In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Book Reviews R. B. Rutherford. The Art of Plato: Ten Essays in Platonic Interpretation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995. Pp. xv + 335. Cloth, $45.oo. As the jacket makes clear, The Art of Plato is not a study of Plato's philosophy, but a contribution to the literary interpretation of the dialogues, through analysis of their structure, language, and characterization. It does not treat every dialogue or every theme within a dialogue. Rather, it is a series of essays on the historical and literary background of the Protagoras, Gorgias, Symposium, Republic, and, Phaedrus as well as selected early and late dialogues. As Rutherford tells us (x): "the trend of my argument is to suggest that Plato's thought was more flexible, his 'doctrines' more fluid, his positive statements through Socrates and others more rhetorically motivated and tied more closely to context, than is normally supposed." The opening chapter treats the literary origins of the dialogue form and the relation between Socrates and Plato. On the question of why Plato wrote dialogues, Rutherford claims (8-9) that they provide vividness and a sense of immediacy that enable the reader to recapture the atmosphere and intellectual pleasure of Socrates' company; that the dialogue form makes the discussion more entertaining, thereby luring the reader on; that the dialogue form enables Plato to avoid the appearance of dogmatism and encourage independent thought. Rutherford rejects the approaches of Leo Strauss and some of the "fanciful" readings prevalent in today's literary circles. He also rejects generalizations like the claim that everything in Plato is an aporia or that everything is dripping with irony. Although there are ample references to the works of other scholars, Rutherford generally chooses not to debate them or to discuss alternative methodologies in detail. The book's strengths are the author's command of classical sources and sensitivity to rhetorical nuance. He sees (35) that a character's behavior in a dialectical discussion can be as important as his answers to Socrates' questions and that in dialogues like the Laches,Euthyphro, and Charmides,Socrates embodies the very quality he is discussing. By the same token, he has more to say about satire in the Protagorasand G0rg/as or myth in the Gorg/as and Republic than people writing in philosophy journals. His primary aim is not to reconstruct arguments but to help us appreciate works of art. Still it is hard for a philosopher to read the book without wondering whether the role of argument has been neglected. Granted that the Protagoras is more fascinating than a monograph on the teaching of virtue, one wants to know what the confrontation between Socrates and Protagoras is supposed to reveal. Why, for example, does Plato put a brilliant defense of hedonism in the mouth of Socrates? Is this the view that Protagoras holds but is afraid to discuss in public? Does Protagoras obey the [457] 458 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 35:3 JULY 199 7 "say what you believe" rule that Socrates foists on him at 33~c? If not, what is he trying to hide and why? Finally why do Socrates and Protagoras appear to switch sides at 361 ? Rutherford touches on some of these issues but to my mind not deeply enough. He contends (138) that Socrates' use of a hedonic calculus should not be "over-literally interpreted as expressing his own view of the relationship between knowledge and pleasure" because such a calculus commits one to a degraded conception of knowledge. According to Rutherford "a true morality will guide the choice of pleasures by reference to a telos beyond them." What is this telos and should we think of it as a guide to pleasure at all? Rutherford points out that Protagoras' answers are inadequate. Indeed they are, but surely Protagoras' downfall is intended to shed light on Plato's own understanding of virtue and knowledge. Similar considerations apply to Rutherford's treatment of the Symposium. As he recognizes (179), the dialogue raises questions about whether ancient views of love are easily accessible to modern audiences. It also raises the question of whether Plato had any appreciation of personal love and qualities like kindness, tenderness, and compassion . Vlastos...

pdf

Share