Plato's Euthyrphro, Apology, andCrito portray Socrates' words and deeds during his trial for disbelieving in the Gods of Athens and corrupting the Athenian youth, and constitute a defense of the man Socrates and of his way of life, the philosophic life. The twelve essays in the volume, written by leading classical philosophers, investigate various aspects of these works of Plato, including the significance of Plato's characters, Socrates's revolutionary religious ideas, and the relationship between historical events and Plato's texts.

‘Only the naïve or innocent observer’, says Sir Moses Finley in his book Politics in the ancient world, ‘can believe that Pericles came to a vital Assembly meeting armed with nothing but his intelligence, his knowledge, his charisma and his oratorical skill, essential as all four attributes were.’ Historians of the Roman Republic have been assiduous in studying clientelae,factiones and ‘delivering the vote’, but much less work has been done on the ways in which Athenian politicians sought to mobilise support. (...) There have been studies of family connections and of links between individual politicians; there have been studies of the associations known as hetaireiai; but many questions remain unanswered. W. R. Connor in The new politicians of fifth-century Athens contrasted an old style of politics, based on ties of philia within the upper classes, with a new style, which spurned philia and appealed directly to the people. Even in his old style, the votes of the ordinary, middling-to-poor citizens counted for more in the straightforward Athenian assembly than in the Roman comitia with their complex systems of block votes. Connor limits political friendship to the upper classes; he pours cold water on Sealey's suggestion that rich families might have brought pressure to bear on their tenants and other dependants ; but apart from general references to largesse he does not really explain how an old-style Cimon or a new-style Cleon would ensure that the assembly was full of voters willing to elect him as general or approve a motion which he proposed. J. K. Davies has tried to take the matter further in Wealth and the power of wealth in classical Athens. (shrink)

Laches' first definition is rejected because it is somehow formally inadequate, but it is not clear exactly how this is so. On my interpretation, the failure of this definition cannot be explained by reference to the distinction between universals and particulars. Rather, it provides a paradigm of courage, which is inadequate because it fails to make clear how it is to be projected into other, non-paradigmatic cases. The definition is interesting because it articulates essential elements of the dominant moral tradition, (...) including both its normative content (it is is too conservative and aristocratic) and its form (it is sustained by a certain limited canon of ideals, idols, and images of excellence). Socrates' elenchus of this definition thus amounts to a challenge to this tradition. (shrink)

This book proposes a new paradigm for the interpretation of Plato's early and middle dialogues. Rejecting the usual assumption of a distinct 'Socratic' period in the development of Plato's thought, this view regards the earlier works as deliberate preparation for the exposition of Plato's mature philosophy. Differences between the dialogues do not represent different stages in Plato's own thinking but rather different aspects and moments in the presentation of a new and unfamiliar view of reality. Once the fictional character of (...) the Socratic genre is recognised, there is no reason to regard Plato's early dialogues as representing the philosophy of the historical Socrates. The result is a unified interpretation of all of the dialogues down to the Republic and the Phaedrus. (shrink)

The characters in Plato's Socratic Dialogues and the sociocultural beliefs and assumptions they present have a historical dramatic setting which ranges over the last quarter of the fifth centuryb.c.—the period of activity of the historical Socrates. That this context is to an extent fictional is undeniable; yet this leaves open the question what the dramatic interplay of (mostly) dead politicians, sophists, and other Socratic associates—not forgetting Socrates himself—signifies for the overall meaning and purpose of individual Dialogues. Are we to assume, (...) with a recent study, that Plato is entirely concerned with his contemporary world and is, as it were, borrowing his characters from the fifth century, or does the fiction reveal something of his real involvement in the values and debates of the recent past? The aim of this paper is to argue that a detailed study of the characterization and dramatic structure of one particular Dialogue,Laches, strongly suggests that Plato is using a perceived tension between past and present to generate not only a philosophical argument but also a commentary on the cultural and political world of late fifth-century Athens and in particular Socrates’ position within it. (shrink)

What is Plato attempting to accomplish in the Laches? A cursory reading leaves one with the strong impression that the main topic of discussion is the education of the sons of Lysimachus and Melesias. However, an equally cursory survey of the major interpretations of the Laches reveals that few, if any, scholars agree with that impression. Their view is that the main topic of conversation in the Laches is courage, the examination of which takes place in the second main section (...) of the dialogue. On this view, neither the first half of the dialogue nor the concluding short section is philosophically significant since neither adds to the discussion of courage. What is left obscure on that view is what Plato is doing in these “insignificant” sections. In addition, that view does not help us to understand Plato’s emphasis on education throughout the dialogue. It seems, then, that the initial question has led to a second one: is the Laches a unity both philosophical, and philologically? Both of these questions are inextricably intertwined. The question of the unity of the Laches can be dealt with fully through a consideration of a unifying theme or argument, and the question of the integrating theme can be considered only in the light of the structure of the dialogue. I contend that a unifying thread of argument can be found in the Laches and that the traditional view of the dialogue results in cutting it into two parts having little philosophical or literary relation to each other. I propose, first, to show that the traditional interpretation is untenable, and second, to offer a counterinterpretation which avoids the necessity of regarding the first and concluding parts of the dialogue as philosophically insignificant and which provides a unifying theme. These two goals will be achieved in the following way: it will be shown that the assumption that the main conversation of the Laches is about courage implies the destruction of the unity of the Laches and leaves unclear what Plato is doing in the first half of the dialogue. And, second, a counterinterpretation will be offered showing that the central theme of the dialogue is the educational consultant. It will be shown that this theme unifies the dialogue, makes clear what Plato is doing in otherwise obscure passages, and puts into proper perspective the discussion of courage. We must now consider the traditional interpretation of the Laches. (shrink)

Schmid divides the book into five main discussions: the historical background of the dialogue; the relation of form and content in a Platonic dialogue and specific structural and aesthetic features of the Laches; the first half of the ...