It seems impossible to separate by any exact line the genuine writings of Plato from the spurious. The only external evidence to them which is of much value is that of Aristotle for the Alexandrian catalogues of a century later include manifest forgeries. Even the value of the Aristotelian authority is a good deal impaired by the uncertainty concerning the date and authorship of the writings which are ascribed to him. And several of the citations of Aristotle omit the name of Plato and some of them omit the name of the dialogue from which they are taken. Prior however to the enquiry about the writings of a particular author general considerations which equally affect all evidence to the genuineness of ancient writings are the following Shorter works are more likely to have been forged or to have received an erroneous designation than longer ones and some kinds of composition such as epistles or panegyrical orations are more liable to suspicion than others those again which have a taste of sophistry in them or the ring of a later age or the slighter character of a rhetorical exercise or in which a motive or some affinity to spurious writings can be detected or which seem to have originated in a name or statement really occurring in some classical author are also of doubtful credit while there is no instance of any ancient writing proved to be a forgery which combines excellence with length. A really great and original writer would have no object in fathering his works on Plato and to the forger or imitator the literary hack of Alexandria and Athens the Gods did not grant originality or genius. Further in attempting to balance the evidence for and against a Platonic dialogue we must not forget that the form of the Platonic writing was common to several of his contemporaries. Aeschines Euclid Phaedo Antisthenes and in the next generation Aristotle are all said to have composed dialogues and mistakes of names are very likely to have occurred. Greek literature in the third century before Christ was almost as voluminous as our own and without the safeguards of regular publication or printing or binding or even of distinct titles. An unknown writing was naturally attributed to a known writer whose works bore the same character and the name once appended easily obtained authority. A tendency may also be observed to blend the works and opinions of the master with those of his scholars. To a later Platonist the difference between Plato and his imitators was not so perceptible as to ourselves. The Memorabilia of Xenophon and the Dialogues of Plato are but a part of a considerable Socratic literature which has passed away. And we must consider how we should regard the question of the genuineness of a particular writing if this lost literature had been preserved to us.
