INTRODUCTION

Again we have a fragment, mutilated at the beginning and the end.There may, in addition, be a lacuna between chapters 1 and 2. The attribution to Plutarch has been questioned by Dübner, Hense,, p. lxxxix., note. Naber, and Hartman,, pp. 249-253. but on insufficient grounds, which have, in the main, been explained away by Siefert,, 1896, pp. 110-119. who has also analysed the structure of the work and the Plutarchean parallels. Wilamowitz,, xl. 161-165. on the other hand, believed this and the following fragment to be scraps of the same dialogue: I follow Pohlenz in rejecting this view.Similarly Usener, , cxxxix. 381, believed this treatise to be a fragment of the work mentioned in the Lamprias catalogue as No. 84: Ἀμμώνιος ἢ περὶ τοῦ μὴ ἡδέως τῇ κακίᾳ συνεῖναι.

The text is not good, and the work is not mentioned in the Lamprias catalogue.