s are ill-drawn. Socrates assumes the 'superior person' and
preaches too much, while Alcibiades is stupid and heavy-in-hand. There
are traces of Stoic influence in the general tone and phraseology of the
Dialogue (compare opos melesei tis...kaka: oti pas aphron mainetai):
and the writer seems to have been acquainted with the 'Laws' of Plato
(compare Laws). An incident from the Symposium is rather clumsily
introduced, and two somewhat hackneyed quotations (Symp., Gorg.) recur.
The reference to the death of Archelaus as having occurred 'quite
lately' is only a fiction, probably suggested by the Gorgias, where the
story of Archelaus is told, and a similar phrase occurs;--ta gar echthes
kai proen gegonota tauta, k.t.l. There are several passages which
are either corrupt or extremely ill-expressed. But there is a modern
interest in the subject of the dialogue; and it is a good example of
a short spurious work, which may be attributed to the second or third
century before Christ.

INTRODUCTION.

Much cannot be said in praise of the style or conception of the Eryxias.
It is frequently obscure; like the exercise of a student, it is full
of small imitations of Plato:--Phaeax returning from an expedition to
Sicily (compare Socrates in the Charmides from the army at Potidaea),
the figure of the game at draughts, borrowed from the Republic, etc. It
has also in many passages the ring of sophistry. On the other hand, the
rather unhandsome treatment which is exhibited towards Prodicus is quite
unlike the urbanity of Plato.

Yet there are some points in the argument which are deserving of
attention. (1) That wealth depends upon the need of it or demand for
it, is the first anticipation in an abstract form of one of the great
principles of modern political economy, and the nearest approach to it
to be found in an ancient writer. (2) The resolution of wealth into
its simplest implements going on to infinity is a subtle and refined
thought. (3) That wealth is relative to circumstances is a sound
conception. (4) That the arts and sciences which receive payment are
likewise to be comprehended under the notion of wealth, also touches a
question of modern political economy. (5) The distinction of post hoc
and propter hoc, often lost sight of in modern as well as in ancient
times. These metaphysical conceptions and distinctions show considerable
power of thought in the writer, whatever we may think of his merits as
an imitator of Plat