« 



506 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY, 



ten, and something, if possible, about the writer. Accordingly a slight 

 digression on its authenticity will not be out of place. 



That the genuineness of this dialogue was doubted, even in antiquity, 

 has been maintained by some, notably Wolf, on the authority of the 

 following passage in Aelian (VIII, 2) : ovk coero yap 8el.v ov8evi (pdovdv 



a-o(pias, are av KaXos Kai dyados. Xe'-yei Se IlXdrwi^ raiiTa, ei 8f] 6 "liVTTapxos IlXd- 



T(ov6s €<TTi Tto ovTL. But thls coutaius, at the very end, as Grote ^^ points 

 out, a conjectural emendation. Hercher in his edition ascribes the 

 reading 6Wt with no following word to the emendation of Perizonius, 

 doubtless in his edition of 1701.*^ But the manuscripts read rw ovn 

 na6r]Tf]i. Grote's contention is that " if you construe the passage as it 

 stands without such conjectural alteration, it does not justify Wolfs 

 inference ' that the genuineness oi" the Hipparchus was doubted in 

 antiquity.' " But if we do not emend with Perizonius we have an his- 

 torical error, the suggestion that Hipparchus might have been the 

 pupil of Plato, a mistake which Mr. Grote probably with perfect justice 

 considers " nowise impossible in the case of Aelian." But if we do not 

 emend, I fail to see the connection of the statement " if Hipparchus is 

 really a pupil of Plato " with the preceding. It is entirely lacking in 

 logical sequence. 



There is also another argument, which, so far as I can discover, has 

 not been adduced by any one as yet, but which to me is conclusive in 

 favor of adopting the emendation of Perizonius. Aelian, in the same 

 book, and only a few lines before the disputed passage, has these words 



(VlII, 2) : "inrrapxas 6 TleiaicTTpaTov naii ti pecrl3vTaTus mu tcov JJficncrTpdTov 

 KOI (TocfxaraTos fjv Adrjuaiciiv. ovtos koL to Op,r]pov eVjy TrpooTos iKopucrev is rds 

 'Adrjvas, KoX r]vdyKa(rf tovs payj/aBovs rois IIava6r]vaiois avrd adeiv. Now, after 



a comparison of this with the passage from the Hipparchus (228 B) which 

 I have just quoted, I do not think that there can be any doubt that 

 Aelian was quoting outright from pseudo-Plato. What could be more 

 natural then that a few lines later he should make a reference to the 

 book Hipparchus from which he had just quoted and which was still 

 running in his mind, and probably to our very passage containing the 



words, OS aXAa rt ttoXXu koI KaXd epya <ro(j)Las dirfSd^aro, which WOuld make 



a very tolerable precedent for Aelian's, — ovk aero ydp Bdv ov8evi (pdove'iv 

 a-o(f)ias, are (bv koXos koX dyados. It therefore sccms to me by all means 

 preferable and even necessary to adopt the emendation of Perizonius 

 and to agree with Wolf that the authenticity of the Hipparchus was 

 doubted even as early as Aelian (fl. 180). 



Diogenes Laertius, who flourished at some time near the beginning 



39 Plato, London, 1888, II, 85. " See Christ, p. 762. 



