Journal of the History of Philosophy

45~ JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 34:3 JULY 1996 text" (238), and an element of "oralism" (conversation, dialogue?) remains in all of Plato's written works. Nonetheless, Robb's "speculations" on the Platonic dialogues (233-39) are certainly worth reading. Robb is quite aware that his book stirs up controversial issues, and some of these are briefly stated and discussed in his concluding chapter, "Homer, the Alphabet, and the Progress of Greek Literacy and Paideia." And yet in the very notions of "literacy" and "progress," some weaknesses in Robb's work can be found. For example, as W. V. Harris observed in his Ancient Literacy (1989) , 3ft., there is no single definition of literacy or orality, and although Robb cites Harris's book (4 et passim), he takes no special account of it in attempting to define or characterize what he means by "orality" and "literacy." And in his zeal to provide a survey of the influence of alphabetic literacy on Plato, Robb perhaps oversimplifies the tension that existed between the spoken and written work in the ancient world. Much of Greek (and Roman) "literature" remains the product of literate, slaveowning , and well-educated authors, written for their peers. Robb suggests as much in his discussion of mousild and sunousia (the banquet or gathering at which the "noble and best" [kalokagathm] conversed, 183 ff.), and one might desire a "sociology" of ancient Athens, for example, in which economic status and literacy were more fully studied. Many of Robb's observations on ancient literacy are generally convincing, but whether there was an "acceleration in popular Athenian literacy" 089), is not proven. Illiteracy in various forms probably continued in the ancient Greek (and Roman) world, and one might like to know more about alphabetic literacy's influence on Isocrates and other Athenian orators, for example, or even on Xenophon. In sum, Robb has undertaken a very ambitious study, and though he does not always treat the problem of literacy with the same caution as W. V. Harris, he makes a convincing case that the earliest Greek inscriptions and much of the literature down to and including the dialogues of Plato, can only be understood in terms of a preceding oral culture. Robb presents his arguments and observations in an engaging and lively manner, and reveals in his footnotes a tremendous amount of erudition. In some respects, his notes are reminiscent of E. Zeller's in Die Philosophieder Griechen, both informed and informative; they are an important supplement to the text. Even though there may be disagreement with some of Robb's conclusions, his book is a fine contribution to the continuing discussion of ancient Greek orality and literacy. JACKSON P. HERSHBELL Universityof Minnesota, Minneapolis Theodor Ebert. SokratesalsPythagoreerund dieAnamnesisin Platons "Phaidon." Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1994. Pp. lO6. Paper, DM 49. A persistent aim of Theodor Ebert's work on the dialogues has been to show that Plato was not a "Platonist." In an earlier book Ebert argued that neither the theory of recollection in the Meno nor the assignment of opinion and knowledge to two worlds in BOOK REVIEWS 453 Republic V are Plato's own doctrines.' Now in this monograph Ebert argues that the theory of recollection in the Phaedo, along with the original/image metaphysics on which it depends, should not be ascribed to Plato. This book presents a serious challenge to the many interpreters who see in this dialogue "the evangel of a pythagoreanizing Platonism" (93). Ebert indeed not only recognizes but documents at length (4-2o) the dialogue's "Pythagorean flavor" (Guthrie). However, he argues against the communis opinio that Simmias and Cebes were Pythagoreans (8-1o) and maintains that Socrates is the one Plato is modelling after a Pythagorean ~ptk6ooqog (10--16); that is why this ascetic, otherworldly Socrates is so unlike the one of other dialogues and of history (16-17). Is Plato thereby trying to win the Pythagoreans over to Socrates or the Athenians over to Pythagoreanism? On the contrary: not only do Simmias and Cebes refute two of the Pythagorean arguments for immortality (based on reincarnation and "invisibility" of the soul; 18-~o), but the argument from recollection is meant to be...