In this international and interdisciplinary collection of critical essays, distinguished contributors examine a crucial premise of traditional readings of Plato's dialogues: that Plato's own doctrines and arguments can be read off the statements made in the dialogues by Socrates and other leading characters. The authors argue in general and with reference to specific dialogues, that no character should be taken to be Plato's mouthpiece. This is essential reading for students and scholars of Plato.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 41.2 (2003) 265-266 [Access article in PDF] Plato. Alcibiades. Edited by Nicholas Denyer. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Pp. xi + 254. Cloth, $64.95. Paper, $22.95. This volume is a new addition to the Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics series. It offers an introduction (twenty-nine pages), a revised Greek text with apparatus criticus (fifty pages), a commentary (167 pages), and indices (general, (...) proper names, and Greek words together taking just over four pages).The editor acknowledges his dependence on the manuscripts and indirect evidence as reported by Carlini. The apparatus is second order: rather than identifying a reading to a manuscript or other source by name, the author indicates that the reading is the only one found in the manuscripts, that it is one among two or more found in the manuscripts, that it is found in the indirect evidence, or that it is conjectural. Thus the textual support is given, as he says, in a "ruthlessly summary form."The apparatus includes sixty-eight line references underneath the text. Of the passages corresponding to these references, thirty-six differ from Burnet's Oxford Classical Text, especially by deletion, rearrangement, and addition. Deletions make up a third: two of Burnet's additions to the text in acute brackets are dropped, including all of 133C8-17, and material that Burnet had printed in the text in square brackets disappears entirely in three cases; five pairs of acute brackets are dropped where Burnet's text is retained, with four of these items marked as conjectures; and finally, Burnet's unbracketed text simply is dropped in two places. The rearrangements vary in character: at one place, three lines of text are moved down "to ease the flow of the argument," and at another place a line that Burnet assigns to Alcibiades is given to Socrates. The editor's additions sometimes are presented as matters of linguistic or other intuition: at 115D2 (in his lineation), for example, an addition adopted by Burnet is dropped in favor of the author's own conjectural addition as "the easiest way to break up the very awkward double question that the manuscript tradition ascribes to Socrates"; at 128E10 the editor replaces the reading of "all the manuscripts" with a word which "was often abbreviated" and whose abbreviation "was easily misread as some shorter word beginning with alpha"; and at 131A2 the editor conjectures the addition of a word supported by neither the direct nor the indirect tradition in order to make it "possible to derive the conclusion of 131A5-6 that the professional knowledge of doctors and trainers is not knowledge of themselves." These arguments, though less than airtight, are thought provoking, even if they leave one's view of the text largely intact.The commentary offers historians of philosophy food for thought in other ways, too, since it goes beyond arguing for changes to the text. It makes extensive use of observations on grammar, style, usage, and other literary materials to shed light on the argument of the dialogue and on the dramatic elements which overlay the argumentative material and make the dialogue a coherent whole.The introduction offers something else again, especially in its twelve pages on authenticity. The editor does not prove that the dialogue is authentic, but he does show that the modern arguments against its authenticity are weak. Because of Schleiermacher's influence, he suggests, subsequent writers have not bothered to argue the case seriously against authenticity; he labels their arguments "frivolous." He notes that some argue for inauthenticity on the grounds that the Alcibiades lacks parallels with the other dialogues, [End Page 265] some on grounds that it is too similar to the other dialogues, and some ("weakest of all") on both grounds at once. He then goes on to argue that "stylometric studies cannot tell us whether or not Plato wrote the Alcibiades" and to challenge the standard chronology of the dialogues so far as it bears against authenticity. "If," he concludes, "the Alcibiades is authentically Platonic, then we need of course to abandon the conceptions, or misconceptions... (shrink)

While Aristotle adverts in the Politica to those who have declared themselves about the aristē or best politeia without qualification, he actually devotes much of his attention here to telling his intended audience how to establish and maintain the aristē politeia for each of the different places in which each of them is engaged, given the circumstances. In the face of this contrast in the Politica, scholars look to EN 1135a5 for clarification. According to the established interpretation of EN 1135a5, (...) Aristotle means that there is only one politeia that is best by nature for every place. According to the alternative interpretation, Aristotle means that, for every place, there is only one politeia that is best by nature for it. In this paper it is argued that the alternative interpretation fits both works better than does the established interpretation. (shrink)

While Aristotle adverts in the Politica to those who have declared themselves about the aristē or best politeia without qualification, he actually devotes much of his attention here to telling his intended audience how to establish and maintain the aristē politeia for each of the different places in which each of them is engaged, given the circumstances. In the face of this contrast in the Politica, scholars look to EN 1135a5 for clarification. According to the established interpretation of EN 1135a5, (...) Aristotle means that there is only one politeia that is best by nature for every place. According to the alternative interpretation, Aristotle means that, for every place, there is only one politeia that is best by nature for it. In this paper it is argued that the alternative interpretation fits both works better than does the established interpretation. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the admissibility of two canons for the interpretation of philosophical texts—canons which many scholars tacitly accept but few explicitly acknowledge. Precisely how widely these canons are accepted is a question not to be dealt with here; clearly, it is not true that everyone subscribes to either of them, much less to both. The two principal spokesmen for the canons to be discussed, however, are scholars of distinguished reputation, and their words merit consideration (...) on their own account. (shrink)