506 PROCEEDINGS OF Till: AM!::;: LDBMY, 



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



digre- ■-; >ii on its authenticity will not be out of place. 



Thai 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): oLk a*™ yap fciv ovbevi (i>&>vt\v 



(Tn(j>iis, are oiv k<i\6s k a\ aya86s. \eyei 8e UXi'itojv num. tl 817 i \aitapx 0i UAii- 



twvus f'art ru> 8m. Bui I h is c< >u tains, .-it the very end, as Grote ^ points 

 out, a conjectural emendation. Eercher in his edition asorib 

 reading omi with no following word to the emendation of Perizonius, 

 doubtless in his edition of 17(»1. 40 But the manuscripts read ™ 8vn 

 padrrrfjs. Qrote'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 of 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 probaUy with perfect just ire 

 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, his 

 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 Bame 

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



(VIII, 2): "lmrap^os 6 IIficri(XTpuTou 7nil? nptcrftiiTaTus utv twu lie KTiorpdrov 

 ku\ (To(j)<liT(iTOi rjv AdrjviiMV. ovTot K(ii ret Opr/pov enrj npwros iKupurtv is Ten 

 '/\6r)vas, ku\ rjvdyKiicrf tovs pa\j/a>8ovs rols IluvaOrfvuims aura iiSeiv. WOW, after 



a comparison of this with the passage from the I [ipparchus (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 1 1 ipparchus from which he had just quoted and which was still 

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

 Words, or <"XXa rt no\\a xal xaXd tpya trotylns aWt&et£aro, which would make 



a very tolerable precedent for Aelian's, ofa $tra yhp Mv otoe*] <f)fi<>v('ti> 



(robins. ut( oiv KuXot Km ayaBog. It thcrct'orc seems to me -by all means 



arable and even necessary to adopt the emendation of Perizonius 

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



doubted even :i s early as Aelian (tl. 130). 



Diogenes Laertius, who flourished at some time near the beginning 



3 » Plato, London, 1888, II. 85. *° See Christ, p. 762. 



