On the Authenticity of the Hippias Maior

Classical Quarterly 20 (3-4):134- (1926)
Grote's powerful defence of Thrasyllus' canon should have taught us at least not to reject lightly any dialogue which, like the Hippias Maior, is there classed as genuine. The burden of proof lies with those who attack our dialogue. Raeder, Ritter, and Apelt consider it to be genuine, while Ast, Jowett, Horneffer, and Röllig declare against it, as also Gomperz, Zeller, and Lutoslawski
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0009838800024873
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 15,831
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
G. M. A. Grube (1926). Notes on the Hippias Maior. The Classical Review 40 (06):188-189.
Lee (2010). Dialectic and Disagreement in the Hippias Major. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 39:1-35.
M. A. B. Degenhardt (2009). Richard Peters and Valuing Authenticity. Journal of Philosophy of Education 43 (1):209-222.
Author unknown, Hippias. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Neil Levy (2011). Enhancing Authenticity. Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (3):308-318.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

7 ( #291,535 of 1,724,890 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #349,138 of 1,724,890 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.