Review by Choice Review
The book represents a variety of approaches to Plato. The essays have some relevance to why Plato wrote in dialogue form; many contributors also consider how Plato ought to be read. In some of the essays, a vague line is drawn somewhat tendentiously between those who ignore the "literary" and nonphilosophic portions of Plato and those who do not. Most intriguing are the final six pairs of essays in which Platonic scholars respond to articles critical of their work. Thus, Richard Kraut responds to Clifford Orwin, Terence Irwin responds to David Roochnik, Paul Woodruff to Ronald Polansky, Kenneth Dorter to Joachim Dalfen, Kenneth Sayre to Jon Moline, and Hans Gadamer to Nicholas White. The remaining essays maintain a high standard (e.g., see the very useful essay by Alan Bowen on various trends in Platonic scholarship and the differing goals and criteria that divide scholars). The rifts are complex and scholars may disagree at a fundamental level about what it means to read Plato. However, despite Irwin's stricture that "it would be a mistake for students of Plato to spend all their time worrying about how to read Plato," it is useful and instructive to have a book where scholars address the issue and each other directly. A worthy acquisition for all Plato collections. Good notes and bibliography. Recommended for college and university collections. N. A. Greenberg Oberlin College
Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.
Review by Choice Review
