the contrary, the "Lives" place it in Ol. LXXXII. 2. According to both accounts he goes at the age of fifteen years to Thurii; which, according to that of Dionysius, falls in quite correctly with Ol. LXXXIV. 1, when the colony was actually being founded; according to the other with Ol. LXXXVI. 1, eight years later, when something important was to be distributed there. The confusion of the last account proceeds also from the circumstance that the author makes Lysias stay at Thurii till his sixty-third year, and consequently contradicts himself; wherefore Taylor's endeavour by means of an emendation to bring the first account to agree with Dionysius is useless. So also the notice of the early death of Cephalus may be only a supposition, because the writers. could not explain, what is nevertheless very easy to explain, how Cephalus should have permitted his sons, and one of them so young, to go abroad. And it might be a question whether the assumption, by no means general, or resting upon any sufficient testimony, that Lysias was born at Athens, may not have arisen only from the fact that nothing was known to the contrary. Then, like many others, he may perhaps have travelled to Thurii without coming straight from Athens, and his father may have fixed his residence at Athens after this emigration of Lysias, and not before, being persuaded to do so by Pericles, as indeed Lysias himself so distinctly asserts.

P. 129. Plutarch and Proclus.

See Plutarch de frat. am. II. 484. E. "As Plato has given his brothers a celebrity by introducing them into the most beautiful of his writings; Glaucon, namely, and Adimantus into the Republic, and Antiphon, the youngest of them, into the Parmenides." For the rest, Plutarch would hardly have wished that Antiphon to share with this one the celebrity of having transferred his tastes from philosophy to horsebreeding. Proclus also recognises this half-brother, and thence concludes very rightly that the dialogue between Cephalus and Antiphon cannot have been held until after the death of Socrates, without, however, expressly declaring that he considers this Cephalus to be a different person from the father of Lysias.

P. 131. If any one.

As Ast has notwithstanding lately done: see his Essay on Plato's life and writings, p. 250. I may add, that I should not envy those readers their opinion to whom Ast has satisfactorily proved that the Parmenides was written at the earliest after the Theætetus, since in the latter the solution is at once so decidedly commenced of those problems which in the Parmenides are but slightly indicated. For, Ast has by no means distinctly shown in what respect the Parmenides completes the Theætetus, and even the Sophist and Statesman. Nor even if we allow that Socrates here, in the pains he takes and the problems he enunciates, shows himself to have arrived at the summit of dialectics, will, therefore, the investigations which Parmenides conducts and in which Socrates is perfectly passive, constitute the completion of those in the above-mentioned dialogues. The notion that from that perfection in the enunciation of the problems, and the success of Socrates' endeavours, Parmenides may be intended to represent the erring philosopher, must appear to all persons accurately acquainted with Plato too ridiculous for anything to be said about it. I agree, however, with Ast, that in this dialogue the representation of virtuosity in investigation is the principal point, and it is upon this, as well as upon the circumstance that it contains only germs, that the arguments rest for the position which I have assigned to it, so that I find it unnecessary to enter more accurately into what Ast alleges in favour of his own opinion.

APOLOGY.

P. 134. Let not the reader start.

These words seem now no longer suitable after Ast's total and uncompromising excommunication of this dialogue. But I believe there are very many persons to whom even my opinion will at first sight seem too bold, and hope that few only will allow themselves to be persuaded by Ast's intricate criticism, that the Socrates here upon the stage is a

conceited sophist, and that the whole of this defence belongs to the common and counterfeit art of rhetoric,

P. 136. Which Diogenes.

See Diog. Laert. Lib. II. s. 41. We are there told that Plato wished to defend Socrates from the rostrum, but that at the first word the judges put him down by a sally of Attic wit. But this tale is too little accredited and too improbable in itself for anything to be built upon it./(IIλáτwva ἀναβῆναι ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμα, καὶ εἰπεῖν Νεώτατος ὤν, ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι, τῶν ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμα ἀναβάντων· τοὺς δικαστὰς ἐκβοῆσαι καταβάντων, τουτέστι, κατάβηθι.)

P. 138. Much to change.

These imperfections are, in Ast's opinion, among the sufficient grounds for excommunicating the piece; but an imitating sophist, and one who proceeded according to the rules of rhetoric, must have been far worse than the one here otherwise is, to commit such faults. But Socrates may commit them, because on every occasion he is hurried onwards by his higher objects, and the whole defence in particular looks like an occasion, such as common life might present, for following his calling.

Of the actual defence.

For Socrates must have defended himself, and I should have wished Ast to have given us some slight hint as to how, in his opinion, Socrates dispensed with this task,

HIPPARCHUS.

P. 157. Two great Masters.

Valckenaer on Herod. p. 398. and Wolf. Prol. p. 154.

Striking out.

Even Elian mentions his doubts whether the Hipparchus is really a work of Plato; but this, in itself, would be but of little importance.

P. 159. For even the Menon.

Other points of resemblance between our dialogue and the Menon are mentioned by Boeckh. (in Minoem, p. 40.)

MINOS.

P. 163. Minos was never.

For an account in Diodorus that an Athenian conqueror at the Olympic games was called so has been already corrected by Boeckh. (See Pref. in Minoem.)

GORGIAS.

P. 175. In the Protagoras.

Compare the conversation in the Protagoras beginning p. 358.

P. 180. From the Lysis.

It must be left for the reader to decide, whether he can more easily conceive this to have been the case, or, on the contrary, that these hints afforded matter for his composition to the composer of the Lysis. Only, in that case, the composer will still remain entitled to be considered a more ingenious person than Ast will allow him to have been.

P. 185. No trace appears.

None, at least, according to my notions. Ast indeed thinks otherwise, and would conclude hence that Plato composed the Gorgias during the Socratic process, when I think it must be allowed he could scarcely have been in the humour for a work so extremely artificial, and, as even Ast will allow upon the whole, so extremely deep. But I refrain from saying more upon this point, and leave the case in the hands of every skilful reader.

In the Ecclesiazusæ of Aristophanes.

See the commentators upon different passages of this comedy, and more at length as to the whole of it, Mor

genstern, Commentat. de Platonis Republ. p. 76-78. Should it be objected that this comedy did not perhaps contain so many allusions to Plato as is generally believed, it is still clear enough that philosophers, and especially Socraticians, are comprehended under its satire, and among them Plato was more effectively hit, inasmuch as he was distinguished above the rest by reputation and rank.

P. 187. The example of Archelaus.

Athenæus, in the well-known passage, x1. 507, Ed. Bip. IV. p. 384, writes strange things concerning this subject, which authors have copied from him, and hence have dreamed of a relation between Plato and Archelaus which is perfectly impossible. The passage runs as follows: "In the Gorgias he censures not only the person from whom the dialogue takes its title, but also Archelaus, the king of Macedonia, both as a man of low descent, and as one who had killed his lord and king. And this is the same Plato of whom Speusippus says, that by means of his close friendship with Archelaus he was the cause of Philip's coming to the government." Then, after bringing forward the passage of Speusippus referring to this point, Athenæus continues: "But whether or not this was actually the case, God knows." In truth God knows how it could be the case not, that is, what Speusippus says, but what, in Athenæus, is thence inferred. Plato, by means of a confidential relation with Archelaus, who died in the same year with Socrates, is supposed to have been the cause that ten years later Philip came to the government. And how? Listen. Carystias of Pergamus, says Athenæus, writes as follows in his Memorabilia. When Speusippus learnt that Philip spoke ill of Plato, he wrote in a letter as follows: "As if it were not known that Philip owes even his kingdom to Plato. For Plato sent Euphræus to Perdiccas, who was influenced by him to assign some province to Philip. And as Philip maintained there an armed force, he had, when Perdiccas died, the means in readiness, and could put himself in possession of the kingdom." Now is there here a single word about Archelaus, or any relation with him. Unless we do the sophist the injustice of accusing him of a monstrous falsification, he has confused,