[912] De institutione principis epistola ad Traianum, a treatise extant only in Latin form.
[913] IV, 72. On the biography and bibliography of Plutarch consult Christ, Gesch. d. Griechischen Litteratur, 5th ed., Munich, 1913, II, 2, “Die nachklassische Periode,” pp. 367ff.
[914] See also the essay, “Whether an old man should engage in politics,” cap. 16.
[915] See R. Schmertosch, in Philol.-Hist. Beitr. z. Ehren Wachsmuths, 1897, pp. 28ff.
[916] Language and literary form are surer guides and have been applied by B. Weissenberger, Die Sprache Plutarchs von Chäronea und die pseudoplutarchischen Schriften, II Progr. Straubing, 1896, pp. 15ff. In 1876 W. W. Goodwin, editing a revised edition of the seventeenth century English translation of the Morals, declared that no critical translation was possible until a thorough revision of the text had been undertaken with the help of the best MSS. Since then an edition of the text by G. N. Bernadakes, 1888-1896, has appeared, but it has not escaped criticism.
[917] The English translation of Plutarch’s Morals “by several hands,” first published in 1684-1694, sixth edition corrected and revised by W. W. Goodwin, 5 vols., 1870-1878, IV, 10, renders a passage in the seventh chapter of De defectu oraculorum, in which complaint is made of the “base and villainous questions” which are now put to the oracle of Apollo, as follows: “some coming to him as a mere paltry astrologer to try his skill and impose upon him with subtle questions.” But the corresponding clause in the Greek text is merely οἱ μὲν ὡς σοφιστοῦ διάπειραν λαμβάνοντες, and there seems to be no reason for taking the word “sophist” in any other than its usual meaning. The passage therefore cannot be interpreted as an attack upon even vulgar astrologers.
[918] De defectu oraculorum, 13.
[919] Cap. 12.
[920] Cap. 7.
[921] Cap. 8.