I cannot therefore agree with M. Boeckh in thinking, that "ubique se prodens Platonis imitatio" (p. 31) is an irresistible proof of spuriousness: nor can I think that his hypothesis shows itself to advantage, when he says, p. 10--"Ipse autem dialogus (Minos) quum post Politicum compositus sit, quod quædam in eo dicta rebus ibi expositis manifesté nitantur, ut paullo post ostendemus--quis est qui artificiosissimum philosophum, postquam ibi (in Politico) accuratius de naturâ legis egisset, de eâ iterum putet negligenter egisse?"--I do not think it so impossible as it appears to M. Boeckh, that a philosopher, after having _written_ upon a given subject _accuratius_, should subsequently write upon it _negligenter_. But if I granted this ever so fully, I should still contend that there remains another alternative. The negligent workmanship may have preceded the accurate: an alternative which I think is probably the truth, and which has nothing to exclude it except M. Boeckh's pure hypothesis, that the Minos must have been copied from the Politikus. While I admit then that the Hipparchus and Minos are among the inferior and earlier compositions of Plato, I still contend that there is no ground for excluding them from the list of his works. Though the Platonic critics of this century are for the most part of an adverse opinion, I have with me the general authority of the critics anterior to this century--from Aristophanes of Byzantium down to Bentley and Ruhnken--see Boeckh, pp. 7-32. Yxem defends the genuineness of the Hipparchus--(Ueber Platon's Kleitophon, p. 8. Berlin, 1846). CHAPTER XV. THEAGES. [Side-note: Theagês--has been declared spurious by some modern critics--grounds for such opinion not sufficient.]