When Schleiermacher says (Einleitung, p. 248), respecting the _falsarius_ whom he supposes to have written the Theagês--"Damit ist ihm begegnet, auf eine höchst verkehrte Art wunderbar zusammenzurühren diese göttliche Schickung, und jenes persönliche Vorgefühl welches dem Sokrates zur göttlichen Stimme ward".--I contend that the mistake is chargeable to Schleiermacher himself, for bisecting into two phenomena that which appears in the Apology as the same phenomenon under two different names--[Greek: to\ daimo/nion]--[Greek: to\ tou= theou= sêmei=on]. Besides, to treat the Dæmon as a mere "personal presentiment" of Sokrates, may be a true view:--but it is the view of one who does not inhale the same religious atmosphere as Sokrates, Plato, and Xenophon. It cannot therefore be properly applied in explaining their sayings or doings. Kühner, who treats the Theagês as not composed by Plato, grounds this belief partly on the assertion, that the [Greek: daimo/nion] of Sokrates is described therein as something peculiar to Sokrates; which, according to Kühner, was the fiction of a subsequent time. By Sokrates and his contemporaries (Kühner says) it was considered "non sibi soli tanquam proprium quoddam beneficium a Diis tributum, sed commune sibi esse cum cæteris hominibus" (pp. 20-21). I dissent entirely from this view, which is contradicted by most of the passages noticed even by Kühner himself. It is at variance with the Platonic Apology, as well as with the Theætêtus (150 D), and Republic (vi. 496 C). Xenophon does indeed try, in the first Chapter of the Memorabilia, as the defender of Sokrates, to soften the _invidia_ against Sokrates, by intimating that other persons had communications from the Gods as well as he. But we see plainly, even from other passages of the Memorabilia, that this was not the persuasion of Sokrates himself, nor of his friends, nor of his enemies. They all considered it (as it is depicted in the Theagês also) to be a special privilege and revelation. CHAPTER XVI. ERASTÆ OR ANTERASTÆ--RIVALES. The main subject of this short dialogue is--What is philosophy? [Greek: ê( philosophi/a--to\ philosophei=n]. How are we to explain or define it? What is its province and purport? [Side-note: Erastæ--subject and persons of the dialogue--dramatic introduction--interesting youths in the palæstra.]