I have put together the two dialogues Hipparchus and Minos, partly because of the analogy which really exists between them, partly because that analogy is much insisted on by Boeckh, Schleiermacher, Stallbaum, and other recent critics; who not only strike them both out of the list of Platonic works, but speak of them with contempt as compositions. On the first point, I dissent from them altogether: on the second, I agree with them thus far--that I consider the two dialogues inferior works of Plato:--much inferior to his greatest and best compositions,--certainly displaying both less genius and less careful elaboration--probably among his early performances--perhaps even unfinished projects, destined for a farther elaboration, which they never received, and not published until after his decease. Yet in Hipparchus as well as in Minos, the subjects debated are important as regards ethical theory. Several questions are raised and partially canvassed: no conclusion is finally attained. These characteristics they have in common with several of the best Platonic dialogues. [Side-note: Hipparchus--Double meaning of [Greek: philokerdê\s] and [Greek: ke/rdos].] In Hipparchus, the question put by Sokrates is, about the definition of [Greek: o( philokerdê\s] (the lover of gain), and of [Greek: ke/rdos] itself--gain. The first of these two words (like many in Greek as well as in English) is used in two senses. In its plain, etymological sense, it means an attribute belonging to all men: all men love gain, hate loss. But since this is predicable of all, there is seldom any necessity for predicating it of any one man or knot of men in particular. Accordingly, when you employ the epithet as a predicate of A or B, what you generally mean is, to assert something more than its strict etymological meaning: to declare that he has the attribute in unusual measure; or that he has shown himself, on various occasions, wanting in other attributes, which on those occasions ought, in your judgment, to have countervailed it. The epithet thus comes to connote a sentiment of blame or reproach, in the mind of the speaker.[30] [Footnote 30: Aristotle adverts to this class of ethical epithets, connoting both an attribute in the person designated and an unfavourable sentiment in the speaker (Ethic. Nikom. ii. 6, p. 1107, a. 9). [Greek: Ou) pa=sa d' e)pide/chetai pra=xis, ou)de\ pa=n pa/thos, tê\n meso/têta; e)/nia ga\r eu)thu\s ô)no/mastai suneilêmme/na meta\ tê=s phaulo/têtos, oi)=on], &c.] [Side-note: State or mind of the agent, as to knowledge, frequent inquiry in Plato. No tenable definition found.]