a gloss ; ri 
 diatyipei TO wJe rj &6e, 109 B, possibly suggested by such turns as Rep. 429 B: 
 fj ro'iav avTijv dvat ?] roiav, etc., cp. Arist. Eth. Nic. 1103^ 24: ov /j.iKpbv ovv 
 dtaftpei rb ovTug % ovrug j typdcov teal ipoi, 109 D, and $pa,e /cd,ucH, no D; 
 Iva fj,?j juciTr/v ol 6id%oyoi <A>yo? Cobet> yiyvuvTat, no A, for Iva JLI. /u. dia^eyu- 
 /Lisda; Kotvr/ fiovty, 119 B, unless this be a proverbial expression, as it would 
 appear to be from 124 B and Crito 49 D; dvdpa oldjuevov 
 elvai, 119 C. 
 
 44 104 D : 6av/udo), b ri TTOT' eoTt TO obv Ttpdyjua, vid. Apol. 20 C ; 104 E : 
 avdpa . . . irpooyepecOai, vid. Lysis 205 B ; 107 C ff.: oTav irepi TUV eavruv irpay- 
 [idTuv /c.T.A., vid. Charm. 161 B ff. ; 109 B: 6ia<j>pet bhov re /ecu Trdv, vid. e. g. 
 Legg. 944 C : dunpepei 6s bhov TTOV /cat TO irav ; 114 D : vfiptGTqc el, vid. Symp. 
 175 ,215 B, Meno 76 A ; 114 E : [tq, d/l/ld cv avTog heye, vid. Meno 75 B : /z//, 
 oA^d ov t d) Ew/c^are^, eiTre ; 115 A: /uavTtKbf yap el, vid. Meno 92 C: p-avTis si 
 lau$ ; 1 18 A: 7rova'&orof d/uadia, vid. Apol. 29 B (and for KanovpyoTanj, ibid., see 
 Lack. 192 D); 119 E : Ipyov d-oSeigecdai, vid. note 3 to Hipparch. ; 124 B : 
 ov juoi dotted epdv wf oii6ei^ d/l/lof d/lAou, vid. Lysis 2iiD; 125 E f.: evfiovAia 
 and the discussion following is prob. due to Rep. 428 A ff. (note e. g. 
 127 D : ov yap ovvapat, /uadeiv ovd* JJTL^ OVT' ev olcTiatv, cf. Rep. 428 D : TIC, efa/v 
 iyu, Kal ev Tiatv ;). 1310:6 /J.EV TOV au/uaToc; cov epuv, kTreidrj hqyei dvOovv, diriuv 
 oixerai (cf. also 131 DE) is from Symp. 183 E ; 132 A : dt/juepaaTw is due to 
 Gorg. 481 D and 513 C. This note contains only the principal instances 
 not already quoted in previous ones. 
 
 45 Constantin Ritter (Unters. iiber Plato, p. 89 f.) says: " Es kann kein 
 Zweifel sein dass wir den Alk. I in die Zeit . . . zwischen Symp. u. Theatet 
 setzen mussen,wenn er als platonisch soil gelten konnen." From what we 
 have already said, it is clear that Plato could have written the Ale. /only 
 after his system had been fully developed ; yet, on the other hand, it is not 
 likely that after he had written the Timaeus, say, he would return to such 
 a work. Ritter's evidence can only mean that our author imitated most 
 successfully in externals the dialogues of a certain period and character ; 
 but as for his statement, it only shows the inadequacy of his method. 
 
 46 At 105 E a few MSS. present an addition plainly spurious; in 128 A, 
 after vai, Stobaeus presents two lines not in our MSS., and likewise in 133 
 C a much longer interpolation. See Stob. Ill, xxi, 23, 24 Hense. 
 
;o 
 
 yet, while we might gladly dispense with much that is intro- 
 duced/ 7 the MSS., which serve to detect the later additions, also 
 forbid such violent measures. 
 
 We have still to enquire concerning the origin and purpose of 
 our dialogue. It seems clear that it was written, not very long 
 after Plato's death, by some Platonist who wished thereby to 
 exhibit Socrates in his most characteristic attitude of delivering a 
 protreptic discourse. In sketching the character of Alcibiades 
 he evidently had in mind, besides the idea of the type of the 
 Athenian public which Alcibiades presents, the accounts of 
 Xenophon and Plato. 48 In an age when hortatory addresses were 
 common 49 the Ale. I naturally met with instant success ; chiefly 
 because it epitomized the ethico-political philosophy of Plato, and 
 secondly, because it so consciously laid stress on those character- 
 
 47 At 108 CD (OVTTU diivaoai eiirelv . . . -f] ri^vr] i^ei) Hermann and Stall- 
 baum employ brackets to eliminate a passage which is only too obviously 
 unplatonic ; but Schanz has very properly omitted the brackets, since they 
 can be justified only on the supposition, which is too improbable, that 
 Plato wrote the dialogue. With equal justice one might propose the 
 following excisions : (i) 107 A : ov yap TTOV ... 107 C : bpdug dvacTycet; (2) 
 the absurd but necessary words, 115 D: $ Icov TCJ redvdvei, wf eoine v. 
 
 (3) 117 B: ap' ovv OVTCJ nal kx L 118 A: ov drjra ; (4) 128 C : 
 jj,i> apa . . . 128 D: fyaiverai ', (5) 131 A: ovdets apa . . . C: o/jflejf, which 
 adds nothing but the notion of 6epaTreia, borrowed quite probably from Rep. 
 585 C ff. Yet, though the excessive verbosity is thereby relieved, such 
 procedure is clearly impossible. 
 
 48 Compare Xen. Mem. I 2, 16, with Ale. I 105 A and Rep. 494 C. 
 Sokrates' arguments with Glaucon (Mem. Ill 6) and Euthydemus (Mem, 
 IV 2, 22 ff.) may have contributed somewhat, as well as Plato's Apology 
 and Symp. 215 E ff. The suggestion seems very natural that Alcibiades 
 is the typical man of good parts (Rep. 490 E ff.), by nature marked out for a 
 philosopher, but ruined by corruption in the state ; and one who attentively 
 reads Ale. /with that passage in mind will be convinced that its author so 
 interpreted Plato's allusions. Note, e. g. Rep. 491 E : e/c veaviKw ^krewf, cf_ 
 Ale. I 104 A : veaviKurdrov -yevov^. Socrates' parting words to Alcibiades 
 (Ale. 1 135 E : fiov2,oiju,qv av oe dl&Tth&oai ' bppudu 6e, ov re ry ay <pi>net cnriCT&v, 
 dA/ld TTJV rfj<; 7t6^eug opav p&fiijv, fj,i} e/j,ov re nal aov Kpar^ay) seem to emphasize 
 this portraiture. Hermann (Onomasticon Platon. s. v. 'A/l/c.) recognizes 
 portraiture of Ale. in 4946; Jowett and Campbell (The Rep. of Plato, 
 Vol. Ill, p. 282) likewise in part (esp. in 493 C : /cat en eveidfa KCU peyas),. 
 but associate with him in Plato's thought (wrongly, as I believe) Pausanias 
 and Themistocles; Mr. Pater (in Plato and Platonism, p. 116) seems cor- 
 rectly to refer the whole to Alcibiades. 
 
 49 On this whole class of productions cp. R. Hirzel, Ueber den Protrep- 
 tikos des Aristoteles, Hermes X 61 ff. 
 

 istics of the master which were, by virtue of their being most 
 external and common, the most tangible aspects of Platonism. 
 One evidence of its success, however, is also a strong witness of 
 its supposititious character. For its novelty, as having but lately 
 appeared, must be presumed to have contributed somewhat to 
 the favor with which the authors of the later spurious dialogues 
 received it. 50 On the other hand, the priority of Ale. I becomes 
 thus firmly established, and we run no risk in dating it not later 
 than the beginning of the III century B. C. However the case 
 may stand in regard to the maturer works of Aristotle, 51 it is not 
 improbable that his juvenile llpoTpz-rwj^ was known to our 
 author; and either his Mayixos or lisp} $do<ro<pia<; was all but 
 certainly drawn upon. 53 Finally, if Suidas' list of the works of 
 
 50 It will have been noted that in treating of these works reference was 
 constantly had to our dialogne. See also above, notes 7 fit. The Epinomis 
 is perhaps the only one of considerable size on which it would be safe to 
 say that Ale. /had had no influence. 
 
 51 Aristotle's aKpoannd did no't become generally known until rather late. 
 But see the foregoing notes which make it seem highly probable that the 
 extant Aristotelian works were known to our author. 
 
 52 It is barely possible that in 132 A: einrpocuTrot; yap 6 fieya7J]-opog c^aof 
 'Epe^^ewc ' a//,' cnrodvvTa xpr) avrbv dedoaadai, the " Fru Welt" portrait of 
 Athens may be drawn after Arist. Protrept. frag. 59 (Rose, Teubn. Ed. 
 from which I regularly quote Iambi. Protrept. c. 8), particularly since, 
 in the Latin parallel, Boethius (de Cons. Phil. 3, 8) mentions Alcibiades as 
 the illustration, quite certainly after Aristotle (cf. Bywater, Journ. Philol. 
 II, p. 60). However this may be, the probability of our author's using the 
 Arist. Prot. is very great. See also above, note 33, and the end of my 
 section on Ale. II. The passage there quoted may well have been referred 
 to Alcibiades by Aristotle, who had, as noted above, used Alcibiades as 
 his example in the Protrept. 
 
 53 Ale. I \ 22 A: uv 6 fjev payday re 6i6dcnei TTJV Zupodarpov rov 'Qpojud&v 
 ean 6e TOVTO dsuv OspaTreia. The last clause is consciously novel, 
 and has long been objected to (first, I believe, by Ast). In II. <i>. Aristotle 
 had spoken of Zoroastrianism (see note 14 to Epinomis), and Diog. L. 
 Proem. 8, says: rr/v 6e yo^riKTjv payeiav ovd j eyvucav <sc. ol /j.dyoL^> , fyrjalv 6 
 'Apia-oTE/iqc h TCJ /uayiKti. It is therefore probable that the preceding words 
 (D. L. Proem. 6) came from the same source, since thus the negative 
 statement is supplemented by a positive definition of \iaytia : rov$ 6e /udyovc 
 Kepi re depaTreiag detiv 6tarpi(3eiv /cat Ovaiac; /cat ev%d<; (frag. 36, Rose). 
 The genuineness of the MayiKog is doubted by many, and by some it was 
 attributed to Antisthenes. Bernays (Abhandlungen I, p. 40 ff.) shows that 
 the work entitled Zoroastres and formerly attributed to Heraclitus was 
 written by Heraclides Ponticus ; and remarks upon the great interest of the 
 Peripatetics in Magian and Parsic matters (ibid. p. 45, n.). For our purpose 
 
72 
 
 Philip of Opus 54 be trustworthy, it is possible that the culmination 
 of our dialogue (132 D : xwduvsust yap oods xoAla/ou slvai -apdd^tyrj.a 
 
 auroo, aUd xard -njv o</>tv /iovov) may have been suggested to our 
 author in reading his treatises on optics. 55 
 
 XVI. EPINOMIS, 
 
 This dialogue would supplement the Laws 1 by answering the 
 question : What is true wisdom, or what knowledge makes man 
 blessed? The Laws however mention no such agreement on 
 the part of the collocutors to meet again and complete their task, 
 as is here assumed, nor does Plato there betray any sense of the 
 need of it. Our author was probably misled by the words {Legg, 
 818 E) : syst <j.kv yap oSrtyc, a> Atersia, yfaXsxov dk au~d ^oraca/jtevov 
 -obra> rw TOTTO) voiwdsTslv ' a/A' si~ a'AAov, si <5oxe?, %povov ay.pifjifsrs.pov 
 
 &y vono0erqffa.itj.s0a. At the first blush one might infer that Plato 
 intended a subsequent more detailed treatment; but then the 
 Athenian had said " si dots'. " and on Cleinias' immediate protest 
 he proceeds at once with the argument (819 A-822 C and again 
 966 ff.). Indeed, Plato distinctly declined to elaborate in advance 
 the education of the vopoyu taxes, reserving it for those first elected 
 to that office after the establishment of the commonwealth to 
 regulate by law the conduct of the Nocturnal Council (Legg. 
 968 C) : ouxlri yofjLOUS, <Z> Mfyttts xai Ktetfta, -sp\ roiv TOIOUTWV duvarov 
 eTv, ~p}> av xofffj-r^fj ' ro~ os xuptotx; w 
 
 Though this would of itself suffice to athetize the work, there 
 is not wanting abundant evidence of another kind to prove its 
 fraudulent character. Whatever difficulties the Laws present are 
 here aggravated tenfold : Plato's later tendency to mystic state- 
 ment and prolixity becomes here and there aimless verbosity. 2 
 
 it differs little who was the author of these wo.rks. The accounts which 
 credit Plato with a knowledge of magic and Zoroastrianism are all late and 
 suspicious. See Proleg., etc., in Hermann, Vol. VI, p. 199, c. IV, Pausanias 
 IV, 32, 4, Plin, Hist. Nat. XXX, 2. 
 
 54 See note 16 to Epin.> esp. OTTTIKUV, kvoirrpiKuv. 
 
 55 See also above, note 31. 
 
 x This purpose is sufficiently clear, and is emphasized by the meeting by 
 agreement of the characters in the Laws, though Megillus here is a mute 
 figure. 
 
 2 The opening sentence is intolerably tortuous j 974 A : K.a.1 xpovog 
 . . ft'iov rbv avdpumvov, is awkward and obscure ; 974 A : TOVTUV 6?} ri 
 
73 
 
 In vocabulary 3 and in the manipulation of the dialogue our author 
 closely follows Plato, though the dialogue sinks here to a mere 
 form, and favorite expressions, foreign to his original, meet the 
 eye on every page. 4 On the other hand, nothing could be more 
 obvious than his dependence upon Timaeus* and Laws> while he 
 may readily be shown to have made extensive use also of the 
 Republic* 
 
 re," Adycj, is a very dubious and unplatonic jest. Note also these examples : 
 EvpEiv re KOI EITTEIV . . . ovre elTro/uev OVTE evpofiev, 973 B; did. 7i6yuv irdvruv /cat 
 ndvry fo-yojLtevuv, 974 C ; rai>r' ovx ovrwq rj ravry <+ TT?/?> ^v^fjaofisv EXUV, 
 ibid.; 6 vvv elpr/Ka^EV ipov/UEV re, a>f <f>afiev, biry Set re /cat biruc, xP <>>v p.avddvELv. 
 
 3 But the author shows peculiarities of his own. Thus, the double sense 
 and the plural of $p6vr]Giq in 974 B; irpoafitec (may it be an error for 
 see Hdt. V in) in 976 A ; 7rdpe, 976 D, cnrag Aey. in the canon ; 
 TO r&v avdp&Ttuv, ibid., is absurd; TOVTCJV (5' EV fyepovlcuf t 981 C, and 
 vEiv = dqhovadai, 989 A, want classic authority. In 987 B, IX L Myov 
 (like alnav e>et) means *is said,' not rationi consentaneum estj as Stallbaum 
 renders it ; but this usage again is not classic Greek. So empepvlaf Qvaeug, 
 981 D, is an expression unknown to the classic authors, but it is very 
 frequent in Stoic and Epicurean literature. In view of this it is perhaps 
 worth considering whether roiiruv 6' ev r/yE/noviais, just quoted, does not 
 reflect the Stoic upaaig di 1 oAuv ; cp. also 981 D : rd -yap Trhelorov Trvpbg e^e/, 
 
 *Note 973 B : droTrov firjv duovaEcdai GE ^6yov olftai, K.O.L nva rpdnov OVK aroTrov 
 av, and 976 E : (frpd&iv xPtfi Ka'nrep droirov ovra, nai vrwf OVK. droirov av, both 
 possibly suggested by Rep. 532 D : 6oKt ^a/le7rd /uizv dfroSexwdat dvai, dhhov 6' 
 av rponov ^a^eTrd //^ (nrodEX^da^ particularly since (as will soon appear, cf. 
 note 6) our author had closely studied that passage ; but droTrocwas a great 
 favorite with him, as appears also from 990 A : ax^ov pev ovv karlv aroirov 
 duovaavTi, and 976 B : AOJTTJ) . . . rt<; droTrof 6vvafj.ic;. Another favorite is 
 KpoaTvxfa] cf. 973 B, 985 C, 990 D. In 991 D we read BEOV dfj.ivov dst ttaktlv 
 and in 992 A, rvxf]v SEI nakelv. A strange construction may be obviated by 
 reading /landpcov for [UHt&piQf &v in 992 B : Eire rig kv TjTrEipoif, ftr' ev vfiooif 
 aandpiog av y t as [MK&pwv immediately precedes. 
 
 6 1 note only Epin. 977 B : tire /COG//OV, etre O^IV^TTOV, elre ovpavbv kv rjdovy 
 rw 7(jELv t cf. Tim. 28 B : 6 8r) ?rdf ovpavb^ rj K60fj,o rj d/lAo 6, ri ?rore bvofj.a^6- 
 uevos fj,d7iiGT J av dExotTO, and Epin. 986 B : olovq ovde defue EITTEIV ypuv ovdevi, cf. 
 Tim. 29 A : EI t^e o fiqd' e'nreiv rivl fle/^f. So too in /card rbv jj/Lterepov pvdov, 
 Epin. 980 A, while clearly inept here, we have the language of Timaeus, cf. 
 e. g. 29 D. Elsewhere we find the ordinary turns /card rbv ekdra hoyov, 981 
 B, and /card 66% 'av rrjv 'ETTLEIKIJ, 984 B. 
 
 6 Epin. 977 C : Z,tiov Si, 6, rt pr) -yi-yvuaitoi KOI 6vo /cat rpia /z^cJe irepirrbv /LiTjde 
 dpriov, may be derived from Rep. 522 C : ro ev re /cat 6i>o /cat rd rpta StayiyvuG~ 
 KEIV, but more probably from Legg. 818 C : fj.fjre EV fj,rjrE Svo [tfire rpia /u 
 dpria /cat irepirrd dwdfiEVog yiyvuGKEiv ; for Epin. 990 C : apiO/uuv . . . 
 ex6vrtov, cf. Rep. 525 E : G&fjara e^ovraf dpt6fj,ov<; ; Epin. 989 B : rd re -yap rtjs 
 
74 
 
 All this might indeed be taken as corroborating Plato's author- 
 ship, were there not a reverse side to this picture. The chief 
 among the considerations to be weighed are the following. First, 
 this cheaply-bought likeness is fully matched by differences only 
 by violence reconcilable with Plato's views. 7 But, second, a recon- 
 ciliation is fortunately not needed ; for and this cannot be well 
 conceived of in Plato our author apparently owes as much to 
 Aristotle as to the works already enumerated. The search here 
 instituted for the true ao<pia is essentially the same as that under- 
 
 re ftal rye kvavriag fyvGu$ doubtless reflects Rep. 526 B : r66e ij&r) 
 , <jf ol re fyitoei foyioTiKol elf irdvTa rd /uad^juara . . . 6eZf (pvovrai, ol re 
 fipadelg K.rA, though Polit. 305 D ff. probably occasioned the different trend 
 of thought ; Epin. 990 A : ao^urarov avaynrj TOV aXrjQ&i; acrpovdfiov elvai, firj rbv 
 nad' 1 'Haiodov aarpovojuovvra Kal Trdvrag rovg TOIOVTOVC, olov 6vofj,a re Kal dvaro/ldf 
 TrGK/u./j,i>ov, looks to be a flat reproduction of Glaucon's words, Rep. 527 D: 
 TO "yap TTpl &pa$ evaLcBrjror^puq e%cv /cat IJLTJVUV KOI iviavrtiv ov fidvov yeupyia ovde 
 Tcpoar]K.L y d/l/ld Kal arparriyia ov% JJTTOV, with Socrates' reply: r/6v eZ, 5r/ 
 
 7 1 shall not here insist on our author's ranking mathematics highest 
 among human pursuits while Plato considers this study to be only the best 
 propaedeutic to dialectic; nor on his classing aldrjp among the elements 
 (981 C), since we have Xenocrates' word (vid. Zeller, II A, p. 800, note 6), 
 whether true or not, for attributing this to Plato. The occurrence of this 
 tenet in Xenocrates, who generally followed Plato closely, as well as in 
 Aristotle and Speusippus <? cf. Theol. Arithm. p. 62, and Zeller, II A, p. 
 1008, n. i>, lends some probability to the supposition that Plato also held it. 
 But does Plato's reputed (cf. Theophrastus ap. Diels, Dox. p. 494) repent- 
 ance of his geocentric system warrant us in accepting as Platonic the 
 earth's motion in its orbit (cf. Epin. 983 B)? Zeller, indeed (Vol. II A, p. 
 1042, note 5), would strike out yf]v re mi, thus obviating the difficulty ; but 
 is this probable ? The daemonology of the five orders of life (Epin. 
 984 B ff.) is surely not Platonic; but Stallbaum's attempt (Vol. X, 3, p. 468) 
 to claim it for Stoicism utterly fails, because Macrobius, Saturnal. I, 23, 
 whom he misinterprets, doubtless derived his authority only from our 
 passage in the Epinomis. Nevertheless it is not wholly improbable that 
 Aristotelian and Stoic conceptions found their way into this discussion. 
 See note 3 above and note 12 below, and with Epin. 981 E compare Zeller 
 II B, p. 359 ff., Ill A, p. 139, n. 5, and p. 136 f., and Sext. Empir. IX 85 ff. 
 Proclus' objection (ap. Hermann Plat. Vol. VI, p. 218), based on the 
 discrepancy in direction of the planets between 7w. 36 C and Epin. 987 B, 
 may indeed be met as Archer-Hind in Timaeus (ad loc. cit.) meets it, but 
 only on the supposition that Plato wrote both passages. The words (Epin. 
 980 D) iM3er . . . vTro/uvrtftara, finally, must mean that, at the time of 
 writing, the Laws had already been published. On this, again, see 
 Proclus (1. 1.). 
 
75 
 
 taken in Aristotle's Metaphysics, cc. i and 2, which scholars 8 now 
 agree in considering as a more condensed and scientific restate- 
 ment of the juvenile Ilepl 4>doffo<ptas. Again, Aristotle's historical 
 method also appears in our dialogue, 9 and numerous details tend 
 strongly to confirm the presumption thereby created. Thus the 
 words {Epin. 975 A): ^ 8* oov d^irwv re xa} dXsopiov Koir)ff<.s a/xa xa: 
 X-r) fj.V xdl dyaOy, ffotpbv dk avdpa rsXiwq ovx ideXrjffst Trore 
 ' rooro yap abrd, y rr^ iroirjffztoq lKtxJ.r}fft<; ra)v i:oioup.ivu)v 
 <= 7roo6vrwv> abr&v, dvff%ipiav dxspYdZotT.' av 9 rest clearly upon 
 Aristotle's rigid distinction between XOIIJTMIJ (which becomes 
 dnepyaffTixy a term foreign to Plato's usage in Epin. 975 B) 
 and dewprjTUTj, and his restriction of true cayta to the latter. 10 
 Again, Epin. 977 C : a*ov . . . oux av Ttors. dtddvat Aoyov %ot Tzep\ wv 
 xdl fjLV7}fj.as P.OVOV ef>y xexry fj.lv ov, contains a thought a priori 
 
 8 Vid. Blass in Rh. Mus. Vol. XXX, p. 481 ff. For the general similarity 
 of Met. A. with Aristotle's juvenile works see also Diels in Archiv I, p. 
 490 ff., esp. 491, n. 23. 
 
 9 Note the rise of civilization sketched Epin. 974 B f. (cf. Steinhart, Vol. 
 VIII, p. 147, note 6). This, as well as the similar one in liept QitoaoQiac 
 (cf. Bywater's article in Jour. Philol. VII, p. 64 ff.), draws upon Plato's 
 Laws, 667 ff. Compare Epin. 975 C ; bpryavuv, Legg. 677 C : opyava; Epin. 
 ibid., ^a/l/ceta, Legg. 678 D: ?'/ ruv //era/lA^wv rex^rj] Epin. ibid.: 
 Kal TrhenTiKtiv ; Legg. 679 A: at 7rAa<m:at -yap Kal beat Tr~XeK.TiK.ai r 
 Epin. ibid.: drjpevTiKr), Legg. 679 A ; dripevovreg ; Epin. ibid.: fiavriKq, Legg. 
 677 D: 'Op^eZ; Epin. ibid.: rexvut^, Legg. 677 D: AatdaAv, etc. But it is 
 plain that the Epinomis, while using (with Aristotle) Platonic material, 
 treats it in Aristotle's manner. This was quite in the spirit of all of Plato's 
 successors, and was continued by Stoics and Epicureans alike. Cf. Zeller 
 III A, p. 415 ff. 
 
 9 Render, say, 'The making and subsisting on barley and wheat flour 
 is very good, but may never lay claim to rendering one perfectly wise; for 
 the very fact that they who are engaged in this pursuit call it iroiiiaiq is an 
 insuperable objection.' The principal difficulty in this rendering is that 
 TToiov/Lievuv would naturally at first glance be taken for passive; but the 
 middle is not unknown, as in Plotin. Enneas F, I : Trept 6e T&V yiyvofjiEvuv % 
 bvruv fj.ev aei, oi) rrjv avrrjv 6e evepyeiav TTOIOV/HSVUV det, /c.r./l. Bywater 
 (1. 1., p. 65) attributes the following words of Joannes Philoponos in sub- 
 stance to Aristotle's II* $.: Trev6ow in' avayttris ra irpbg rrjv ^peiav^ 77 TO dA^- 
 6eiv fjivliaif alrov ij TO OTreipeiv f) TL TOLOVTOV a/lAo, Kal endheaav 
 Ty v ToiavTyv STrivoiav ccxfiiav , TJJV elf TO. avayKaia TOV j3iov TO T^VCLTE^ 
 et;evpioKovGav, Kal cotybv TOV k^ivevoijKOTa. Trahtv STT ev 6jja av T e x va 
 
 -ovrj^ r^c eif TOV j3iov avaynriq icTauevas, d/l/la Kal 
 TOV Kahov Kal acTeiov Trpoiovoac;, /c.r.7. With these last 
 words compare Epin. 975 C and Arist. Met. A. I, g8ib 17 ff. 
 10 Met. A. i, 982 a i ff. 
 
7 6 
 
 more probable in Aristotle than in Plato. 11 To the //. 4>. are also 
 probably due the five orders of life ; 12 and if this be true, then 
 possibly likewise the doctrine of the five elementary substances. 13 
 If now we add the touch of Zoroastrianism in 988 E : vevu^vat 
 del xdl vtxav TO. dyada ra py Totaora, where the World Souls, good 
 and evil, are under discussion, 14 we shall have little need of 
 referring to other details. 15 
 
 11 See Met. A. I, 980^ 24 : ju.av6dvi tie <6Joy> b Trpof ry fj,v^fj,y KOI ravrrjv e^ei 
 TTJV aiadrjGiv <sc. d/co^v>. rd jj.lv ovv dAAa ratf fyavTaaiaig {/ /cat ratf p,vr)ij.ai<;, 
 kfnrsipiag 6e fj.Te%et [iticpdv TO 6e TUV avdp&Truv yevog /cat re^vy /cat Juoyiauolg. 
 Aristotle's statement, one readily sees, comes in due course of argument, 
 arid may have been even more extended in II. <J>., while in the Epin. the 
 words are introduced unnecessarily. 
 
 Epin. 981 C ff. Cf. Arist. Frag. 23 (Rose, ed. Teubn.) [Cic. de Nat. 
 Deor. II 15] : Cum igitur aliorum animantium ortus in terra sit, aliorum in 
 aqua, in acre aliorum, absurdum Aristoteli videtur in ea parte quae sit ad 
 gignenda animantia aptissima, animal gigni nullum putare. sidera autem 
 aetherium locum obtinent, etc. It is indeed possible (as Heinze, Xeno- 
 krates, p. 93, suggests) that this arose partly from a misunderstanding of 
 Tim. 39 E; but it is far more probable that Philip (?) derived the thought 
 from Aristotle. Xenocrates' variant conception of the daipovec as souls (on 
 which see Heinze, p. 94 ff.) is a different matter, though he too may have 
 derived some suggestion from his friend Aristotle. Compare notes 3 and 7 
 above. 
 
 13 See, however, note 7. The Epinomis (accepted as genuine) would 
 then be the ultimate cause of the error. 
 
 u See D. L. Proem. 8 (Arist. frag. 6): 'Aptcrore^ d' h Trpwrw Kept fyi?M- 
 cofyiag /cat irpEa^vrepovg elvai <>oi>f udyovg ^> T&V AtyvTrrtwv /cat dvo /car' avrovq 
 elvai ap^df, ayaObv 6ai/Ltova /cat /ca/cov daifiova. It is very probable that A. 
 added the victory of Good over Evil. Such notices are just what we 
 naturally expect from Aristotle. If Philip of Opus had this fact from A. 
 there would be additional reason for regarding the Evil World Soul in the 
 Laws as one of his interpolations, as Zeller is inclined to think, cf. Phil, der 
 Griech. II A, p. 973, n. 3, and for the contrary view see Susemihl, Genet. 
 Entw. II, p. 598 ff. See also Heinze, Xenokrates, p. 26 ff., and Zeller's 
 review of Heinze in Archiv f. Gesch. der Phil., 1894. I believe that, if 
 anything is to be eliminated, the cure must be more radical than that 
 proposed by Heinze and Zeller. 
 
 15 Mention has already been made (note 12) of the five orders of life, and 
 it was seen that Cicero's quotation from Aristotle in De Nat. Deorum,II 
 15, closely resembled Epin. 981 C ff. Cicero then continues with arguments 
 which are Platonic or Aristotelian in their general character, but also stand 
 in intimate harmony with the Epinomis. In II 16 he again cites Aristotle 
 (frag. 24), and this quotation again tallies well with what follows in Epin. 
 982 B ff. It certainly seems highly probable that Cicero here is epitomizing 
 
77 
 
 When and by whom, then, we may enquire, was the Epinomis 
 produced ? And here, beside the tradition ascribing it to Plato, 
 we find one naming Philip of Opus, the reputed editor of the 
 Laws, 16 as its author. The character to be inferred from the 
 Epinomis tallies admirably with the report of Suidas. But there, 
 absurdly enough, he is made a contemporary of Philip of Mace- 
 don and a personal pupil of Socrates. Since the error clearly 
 lurks in the name of Socrates, Praetorius, led by supposed traces 
 of ultra- Pythagoreanism, suggests Echecrates instead. 17 But there 
 is no need of supposing Philip indoctrinated with Pythagoreanism 
 by Echecrates in Italy before he came to Athens, where its tenets 
 were sufficiently current ; and besides, according to Proclus, 18 it 
 was to Plato that he owed his bent for mathematics. Of greater 
 importance, however, even than this is the consideration that we 
 thus fail to account for Philip's strong literary and historical 
 interest evidenced in the list of his works. Now, though it is not 
 
 throughout one of Aristotle's earlier works which may well have been 
 known to the author of the Epinomis. Mayor's commentary gathers the 
 materials very well. Then, too, the argument, Epin. 988 A ff ., to show that 
 the gods cannot look with disfavor on the pursuit of the highest wisdom, may 
 be due to the similar one in Arist. Met. 982^ 28 ff. or its prototype in II. $., 
 and Praetorius (De Philippe Opuntio, p. 7 f.) may be right in attributing 
 to Philip's revision the parallel passages in Legg. 821 A and 967 A. Again, 
 Epin. 973 D: T^yu 6' ovdev ootydv, is an expression foreign to Plato, 
 who used ovdev irotidlMv instead (cf. Meno 75 E, Gorg. 491 D, etc.). Euthyd. 
 293 D, Symp. 175 D, TheaeL 150 C, are not parallel cases; but in Arist. 
 Met. A. 2, 982* 12 : 610 padiov Kal ovdev co(j>6v t we find its perfect counterpart. 
 Many other points I intentionally omit. 
 
 16 See Diog. L. Ill, 37 : evioi re tyaalv bri 3>ihnnro(; 6 'OvrowTvof rove 
 avrov <sc. n/ldr<yvof> fiereypa^ev bvraq ev /c^pcj. roiirov 6z Kal rrjv 
 <f>aolv elvai. Suidas s. v. fahoaofas : <<fr. 6 '0.> ftMaofof 6f rovf 
 v6fj-ovf dieTXev el? j3i/3Ma t/3' TO yap iy' avrbg Trpoadeivai. teal rjv 
 
 Kal avrov H/ldrwvof d/cofdr^f, cxo^aaa^ role fjLere&pots. uv de Kara 
 ^i^,tTr7rov rbv M.ane66va cweypaiparo rdde : TT. r. aTcoaraceu^ rj"kiov Kal creA^^f , TT. 
 6euv /3', TT. xp ovov * K. pvduv, TT. ifevfapiac, IT. bpyije, TT. dvraTro^dcrewf, TT. Ao/cpwv 
 TWV 'OTTovvricjVf 7T. r]6ovijg , TT. Ipwrof, TT. <j>i2.cjv Kal (j> L^iaq , TT. 
 rov y pd<j>e tv , IT . nAdrwvof, TT. e/c/let^ewf <re/l7/v^, rr. fj,eye6ov^ rjhiov K. 
 ceT^rjvrjg K. yqc, TT. aorpaTr&v, TT. Tr/lav^rwv, apiO/a^riKa, TT. Tcohvydvuv aptdfj.&v, 
 oTTTiK-uv {3', TT . v o 7T T p i K v (3' t KvuhiaKo., ^EGorrjra^ KOI d/lAa. 
 
 17 Op. cit. p. 5 f. 
 
 18 Proclus in Euclid. II, p. 19 : $ihnnro(; 6e . . . n/ldrwvof &v fj.a6r/rrj<; Kal i>7r' 
 Keivov Trporpands ei? ra fiadj/ftara, Kal rdc (,)jrr]GEi^ enoielro Kara rdf 
 
 ;, Kal ravra irpobfiaXev eavT<f) t baa aero ry H/ldrwvof 0/Aoao^i(z 
 
to be doubted that Suidas or his predecessor really read Socrates, 19 
 we may well have here one of the many confusions of ZQKPA TOYI 
 and ISOKPATOri. If Philip then entered the Academy late in 
 life after studying under Isocrates, 20 imitation of Plato's obscurer 
 style and assiduous devotion to mathematics would readily 
 account for the literary defects of the Epinomis. Seeing, there- 
 fore, that his acquaintance with Aristotle's works displayed in 
 our dialogue seems confined to the juvenile Ilep} Qdoffoytaq or the 
 portions of the Metaphysics reproduced from it, we infer that he 
 wrote his production shortly after the death of Plato and before 
 the great achievements in astronomy of the Alexandrian age, of 
 which he betrayed no knowledge. This conclusion, while not 
 strictly verifiable, seems on the whole most probable. 21 
 
 19 It seems quite improbable that Suidas would have said nal avrov 
 n/ldrwvof unless he had read Socrates. 
 
 20 Note the pompous enov 6rj nal gvvide, av ooi JOKW KO/W /UET' avruv /ca/lwf TOV 
 TOIOVTOV nepi 'ktyuv, Epin. 973 C, and the truly Isocratean passage, Epin. 
 987 D : rode -ye firjv diavoqdqvat XPV KO.VT'' avSpa "EA/l^a, K.T.?>. The close 
 also is declamatory. Is there perhaps intended some criticism of Isocrates' 
 insistence on the need of (j>vai in oratory in Epin. 976 BC ? 
 
 21 Bergk, Fttnf Abhandlungen, etc. (1883), p. 53, n. I, tries to show that 
 Philip edited the Laws (and presumably added the Epin.} immediately 
 after Plato's death. His reference to Isocrates, Philip, c. 13, may prove 
 this regarding the Laws, but will not necessarily hold as to Epin. Yet it 
 seems likely that the latter appeared soon afterwards. Cf. in general 
 Zeller, II A, p. 443, n. I. Objections to this conclusion will probably be 
 based on the recognition of Stoic influences in the Epinomis. But the 
 relation of many of the Stoic doctrines to anterior systems is too obscure 
 to warrant a dogmatic decision on this point. 
 
CORRIGENDA ET ADDENDA. 
 
 On <j>EVKT6e in n. 4, p. 16, see also Zeller, III A, p. 223, n. 4. 
 P. 18, n. 9 end, add : see also Cic. N. D., II, vii 19 and Sext. Empir. VII 
 92 ff. 
 
 P. 20, n. i, read rf for rf. 
 
 P. 31, n. 19, read eM)y for eWy. 
 
 P. 41, n. 14, end, for one passage, read our passage. 
 
 P. 44, n. 3, end, reference is to note 8 of Ale. I. 
 
 P. 45, n. 7, add: See vaiiu in Aristophanes, Thesmoph. 1183, 1218. 
 
 Since my brief section on the Axiochus has been in print several discus- 
 sions of that dialogue have come to my notice. Feddersen's Programm 
 (Cuxhaven, 1895) and Immisch's Axiochus (Teubner, 1895) I know only at 
 second hand. The latter work was reviewed by Wilamowitz in Getting, 
 gelehrte Anzeiger, 1895, and by Wendland in the Berliner philol. Wochen- 
 schr. for April 25, 1896. Wilamowitz now abandons his thesis that the 
 Axiochus originated in the third century B. C., and believes, as I do, that 
 it is the latest of the vodevd/usva (p. 984). But he still shares the reluctance 
 of Immisch to dating it in the first century B. C. I am of course willing 
 to admit that no definite date can be established, but Wilamowitz's own 
 argument, which is excellent, requires it to be set as late as possible ; and 
 I still hold that the beginning of the first century B. C. is early enough. 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF 
 
RETURN TO the circulation desk of any 
 University of California Library 
 
 or to the 
 
 NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 Bldg. 400, Richmond Field Station 
 University of California 
 Richmond, CA 94804-4698 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 2-month loans may be renewed by calling 
 (510)642-6753 
 
 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing 
 books to NRLF 
 
 Renewals and recharges may be made 4 
 days prior to due date. 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 MAR 1 2002 
 
 12,000(11/95) 
 
 LD21A-60m-8,'70 
 (N8837slO)476 A-32 
 
 denerai Libt 
 University of California 
 Berkeley