respecting ancient and modern history), for they are separated by an inter'al of a thousand years, yet they seem to recur in a sort of cycle, and we are surprised to find that the new is ever old, and that the teaching of the past has still a meaning for us.
III. In the preface to the first edition I expressed a strong opinion at variance with Mr. Grote's, that the so-called Epistles of Plato were spurious. His friend and editor. Professor Bain, thinks that I ought to give the reasons why I differ from so eminent an authority. Reserving the fuller discussion of the question for another place, I will shortly defend my opinion by the following arguments : — ^
(a) Because almost all epistles purporting to be of the classical age of Greek literature are forgeries[1] Of all documents this class are the least likely to be preserved and the most likely to be invented. The ancient world swarmed with them ; the great libraries stimulated the demand for them ; and at a time when there was no regular publication of books, they easily crept into the world.
(b) When one epistle out of a number is spurious, the remainder of the series cannot be admitted to be genuine, unless there be some independent ground for thinking them so : when all but one are spurious, over- whelming evidence is required of the genuineness of the one : when they are all similar in style or motive, like witnesses who agree in the same tale, they stand or fall together. But no one, not even Mr. Grote, would main- tain that all the Epistles of Plato are genuine, and very few critics think that more than one of them is so. And they are clearly all written from the same motive, whether serious or only literary. Nor is there an example in
- ↑ Compare Bcntley's Works (Dyce's Kdition), vol. ii. 136 foil., 222.
