HELLO.
WHAT IS THE EARLIEST KNOWN EDITION OF THE "HIPPIAS MAJOR"?
Extant?
>>7528817
OR OTHERWISE.
>>7528884
Codex Oxoniensis Clarkianus 39 — 895 AD; first six tetralogies, designated B.
>>7528888
THE "HIPPIAS MAJOR" IS NOT PART OF THE FIRST SIX TETRALOGIES.
>>7529001
I thought it was. Perhaps 'Codex Parisinus graecus 1807, designated A, circa 900 AD' then. Its contains the last two tetraologies and apocrypha.
>>7529020
NO, IT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT CODEX EITHER.
>>7529069
Perhaps it is just a figment of our imagination.
WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO FIND NOT ONLY SOURCES, BUT EVEN REFERENCES TO THE SOURCES, OR EARLIEST MANUSCRIPTS, FOR THE ALLEGEDLY "ANCIENT" TEXTS?
IS IT DELIBERATE OCCLUSION?
IT IS FRUSTRATING THAT EVEN IN "WORKS" QUESTIONING THE AUTHENTICITY OF SOME ALLEGEDLY "ANCIENT" TEXTS, THE TEXTS' CONDITION AS "ANCIENT" ITSELF IS NOT QUESTIONED, BUT A PRIORI REGARDED AS SUCH.
>>7529115
TIN FOIL HAT ALERT
>>7529115
DID YOU PLAY RISK THREADS ON POL?
>>7529115
It's not at all. Try Loeb Classical Library.
>>7529996
try reading before replying.
>>7530011
>actually expecting people on /lit/ to read
lurk moar.
>>7530011
>trying to burn me with the not reading meme
>>C. H. Kahn, "The Beautiful and the Genuine," OSAP 3 (1985:261–87) is the lone modern figure maintaining spuriousness.[4][5] The Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy states "Of those [of Plato's works] we listed as authentic, above (in the early group), only the Hippias Major continues occasionally to be listed as inauthentic. The strongest evidence against the authenticity of the Hippias Major is the fact that it is never mentioned in any of the ancient sources.[6] In summary then, although early 20th century scholarship argued that it was spurious, latest research indicates that on the balance it is more likely authentic than not.
so the most widely accepted conclusion is that it's authentic.
yet no one in the thread can answer 零's question, and the dialogue is not mentioned anywhere in ancient sources.
>>7530062
>>trying to burn me with the not reading meme
Well, you neither answered the OP question nor replied to the right post(s)...
>so the most widely accepted conclusion is that it's authentic.
Read before posting, idiot.
Rei wants to know what is the oldest known edition of the text, not whether it is considered an authentic Plato text by Academics™.
>>7530129
if you don't see how those questions are related i don't know what to tell you my man.
>>7530153
You are f u c k i n g retarded. There's no word to describe the kind of insidious idiocy you've displayed here. Kill yourself asap. Jesus.
>>7529001
Yes it is.
>>7530161
keep it up, you're impressing everyone
>>7530419
Is it though?
>>7530433
I was just bumping. It's actually in Codex Venetus Marcianus graecus appendix classis 4, I, designated T, and Codex Vindobonensis 54, supplementum phil. Gr. 7, designated W, and Codex Vaticanus Palatinus 173, designated P, and Codex Venetus Marcianus 189, designated S.
>>7529993
This. It's literally in the preface: 'Codex B does not contain the two Hippias dialogues; the text of these is, therefore, based chiefly upon Codex T, with readings from W and Codex Vindobonensis 55, Suppl. Phil. Gr. 39 (F) and occasional use of Codex Vaticanus Palatinus 173 (P) and Codex Venetus Marcianus 189 (S). All readings not supported by T are noted in the margin.'
>>7530534
Are you insinuating that LOEB are lying about their sources?
