observed　in　the　Hippias；　cannot　with　certainty　be　adduced　on　either　side　of
  the　argument。　　On　the　whole；　more　may　be　said　in　favour　of　the　genuineness
  of　the　Hippias　than　against　it。
  The　Menexenus　or　Funeral　Oration　is　cited　by　Aristotle；　and　is　interesting
  as　supplying　an　example　of　the　manner　in　which　the　orators　praised　'the
  Athenians　among　the　Athenians；'　falsifying　persons　and　dates；　and　casting　a
  veil　over　the　gloomier　events　of　Athenian　history。　　It　exhibits　an
  acquaintance　with　the　funeral　oration　of　Thucydides；　and　was；　perhaps；
  intended　to　rival　that　great　work。　　If　genuine；　the　proper　place　of　the
  Menexenus　would　be　at　the　end　of　the　Phaedrus。　　The　satirical　opening　and
  the　concluding　words　bear　a　great　resemblance　to　the　earlier　dialogues；　the
  oration　itself　is　professedly　a　mimetic　work；　like　the　speeches　in　the
  Phaedrus；　and　cannot　therefore　be　tested　by　a　comparison　of　the　other
  writings　of　Plato。　　The　funeral　oration　of　Pericles　is　expressly　mentioned
  in　the　Phaedrus；　and　this　may　have　suggested　the　subject；　in　the　same
  manner　that　the　Cleitophon　appears　to　be　suggested　by　the　slight　mention　of
  Cleitophon　and　his　attachment　to　Thrasymachus　in　the　Republic；　and　the
  Theages　by　the　mention　of　Theages　in　the　Apology　and　Republic；　or　as　the
  Second　Alcibiades　seems　to　be　founded　upon　the　text　of　Xenophon；　Mem。　　A
  similar　taste　for　parody　appears　not　only　in　the　Phaedrus；　but　in　the
  Protagoras；　in　the　Symposium；　and　to　a　certain　extent　in　the　Parmenides。
  To　these　two　doubtful　writings　of　Plato　I　have　added　the　First　Alcibiades；
  which；　of　all　the　disputed　dialogues　of　Plato；　has　the　greatest　merit；　and
  is　somewhat　longer　than　any　of　them；　though　not　verified　by　the　testimony
  of　Aristotle；　and　in　many　respects　at　variance　with　the　Symposium　in　the
  description　of　the　relations　of　Socrates　and　Alcibiades。　　Like　the　Lesser
  Hippias　and　the　Menexenus；　it　is　to　be　compared　to　the　earlier　writings　of
  Plato。　　The　motive　of　the　piece　may；　perhaps；　be　found　in　that　passage　of
  the　Symposium　in　which　Alcibiades　describes　himself　as　self…convicted　by
  the　words　of　Socrates。　　For　the　disparaging　manner　in　which　Schleiermacher
  has　spoken　of　this　dialogue　there　seems　to　be　no　sufficient　foundation。　　At
  the　same　time；　the　lesson　imparted　is　simple；　and　the　irony　more
  transparent　than　in　the　undoubted　dialogues　of　Plato。　　We　know；　too；　that
  Alcibiades　was　a　favourite　thesis；　and　that　at　least　five　or　six　dialogues
  bearing　this　name　passed　current　in　antiquity；　and　are　attributed　to
  contemporaries　of　Socrates　and　Plato。　　（1）　In　the　entire　absence　of　real
  external　evidence　（for　the　catalogues　of　the　Alexandrian　librarians　cannot
  be　regarded　as　trustworthy）；　and　（2）　in　the　absence　of　the　highest　marks
  either　of　poetical　or　philosophical　excellence；　and　（3）　considering　that　we
  have　express　testimony　to　the　existence　of　contemporary　writings　bearing
  the　name　of　Alcibiades；　we　are　compelled　to　suspend　our　judgment　on　the
  genuineness　of　the　extant　dialogue。
  Neither　at　this　point；　nor　at　any　other；　do　we　propose　to　draw　an　absolute
  line　of　demarcation　between　genuine　and　spurious　writings　of　Plato。　　They
  fade　off　imperceptibly　from　one　class　to　another。　　There　may　have　been
  degrees　of　genuineness　in　the　dialogues　themselves；　as　there　are　certainly
  degrees　of　evidence　by　which　they　are　supported。　　The　traditions　of　the
  oral　discourses　both　of　Socrates　and　Plato　may　have　formed　the　basis　of
  semi…Platonic　writings；　some　of　them　may　be　of　the　same　mixed　character
  which　is　apparent　in　Aristotle　and　Hippocrates；　although　the　form　of　them
  is　different。　　But　the　writings　of　Plato；　unlike　the　writings　of　Aristotle；
  seem　never　to　have　been　confused　with　the　writings　of　his　disciples：　　this
  was　probably　due　to　their　definite　form；　and　to　their　inimitable
  excellence。　　The　three　dialogues　which　we　have　offered　in　the　Appendix　to
  the　criticism　of　the　reader　may　be　partly　spurious　and　partly　genuine；　they
  may　be　altogether　spurious；that　is　an　alternative　which　must　be　frankly
  admitted。　　Nor　can　we　maintain　of　some　other　dialogues；　such　as　the
  Parmenides；　and　the　Sophist；　and　Politicus；　that　no　considerable　objection
  can　be　urged　against　them；　though　greatly　overbalanced　by　the　weight
  （chiefly）　of　internal　evidence　in　their　favour。　　Nor；　on　the　other　hand；
  can　we　exclude　a　bare　possibility　that　some　dialogues　which　are　usually
  rejected；　such　as　the　Greater　Hippias　and　the　Cleitophon；　may　be　genuine。
  The　nature　and　object　of　these　semi…Platonic　writings　require　more　careful
  study　and　more　comparison　of　them　with　one　another；　and　with　forged
  writings　in　general；　than　they　have　yet　received；　before　we　can　finally
  decide　on　their　character。　　We　do　not　consider　them　all　as　genuine　until
  they　can　be　proved　to　be　spurious；　as　is　often　maintained　and　still　more
  often　implied　in　this　and　similar　discussions；　but　should　say　of　some　of
  them；　that　their　genuineness　is　neither　proven　nor　disproven　until　further
  evidence　about　them　can　be　adduced。　　And　we　are　as　confident　that　the
  Epistles　are　spurious；　as　that　the　Republic；　the　Timaeus；　and　the　Laws　are
  genuine。
  On　the　whole；　not　a　twentieth　part　of　the　writings　which　pass　under　the
  name　of　Plato；　if　we　exclude　the　works　rejected　by　the　ancients　themselves
  and　two　or　three　other　plausible　inventions；　can　be　fairly　doubted　by　those
  who　are　willing　to　allow　that　a　considerable　change　and　growth　may　have
  taken　place　in　his　philosophy　（see　above）。　　That　twentieth　debatable
  portion　scarcely　in　any　degree　affects　our　judgment　of　Plato；　either　as　a
  thinker　or　a　writer；　and　though　suggesting　some　interesting　questions　to
  the　scholar　and　critic；　is　of　little　importance　to　the　general　reader。
  MENEXENUS
  by
  Plato　（see　Appendix　I　above）
  Translated　by　Benjamin　Jowett
  INTRODUCTION。
  The　Menexenus　has　more　the　character　of　a　rhetorical　exercise　than　any
  other　of　the　Platonic　works。　　The　writer　seems　to　have　wished　to　emulate
  Thucydides；　and　the　far　slighter　work　of　Lysias。　　In　his　rivalry　with　the
  latter；　to　whom　in　the　Phaedrus　Plato　shows　a　strong　antipathy；　he　is
  entirely　successful；　but　he　is　not　equal　to　Thucydides。　　The　Menexenus；
  though　not　without　real　Hellenic　interest；　falls　very　far　short　of　the
  rugged　grandeur　and　political　insight　of　the　great　historian。　　The　fiction
  of　the　speech　having　been　invented　by　Aspasia　is　well　sustained；　and　is　in
  the　manner　of　Plato；　notwithstanding　the　anachronism　which　puts　into　her
  mouth　an　allusion　to　the　peace　of　Antalcidas；　an　event　occurring　forty
  years　after　the　date　of　the　supposed　oration。　　But　Plato；　like　Shakespeare；
  is　careless　of　such　anachronisms；　which　are　not　supposed　to　strike　the　mind
  of　the　reader。　　The　effect　produced　by　these　grandiloquent　orations　on
  Socrates；　who　does　not　recover　after　having　heard　one　of　them　for　three
  days　and　more；　is　truly　Platonic。
  Such　discourses；　if　we　may　form　a　judgment　from　the　three　which　are　extant
  （for　the　so…called　Funeral　Oration　of　Demosthenes　is　a　bad　and　spurious
  imitation　of　Thucydides　and　Lysias）；　conformed　to　a　regular　type。　　They
  began　with　Gods　and　ancestors；　and　the　legendary　history　of　Athens；　to
  which　succeeded　an　almost　equally　fictitious　account　of　later　times。　　The
  Persian　war　usually　formed　the　centre　of　the　narrative；　in　the　age　of
  Isocrates　and　Demosthenes　the　Athenians　were　still　living　on　the　glories　of
  Marathon　and　Salamis。　　The　Menexenus　veils　in　panegyric　the　weak　places　of
  Athenian　history。　　The　war　of　Athens　and　Boeotia　is　a　war　of　liberation；
  the　Athenians　gave　back　the　Spartans　taken　at　Sphacteria　out　of　kindness
  indeed；　the　only　fault　of　the　city　was　too　great　kindness　to　their　enemies；
  who　were　more　honoured　than　the　friends　of　others　（compare　Thucyd。；　which
  seems　to　contain　the　germ　of　the　idea）；　we　democrats　are　the　aristocracy　of
  virtue；　and　the　like。　　These　are　the　platitudes　and　falsehoods　in　which
  history　is　disguised。　　The　taking　of　Athens　is　hardly　mentioned。
  The　author　of　the　Menexenus；　whether　Plato　or　not；　is　evidently　intending
  to　ridicule　the　practice；　and　at　the　same　time　to　show　that　he　can　beat　the
  rhetoricians　in　their　own　line；　as　in　the　Phaedrus　he　may　be　supposed　to
  offer　an　example　of　what　Lysias　might　have　said；　and　of　how　much　better　he
  might　have　written　in　his　own　style。　　The　orators　had　recourse　to　their
  favourite　loci　communes；　one　of　which；　as　we　find　in　Lysias；　was　the
  shortness　of　the　time　allowed　them　for　preparation。　　But　Socrates　points
  out　that　they　had　them　always　ready　for　delivery；　and　that　there　was　no
  difficulty　in　improvising　any　number　of　such　orations。　　To　praise　the
  Athenians　among　the　Athenians　was　easy；to　praise　them　among　the
  Lacedaemonians　would　have　been　a　much　more　difficult　task。　　Socrates
  himself　has　turned　rhetorician；　having　learned　of　a　woman；　Aspasia；　the
  mistress　of　Pericles；　and　any　one　whose　teachers　had　been　far　inferior　to
  his　ownsay；　on