Yxem, who defends the genuineness of the Erastæ (Ueber Platon's Kleitophon, pp. 6-7, Berlin, 1846), insists very properly on this point; not merely as an important fact in itself, but as determining the sense of the words [Greek: ei)/per oi( A)nterastai\ Pla/tôno/s ei)si], and as showing that the words rather affirm, than deny, the authenticity of the dialogue. "If the Anterastæ are the work of Plato, _as they are universally admitted to be_." You must supply the parenthesis in this way, in order to make Thrasyllus consistent with himself. Yxem cites a passage from Galen, in which [Greek: ei)/per] is used, and in which the parenthesis must be supplied in the way indicated: no doubt at all being meant to be hinted. And I will produce another passage out of Diogenes himself, where [Greek: ei)/per] is used in the same way; not as intended to convey the smallest doubt, but merely introducing the premiss for a conclusion immediately following. Diogenes says, respecting the Platonic Ideas, [Greek: ei)/per e)sti\ mnê/mê, ta\s i)de/as e)n toi=s ou)=sin u(pa/rchein] (iii. 15). He does not intend to suggest any doubt whether there be such a fact as memory. [Greek: Ei)/per] is sometimes the equivalent of [Greek: e)peidê/per]: as we learn from Hermann ad Viger. VIII. 6, p. 512. There is therefore no fair ground for supposing that Thrasyllus doubted the genuineness of the Erastæ. And when I read what modern critics say in support of their verdict of condemnation, I feel the more authorised in dissenting from it. I will cite a passage or two from Stallbaum. Stallbaum begins his Prolegomena as follows, pp. 205-206: "Quanquam hic libellus genus dicendi habet purum, castum, elegans, nihil ut inveniri queat quod à Platonis aut Xenophontis elegantiâ, abhorreat--tamen quin à Boeckhio, Schleiermachero, Astio, Sochero, Knebelio, aliis jure meritoque pro suppositicio habitus sit, haudquaquam dubitamus. Est enim materia operis adeo non ad Platonis mentem rationemque elaborata, ut potius cuivis alii Socraticorum quam huic rectè adscribi posse videatur." After stating that the Erastæ may be divided into two principal sections, Stallbaum proceeds:--"Neutra harum partium ita tractata est, ut nihil desideretur, quod ad justam argumenti explicationem merito requiras--nihil inculcatum reperiatur, quod vel alio modo illustratum vel omnino omissum esse cupias".