[Bryson], dialogues, i. [112 n.]
[Buddhism], i. [378 n.]
[Butler, Bp.], iv. [166 n.]
C.
[Calendar], ancients’, iv. [325 n.]
Campbell, Dr. George, iii. [391 n.]
Campbell, Prof. Lewis, on Theætêtus, iii. [111 n.], [112 n.], [146 n.], [158 n.];
advance of modern experimental science, [155 n.]
[Canon] of Plato, ancient discussions, i. [264];
works in Alexandrine library at the time of Kallimachus, [276];
probability of being in Alexandrine library at formation, [283];
editions from Alexandrine library, [295];
spurious works possibly in other libraries, [286];
Aristophanes, the grammarian, first arranged Platonic canon, [ ib.];
in trilogies, [273];
indicated by Plato himself, [325];
catalogue by Aristophanes trustworthy, [285];
ten dialogues rejected by all ancient critics, following Alexandrine authorities, [297];
Thrasyllus follows Aristophanes’ classification, [295], [299];
Tetralogies, [273 n.];
not the order established by Plato, [335 n.];
his classification, [289];
its principle, [295 n.];
division into dramatic and diegematic, [288];
incongruity of divisions, [294];
classification, defective but useful — dialogues of Search, of Exposition, [361];
erroneously applied, [364];
the scheme, when its principles correctly applied, [365];
sub-classes recognised, [366];
coincides with Aristotle’s two methods, Dialectic, Demonstrative, [363];
Thrasyllus did not doubt Hipparchus, [297 n.];
authority acknowledged till 16th century, [301];
more trustworthy than modern critics, [299 n.], [335];
Diogenes Laertius, [291 n.], [294];
Serranus, [302];
Phædrus considered by Tennemann keynote of series, [303];
Schleiermacher, [ib.];
proofs slender, [317], [324];
includes a preconceived scheme and an order of interdependence, [318];
assumptions as to Phædrus inadmissible, [319];
his reasons internal, [ ib.], [337], iv. [431];
Phædon, the first dialogue disallowed upon internal grounds, i. [288];
considered spurious by Panætius the Stoic, [ib.];
no internal theory yet established, [319];
Ast, [304];
admits only fourteen, [305];
Socher, [306];
Stallbaum, [307];
K. F. Hermann, [ib.];
coincides with Susemihl, [310];
principle reasonable, [322];
more tenable than Schleiermacher’s, [324];
Ueberweg attempts reconcilement of Schleiermacher and Hermann, [313];
Steinhart rejects several, [309];
Munk, [311];
next to Schleiermacher’s in ambition, [320];
Trendelenburg, [345 n.];
other critics, [316];
the problem incapable of solution, [317];
few certainties or reasonable presumptions for fixing date or order of dialogues, [324];
positive date of any dialogue unknown, [326];
age of Sokrates in a dialogue, of no moment, [320];
no sequence or interdependence of the dialogues provable, [322], [407];
circumstances of Plato’s intellectual and philosophical development little known, [323 n.];
Plato did not write till after death of Sokrates, [326], [334], [443 n.];
proofs, [ 327-334];
unsafe ground of modern theories, [336];
shown by Schleiermacher, [337];
a true theory must recognise Plato’s varieties and be based on all the works in the canon, [339];
dialogues may be grouped, [361];
inconsistency no proof of spuriousness, [xiii.], [344], [375], [400 n.], ii. [299], iii. [71], [85], [93], [176], [179], [182 n.], [284], [332], [400], [420], iv. [138];
see [Dialogues], [Epistles].