The Southern Journal of Philosophy

Volume 56, Issue 1

March 2018

THE STATE OF THE QUESTION IN THE STUDY

OF PLATO: TWENTY YEAR UPDATE

Gerald A. Press

ABSTRACT: This article updates “The State of the Question in the Study of Plato”
(Southern Journal of Philosophy, 1996) based on research covering the years from
1995–2015. Its three major parts examine: (1) how the mid-twentieth-century con-
sensus has fared, (2) whether the new trends identified in that article have contin-
ued, and (3) identify trends either new or missed in the original article. On the
whole, it shows the continuing decline of dogmatic and nondramatic Plato inter-
pretation and the expansion and ramification of the more literary, dramatic, and
nondogmatic “new Platonism.” What was a growing insurgency twenty years ago
can now be described as a, if not the, dominant approach.

In an article based on research done twenty years ago,1 I reported on what

seemed to me then the most noteworthy directions in which the study of
Plato’s dialogues had been moving over the previous half century.2 Because
the field that might be called “Platonic studies”—that is, research that in any
way at all touches on the writings, ideas, or later influence of Plato—is so
enormous and diverse, I limited my focus to historical and scholarly work
about how to understand and interpret the dialogues of Plato, to discover
their meaning in their own context, in terms of their own aims, functions,
structures, and principles. In other words, my focus was on research intended
to clarify Plato’s own thought presented in the dialogues as distinguished

Gerald A. Press is Professor of philosophy at Hunter College and the City University of
New York Graduate Center. His primary area of research is the history of ancient philoso-
phy, especially Plato. He is the author of two books, most recently Plato: A Guide for the
Perplexed, and several edited volumes, most recently, The Bloomsbury Companion to Plato. He is a
past book review editor and editor of the Journal of the History of Philosophy.
1
An earlier version of this paper was published in Russian, in Protopopova 2013, 48–74.
It has benefitted from critical suggestions by several referees for this journal.
2
Press 1996; reprinted Smith 1998, 309–32. Russian translation in Protopopova ed.
2013, 8–47.

The Southern Journal of Philosophy, Volume 56, Issue 1 (2018), 9–35.

ISSN 0038-4283, online ISSN 2041-6962. DOI: 10.1111/sjp.12265

9
10 GERALD A. PRESS

from presentations of what are taken to be Plato’s views on contemporary

problems, attempts to show that Plato was right (or wrong) about a given
concept or argument, and studies of post-Platonic Platonism which presup-
pose or discover in them sources of the ideas of later thinkers.
In summary, at the mid-twentieth-century a widespread scholarly consen-
sus prevailed to interpret Plato’s dialogues dogmatically,3 developmentally,
and with little or no attention to historical context or to literary or dramatic
aspects of the dialogues or other specifically textual characteristics. This type
of interpretation of Plato came under increasing attack in the latter half of
the century in every element. As a result, by the 1980s, instead of assuming a
developmental, dogmatic Plato the meaning of whose works had little or
nothing to do with their literary or dramatic characteristics, the questions at
the leading edge of research had changed. It had become a question whether
to read the dialogues as if they were attempts on Plato’s part to directly com-
municate settled philosophical doctrines to us and what other functions and
purposes the dialogues might be thought to serve. The attempt to establish a
chronological sequence of composition on which to base a developmental
picture of Plato’s thought was, under increasingly clear and powerful criti-
cism, being abandoned by the early 1990s. The question was no longer in
what compositional order to place the dialogues, but what various orders of
reading had to recommend themselves4 and whether a modified unitarian-
ism or some approach to the corpus other than unitarianism and develop-
mentalism was called for.5 Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the
question was no longer whether to take textual, contextual, literary, and dra-
matic aspects of the dialogues into consideration, but how. Thus, I defined
what I called a “new Platonism” growing up within the scholarly community,
the elements of which are interpreting the dialogues contextually and holisti-
cally and seeking a nondogmatic conception of Plato’s philosophy, as some-
thing neither simply dogmatic nor simply skeptical. Most important, the new
Platonism reads the dialogues dialogically, which is to say examining literary
and dramatic elements as, in various ways, constitutive of Plato’s philosophy,
rather than as treatises manque e, as had been commonly supposed at the mid-
century.6
The following pages offer an update on that article based on research cov-
ering the years from 1995 to 2015, which will examine: (1) how the mid-

3
See pp. 3f. for the meaning of the term.
4
On orders of reading, see Poster 1998 and Altman 2010. Altman 2012 and 2016 extend
the project to an overall interpretation of Plato.
5
Gonzalez 1995.
6
Many of these questions were adumbrated in Kirby 1997.
 STATE OF THE QUESTION IN THE STUDY OF PLATO 11
twentieth-century consensus has fared, (2) whether the new trends identified
in that article have continued, and (3) trends identified either as new or
missed in the original article. On the whole, it shows the continuing decline
of dogmatic and nondramatic Plato interpretation and the expansion and
ramification of the more literary, dramatic, and nondogmatic “new
Platonism.” What was a growing insurgency twenty years ago can be
described as a, if not the, dominant approach7 now, as was well stated by
Michael Bell in a recent review:
The reading of Plato’s dialogues has undergone a radical change over the last cen-
tury: once commonly thought of as two-dimensional pedagogical devices for the
exposition of a philosophical system, they are now read as dramatic dialogues that
are more open-ended and exploratory than doctrinal.8

The bibliographic sources for such research have expanded enormously in

these years.9 Brisson’s Plato Bibliographies are now accessible via the web
site of the International Plato Society.10 And since 1996 both The Philosopher’s
Index in the U.S. and L’anne e philologique have become more extensive and
fully accessible through on-line searches.
The main stream of nineteenth- to mid-twentieth-century Plato scholar-
ship was dogmatic, seeking to identify Plato’s (or Socrates’s) philosophic

7
An anonymous referee for this journal rightly pointed out the difficulty, or equivocity,
of referring to any approach as “dominant.” I do not mean to claim that a majority is neces-
sarily correct, only that the majority view has changed radically in the last fifty years. Cor-
rectness must be judged on the merits of the view itself. Nor do I mean to deny the
continuing existence or value of what I call “the traditional approach.” Following Aristotle, I
believe the “right” approach will depend on the aims one seeks. Seeking to rationally recon-
struct a consistent philosophic doctrine from material in Plato’s dialogues or a subset of them
(the traditional aim of interpreters) is different from seeking an interpretation that is consis-
tent with their complete nature as both philosophic and dramatic texts. Nor, responding to
another anonymous referee, do I mean to deny that scholars who hold “traditional” views
continue to dominate “the most prestigious philosophy departments and universities.” But it
is significant that, despite such institutional dominance, non-traditional approaches to Plato
have now grown to or beyond parity.
8
In a review of Warner 2016, see http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/the-aesthetics-of-argument/.
9
In addition to the sources cited in Press 1996, 507, n. 1, Ritter’s massive “Bericht u €ber
die den letzten Jahrzehnten u €ber Platon erscheinenen Arbeiten,” which appeared in pieces
from 1912 to 1924 with supplements published in 1929 and 1930, all in the Jahresbericht €uber
die Fortschritte der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, established the overall structure and organiza-
tion adopted at the outset by L’anne e philologique and still in use. Whereas Ritter included
English and American publications in his reviews, Liesegang 1929 attempts to sum up the
course of Plato studies but restricts himself to German scholarship. Similarly, some years
later, Schuhl 1960 surveys research emphasizing French scholarship as Skemp 1976 restricted
itself to English. Simterre 1948 offered a less parochial re sume of developments through the
end of World War II.
10
See http://platosociety.org/plato-bibliography/.
12 GERALD A. PRESS

doctrines, and assumed Socrates was Plato’s mouthpiece. It facilitated this

goal via the idea, then nearly universally accepted, of a compositional
chronology of Plato’s dialogues and, based on that, a developmental pic-
ture of Plato’s thought that would serve to explain apparent inconsisten-
cies between Plato’s doctrines as asserted in different dialogues, as
opposed to the “unitarian” view that Plato’s core doctrines remain
unchanged.11 Mainstream scholarship was noncontextual in two senses.
First, it was usually not based on reading dialogues in their historical con-
text nor on reading arguments as expressions of dialogical characters in
dramatic responsiveness to each other in the dramatic situation of the dia-
logue. That is, they were not interpreted dialogically. More generally, sec-
ond, mainstream interpretation ignored or rejected dramatic and literary
elements as having little or no significance for understanding Plato’s phi-
losophy, often presupposing instead radical oppositions between philo-
sophic and literary texts, between philosophy and rhetoric or poetry, and
between arguments and myths or stories.

1. PERSISTENCE OF THE OLD CONSENSUS

In the last twenty years, these older elements continue to be found, for exam-
ple, in edited collections that exclude representatives of different orienta-
tions.12 Some scholars continue to accept compositional chronology and the
simple developmental picture of the earlier period,13 despite continuing and
powerful criticisms of the sort outlined in Press 1996 but fully presented in
Thesleff 1982 and Nails 1995.14 Some give up a strong commitment to the
specifics of chronology. Others, while denying chronology in the traditional
sense, substitute for it a picture of earlier and later dialogues in a precon-
ceived literary production that was to unfold Plato’s doctrinal system to read-
ers.15 These attempts to save the inherited paradigm have come in for
criticism as well.16
Similarly, interpreters continue to seek Plato’s doctrines in the logical
reconstruction of the dialogues’ arguments.17 Scholarly work continues to

11
Shorey 1903; Cherniss 1936.
12
Santas 2006; Benson 2008; Fine 2008; McPherran 2010; Bobonich 2010; Barney et al.
2012.
13
Emlyn-Jones 1999; Ostenfeld 1999; Li Volsi 2001; Penner 2002; Nightingale 2002.
14
Cf. Dorter 1999; Demetriou 2000; Trindade Santos 2000; Annas 2002; Sedley 2002;
Taylor 2002.
15
Kahn 1996; Rowe 2007.
16
Gill 1998 (c. Kahn’s mitigated developmentalism); Griswold 1999 also attacks chronol-
ogy in Kahn.
17
Rickless 2007; Gill 2012; Patterson et al. 2012.
 STATE OF THE QUESTION IN THE STUDY OF PLATO 13
appear defending views of Plato’s doctrine of Forms or Ideas18 as well as in
individual domains of philosophy, such as metaphysics,19 epistemology,20
philosophy of language,21 psychology,22 philosophy of science,23 ethics,24
politics,25 aesthetics,26 and musical education.27
Several variants of mainstream dogmatic interpretation identified in Press
1996 survive. Students and followers of Gregory Vlastos seeking a doctrinal
“Socratic philosophy” in the “early Socratic dialogues” continue to find
adherents,28 but criticism has continued as well.29 Increasingly, even those
who pursue Socratic philosophy do not share Vlastos’s belief that a clear set
of “early” dialogues can be identified and give up the claim that “Socratic” is
to be identified with views of the historical Socrates.30 On the other hand,
Brickhouse and Smith, who have been central figures in Socratic philosophy
for more than thirty years, made the first chapter of their Socratic Moral Psy-
chology an “Apology of Socratic studies,” a response to the “many recent
criticisms of the research program within which our project belongs.”31
Their defense focuses on the same two “foundational principles”32 of the
Socratic philosophy project that have been doubted by critics: the “identity
principle” (Who exactly is Socrates?) and the “relevant dialogues
assumption” (Which exactly are the “early Socratic” dialogues?). They offer
careful, analytical definitions of each objection and respond equally carefully,
analytically, and at length to specific criticisms. So much so, in fact, that the
general force of the objections seems to be lost in the mass of details: (1) that
there is no definite Socrates to whose philosophy the term “Socratic

18
Parry 2001; Pradeau 2001; Vonessen 2001; Fronterotta 2001 (on methexis); Grabowski
2008.
19
Blackson 1995; Turnbull 1998; Harte 2002; Silverman 2003; Gerson 2003.
20
Laidlaw-Johnson 1996; Benson 2000; Williams 2002 (on recollection); Chappell 2005;
Sue 2006.
21
Fattal 2009; Aronadio 2011; Ademollo 2011; Mason 2010; Apolloni 2011.
22
Miller, Jr. 1999.
23
Gregory 2001; Johansen 2004.
24
Irwin 1995; Hobbs 2000; Bobonich 2002; Russell 2005; Penner and Rowe 2005;
Comack 2006; Vasiliou 2008.
25
Samaras 2002.
26
Proimos 2002; Naddaf 2003; Fischer 2003.
27
Pelosi 2010.
28
E.g., McPherran 1996; Penner 1997; Weiss 1998; Rudebusch 2002a; Smith and
Woodruff 2000; Weiss 2001; Cholbi 2002; Bossi 2003; Ledbetter 2003.
29
Ebert 1997; Gerson 1997; Allen 1999; Trindade Santos 2000; Talisse 2002; Peterson
2011. Dorion 2011 tracks “The rise and fall of the Socratic problem.”
30
Rowe 2007.
31
Brickhouse and Smith 2010, 12.
32
Ibid., 15.
14 GERALD A. PRESS

philosophy” unequivocally refers33 and (2) that there is no specific set of

“early Socratic dialogues”34 agreed on by all practitioners of the research
project into “Socratic philosophy.”
Finally, though, the fact that Brickhouse and Smith felt it necessary to
publish such an Apology indicates they understand—the point I am making
here—that the project no longer commands the widespread respect it once
did.
Another mainstream variant in Platonic scholarship is the pursuit of
“classical political philosophy” as defined by Leo Strauss.35 Like the “new
Platonism,” Straussians take literary and dramatic aspects of the dialogues
seriously, but, unlike it, they find settled doctrines. The Straussian approach
is more widespread in North America than in the rest of the world and in
political science departments than in philosophy or classics, though it had a
period of influence in U.S. politics in the era of the neoconservatives. Strauss-
ian interpretations of Plato also continue,36 though the Straussians seem to
speak more to each other than to scholars outside their orbit who, for their
part, rarely engage with Straussian interpretations.
More international in scope is the esoterist view associated with T€ ubingen
University. Debate has continued about the existence and content of the eso-
teric doctrine of principles seemingly attested by Aristotle37 and whether,
conversely, this secondary tradition is to be preferred to the primary tradition
of the dialogues which are our only certain Platonic writings.38 Like the
Straussian approach, esoterism does not seem to have grown in influence in
the period under discussion here. And while, again like Straussianism, it can
sometimes seem to be a private conversation, more mainstream scholars
have taken the hypothesis of an esoteric doctrine seriously.39

33
“Even if the Socrates of each such effort is not all the same in . . . every scholar’s
account” (42) acknowledges the equivocation masked by use of the term “Socrates,” as critics
have argued.
34
“There is certainly no unanimity among Socratic scholars about exactly which dia-
logues should be included” (18) acknowledges the equivocation masked by use of the term
“Socratic philosophy” as if it referred univocally to an agreed set of dialogues, as critics have
also pointed out.
35
Press 1996, 513.
36
E.g., Clay 2000; Bremer 2002; Geier 2002; Roochnik 2003; Stern 2008; Zuckert
2009; Lampert 2010; Leibowitz 2010; Tarnopolsky 2010; Lutz 2012.
37
Kobusch and Mojsisch 1996; Girgenti 1998; Szlezak 1999; Schefer 2001; Szlezak
2001; Szlezak 2003; Nikulin 2012.
38
Duranti 1995; Giannantoni 1995; Kuhn 2000.
39
Miller in Gonzalez 1995, 225–43; Erler 2007.
 STATE OF THE QUESTION IN THE STUDY OF PLATO 15
2. CONTINUED GROWTH OF THE NEW PLATONISM
The new Platonism has been more open and inclusive primarily in finding
philosophic meaning not only in the dialogues’ arguments strictly so-called,
but also by studying them as wholes, examining dramatic elements such as
setting, character, and plot, prologues and epilogues, humor and play, con-
sidering the dialogues as comedies and tragedies, and Plato’s language itself,
his use of images and metaphors, and of imaginative, persuasive, emotive
strategies in addition to the cognitive or rational ones that were the focus of
earlier studies. The new Platonism is less parochial, more ecumenical, seek-
ing a “third way” between the rigid oppositions of the mid-century consen-
sus: between strictly developmental and strictly unitarian approaches,
between overall dogmatic and skeptical interpretations of Plato’s philosophy,
between ignoring as opposed to complete absorption in the dialogue form,
and between the oppositions of philosophy and rhetoric, argument and
myth, complete acceptance and complete rejection of the hypothesis of an
esoteric doctrine of principles.40
Michael Erler’s general handbook, Platon, in many ways exemplifies these
developments, since it begins from the premise that Plato is the high point of
ancient Greek both in philosophy and in literature.41 Along with chapters on
Plato’s life and philosophic doctrines in the older sense (of language, knowl-
edge, the soul, virtue, and nature), he also reads Plato in context, discusses
the “Socratic” aspects of Plato’s philosophy without reducing the dialogues
to “Socratic philosophy,” deals with the esoteric doctrine of principles with-
out rejecting the written dialogues, and recognizes important literary aspects
of the dialogues, such as Plato’s use of realism in fiction.
Although elements of the old consensus persist, they do not dominate
Platonic studies as they did fifty years ago and should no longer be thought of
as a consensus view. While some recent reference works tilt toward the older
consensus, others include contributions from both the older and newer perspec-
tives.42 And several edited collections more or less explicitly represent new
directions in Platonic scholarship.43 Challenges have come in a variety of
forms:44 presentations of different images of Plato,45 claims that rather than
practicing philosophy in an on-going tradition, Plato invented philosophy,46

40
Gonzalez 1995, 1–22; Pappas and Zelcer 2015.
41
Erler 2007, 11.
42
Ferrari 2007; Migliori, Napolitano, and Fermani 2011; Press 2015.
43
Scott 2000; Press 2000; Havlıček and Karfik 2001; Scott 2002; Michelini 2003.
44
Generally, Moes 2000; Scott 2000; Press 2007.
45
Reale and Scolnicov 2002.
46
Nightingale 1995, which has been widely accepted.
16 GERALD A. PRESS

that his philosophy is pluralistic about truth,47 that he is not to be confused with
a modern epistemologist,48 that his is not a two-worlds view,49 and that Socrates
is not to be taken as Plato’s mouthpiece.50
A number of studies appear to represent crossovers and compromises
between the older consensus and elements of the new Platonism. Some inter-
preters, for example, look at dramatic and literary elements within a devel-
opmental and dogmatic interpretive framework seeking Plato’s doctrines51
or those of Socrates.52 Symptomatic in general of this trend is Annas and
Rowe 2002, a collection of papers in which scholars who previously were
more or less committed to the old consensus now investigate other possibili-
ties. More striking, perhaps, are interpretations radically contrary to the old
consensus.53
Elements of the new Platonism are widely observable. Important work has
been done contextualizing dialogues historically; for example, Plato’s relation
to contemporaneous politics54 and to the sophists,55 in his language56 and
important concepts.57 Likewise, increasing numbers of scholars insist on
looking at particular arguments in the dialogues in terms of their holistic dia-
logical settings, not only of their logic, as would have been common fifty
years earlier.58
With increasing frequency, Plato scholarship integrates literary and dra-
matic aspects of the dialogues in their philosophic interpretation,59 seeing

47
Barris 2009.
48
Moravcsik 2000.
49
Thesleff 1999.
50
Press 2000; Trabattoni 2003.
51
McCabe 2000; Barney 2001; Jenks 2001.
52
Schmid 1998 and Tuozzo 2011 examine literary and dramatic features of the Charmides
while pursuing a dogmatic and “Socratic” interpretation. Similarly, though inversely, Wolf-
sdorf 2008, by abandoning the search for a consistent Socrates, is able to find a consistent
Platonic doctrine.
53
E.g., Ambuel 2006 sees the Sophist as an aporetic critique of strict Eleatic logic.
Peterson 2011 finds no theory of Forms, mouthpiece, authoritarian state, censorship, or com-
mitment to immortality in the “middle dialogues.”
54
Monoson 2000 and Schofield 2006 show Plato’s embeddedness in the culture of fifth
and fourth century Athens, as does Nails 2012 more specifically with the Republic as a
response to late fifth-century Athenian politics. Fagan 2013 more briefly contextualizes
Alcibiades I, Symposium, Republic 3, Laws 4, Apology, and Crito.
55
Tell 2011. Similarly, Danzig 2010 reads Plato’s in light of Xenophon’s version of
Socrates’s Apology.
56
Hermann 2006.
57
Hobbs 2000 (courage); Scott 2000 (Socrates’s educational mission); Balansard 2001
(techne ).
58
E.g., Gonzalez 1995; Levin 1995; Schmid 1998; Tuozzo 2011.
59
Mahoney 1995; Nonvel Pieri 1995; Pawlak 1996; Losev 1998; Reece 1998;
Emlyn-Jones 1999; McCabe 1999; Rowe 1999; Keller 2000; McCabe 2000; Beck 2001;
Rudebusch 2002b; Zamir 2002; Boys-Stones et al. 2013.
 STATE OF THE QUESTION IN THE STUDY OF PLATO 17
Plato as at once a philosopher and a poet60 and finding a coincidence of form
and content.61 Grounding the philosophic significance of literary features, Pen-
der 2000 connects a theory of the cognitive role of metaphor with a careful
application of that theory to Plato’s metaphors and images for the gods and the
soul substantiating precisely the kind of claim new Platonism makes, “that some
metaphors constitute the theories they present and that the information they con-
vey forces a reconceptualization of familiar experience.”62 Another recent
monograph63 also works from a theory about the epistemological function of
myths, images, and imagistic style and language to a detailed demonstration of
this at work in the Republic, especially Books 2, 5, and 6, but extending even to
“the poetics of the unjust in Books 8 and 9.”64
These directions in research go hand in hand with consideration of the spe-
cific type of the dialogue form in Plato’s hands,65 of his dramatic frames,66 dia-
logue structures,67and recognition that the dialogues have many purposes; they
do not seek solely to expound or communicate doctrine68 or, more radically,
that they indicate Plato’s wish not to write or speak authoritatively.69 It is now
more widely recognized that the dialogues’ mode of philosophic communica-
tion is indirect rather than direct.70 A particularly nice example of work of this
kind is Foley, who argues that the different sets of instructions for constructing
the Divided Line in the Republic are inconsistent, and that
the contradiction is intentional. The later recapitulation of the ratio at 534a reveals
that Plato was himself aware that the middle two segments are equal. I argue that
this contradiction is a sophisticated device designed to lead the reader of the Repub-
lic through the four epistemic stages represented by the line itself. Most signifi-
cantly, recognition of this mathematical contradiction acts as a goad, spurring
independent philosophical reflection just in the way that Plato advocates in the
Republic more generally.71

60
Giuliano 2000. Zwicky 2009 is not a scholarly examination of “Plato as an artist,” but
Regali 2012 looks closely at the poetry of Republic, Timaeus, and Critias, and Capra 2014 reads
the Phaedrus for a “poetics of philosophy.”
61
Irwin 1998 (Plato’s philosophy is essentially literary); Gordon 1999; Adomenas 2001
(literary features of Laws!); Nightingale 2002; Zamir 2002; Talisse 2003; Evans 2003.
62
Pender 2000, 230, emphasis added.
63
Petraki 2011.
64
Petraki 2011, 229.
65
Casertano 2000; Perez Estevez 2001; Cossutta and Narcy 2001; Manuwald 2003.
66
Johnson 1998; Kato 2000.
67
Casertano 2000; Declos 2000. Solère-Queval 1998 and Zafiropoulos 2015 focus on
prologues.
68
Miller 2003; Allen 2010.
69
Karamanolis 2006, 6; similarly, Sedley 1997; Stone 2012.
70
Divenosa 2001; Renaud 2001.
71
Foley 2008, 2.
18 GERALD A. PRESS

Among the specific tools of Plato’s indirection are his use of authorial dis-
tance and anonymity.72 Scholars have likewise increasingly noticed Plato’s
deliberate use of his audience.73 Increased attention to literary and dramatic
aspects of the dialogues as part of rather than as distinguishable from—or
opposed to—their philosophic endeavor has generated a number of detailed
guidelines for new ways to read Plato’s dialogues.74 Recent work on er^os,
love, and friendship has also found a new emphasis on Plato as a dramatist
and poet as much as philosopher in the narrow sense.75 Yunis’s work on
Plato’s rhetorical style as part of his philosophic project recognizes the coinci-
dence of the emotive and imaginative with the cognitive.76 Another recent
monograph, on philosophy and rhetoric in Plato, denies the exclusive opposi-
tion often assumed between them, arguing that there is no methodological
distinction.77
Treatment of literary and dramatic aspects of the dialogues has been
extensive. Much attention has been paid to the dialogues’ compositional
structures,78 particularly their prologues.79 Dramatically informed interpre-
tations of individual dialogues80 complement more general appreciations of
the dialogues’ drama.81 A number of interpreters have proposed that the dia-
logues’ drama communicates Plato’s philosophic ideas not by assertion but
by “enactment.”82 Plato’s extensive use of play, humor, and irony has come
in for study as well,83 though a monograph is still needed on this very rich
subject.

72
Irwin 1998; Press 2000.
73
Morgan in Morgan 2003. Both Rowe 2007 and Zuckert 2009, coming from quite dif-
ferent philosophic orientations, take Plato to have written the corpus with an expectation that
his readers would make the connections and grasp the philosophic points they assert to exist.
74
Sayre 1995; Szlezak 1999; Gonzalez 2003; Vegetti 2003; Brisson and Fronterotta
2006; Press 2007, 185–207; Cotton 2014.
75
Nichols 2009; Johnson and Tarrant 2011; Belfiore 2012; Gordon 2012.
76
Yunis 2005, 2007.
77
McCoy 2007.
78
Bowery 1995; Darchia 1999; Lisi and Migliori 2011. Halliwell 2009 and Schultz 2014
examine Plato’s narrative strategy. Kennedy 2011 argues for a musical structure of the dia-
logues that encodes Plato’s doctrines.
79
Declos 1992; McAvoy 1996; Erler 1997; Schoos 1999.
80
Mahoney 1995 (Republic); McCabe 1999 (Euthydemus); Bordt 2000 (Lysis); Keller 2000
(Cratylus); Capra 2001 (Protagoras); Hardy 2001 (Theaetetus); Broadie 2003 (Timaeus); Schmid
1998; and Tuozzo 2011 (Charmides).
81
Cook 1996; Desclos 1997; Fendt and Rozema 1998; Gordon 1999; Talisse 2003.
82
Gonzalez 1995 (Lysis); Press 1995; McAvoy 1996; Sallis 2002; Warnek 2003; Press
2007, 137–40, 154–58.
83
Corrigan 1997; Nonvel Pieri 2000; Thein 2000 (comedy); Narcy 2000; Nonvel Pieri
2001; Worman 2008. Declos 2000 has some useful chapters on Plato. Freydberg 1997
includes some fine insights but remains impressionistic rather than well-supported.
 STATE OF THE QUESTION IN THE STUDY OF PLATO 19
Many scholars have noted the significance for a full understanding of the
dialogues of their dramatic dates,84 settings,85 and characters.86 Two very
important and complementary books on Plato’s characters appeared during
this period. Nails’s People of Plato provides the historical facts and context
about every character who appears or is mentioned in a dialogue.87
Blondell’s Play of Character in Plato’s Dialogues gives a thorough treatment of
how Plato uses characters in the construction of the dialogues in relation to
the concept and value of character as discussed in them.88
Plato’s use of myth, long recognized and debated, has continued to be
studied.89 The old, superficial argument about Plato’s supposed censorship
of the poetics has given way to more a nuanced recognition of how much he
owes to them90 and borrows from them.91 Work has been done, too, on
Plato’s use of imagery and metaphor.92
Replacing the older treatment of Plato’s use of poetry in terms of his criti-
cism and rejection of it,93 it is now often observed that Plato appropriated
and transformed elements of other traditional and contemporary literary
genres, creating an innovative philosophical idiom.94

3. NEW AND NEWLY IMPORTANT DIRECTIONS IN RECENT

PLATO SCHOLARSHIP
Among new directions, the richest and most consequential has been scholar-
ship in what is called “reception history.” The term derives from the work of
Hans Robert Jauss beginning in the 1960s, but the practice is similar in some
ways to the kind of work done in earlier generations by scholars such as
Werner Jaeger, Paul Oskar Kristeller, and Erich Heller and known variously
as Geistesgeschichte, the history of ideas or the history of philosophy. This exten-
sive body of work has enabled us to see more clearly than in previous
84
Nails 1997, 1998; Wolfsdorf 2008.
85
Lind 1998; Blossner 2001; Wood 1999; Planeaux 2001; Roochnik 2001; Rudebusch
2002a.
86
Benitez 1996; Heitsch 2001; Plax 2001; Reydams-Schils 2002; Roochnik 2002; Plax
2001; Brisson 2002; Vasiliou 2002; Bradley 2012.
87
Nails 2002.
88
Blondell 2002.
89
Cerri 1996 (Plato’s myths “persuade by narrating”); Barrett 2002; Talisse 2003;
Coulloud-Streit 2005; Partenie 2009; Collobert et al. 2012.
90
Halliwell 2000; Crotty 2009; Tanner 2010; Boys-Stones and Haubold 2010.
91
Madhu 1999; Giuliano 2005; Destree and Hermann 2011.
92
Tecusan 1992, 69, finds that “Images have a didactic function.” Pender 2003 claims
they are not only didactic, but also heuristic. Cf. Pender 2000; Vonessen 2001.
93
E.g., Moss 2007.
94
Nightingale 1995; Rosenstock 1997; Demos, 1999; Levin 2000; Erler 2007, 53; Teloh
2008.
20 GERALD A. PRESS

generations the difference between the specific content of the dialogues and
interpretations made of them in later generations, such as, most influentially,
the ideas that they propound a settled and systematic philosophic doctrine.
Reception study has been done by T€ ubingen esoterists,95 anti-esoterists,96
Straussians, seekers of Socratic philosophy,98 Gadamerians,99 and many
97

others.100
Reception history has led to another important direction in Plato scholar-
ship, attaining a fuller understanding of the history of post-Platonic ancient
Platonism,101 and thus it has facilitated recognition of Platonism as a post-
Platonic construction.102 Hunter 2012 analyzes Plato’s literary influence in
later antiquity.
Recently, too, moves have been made to rehabilitate dialogues previously
considered dubious or spurious, such as the Cleitophon,103 Theages,104 and
Alcibiades,105 sometimes as part of the project of Straussian classical political
philosophy.106
Overall, these newer directions cohere with those of the new Platonism
already discussed. The Plato who wrote the dialogues looks more and more
clearly like a sophisticated dramatic writer who deployed many of the tools
of poetry, tragic and comic drama, and mythology to create a powerfully

95
Szlezak 1999.
96
Giannantoni 1995.
97
Zuckert 1996; Turner and Corrigan 2010.
98
Rowe 1999, 2000.
99
Renaud 1999.
100
Fronterotta 2000; Adomenas 2001; Cossutta and Narcy 2001 (reception of the dia-
logue form); Sedley 2002 (origin of the “Socratic” paradigm); Tarrant 2005; Tarrant and
Baltzly 2006; Trapp 2007; Elkaisy-Friemuth and Dillon 2009 (afterlife of the Platonic idea of
the soul).
101
Opsomer 1998; Tarrant 2000; Dillon 2003; Bonazzi and Trabattoni 2003; Gerson
2004; Tarrant 2005; Karamanolis 2006; Benatou€ıl et al. 2011; Benatou€ıl and Bonazzi 2012;
Alfonasin et al. 2012.
102
Follon 1997; Held 2002; Bonazzi and Opsomer 2009, which shows the invention of
the Platonic system by his followers first century BCE, as already suggested by the work of
Dillon 1997 and 2003, Tarrant 2000 and 2005, and others, pace Gerson 2013, who argues
that Plato was a Platonist.
103
Slings 1999; Bailly 2003a; Bryan 2012; Moore 2012. Kremer 2004 collects four previ-
ously published papers that aim “to restore the Cleitophon to its rightful place in the Platonic
corpus” (ix) following his earlier paper on the dialogue, Kremer 2000.
104
Joyal 2000; Bailly 2004.
105
Scott 2000; Denyer 2001; Johnson and Tarrant 2011; Archie 2015.
106
Earlier work in Orwin 1982; Roochnik 1984; and Pangle 1987 seeking to restore the
Cleitophon to the canon of authentic dialogues on dramatic and thematic grounds (consistency
with what is taken to be the Platonic political philosophy) goes back to an unpublished paper
of Strauss. Leo Strauss Papers, Box 18, Folder 9; cited by Jose Colen, “Some notes on Leo
Strauss’ reading of the Clitophon,” p. 9, n. 48. See http://www.academia.edu/7909281/
Some_notes_on_Leo_Strauss_reading_of_the_Clitophon. Similarly, Liebowitz 2010, 107.
Zuckert 2009 also accepts the Cleitophon.
 STATE OF THE QUESTION IN THE STUDY OF PLATO 21
persuasive but nonauthoritarian107 philosophic vision108 which remains
influential to this day109 at least in part because of the brilliance and pathos
of his dramatic dialogues and the elusiveness and personal anonymity that
Plato seems to have cultivated.

REFERENCES

Ademollo, Francesco. 2011. The Cratylus of Plato: A Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Adomenas, Mantas. 2001. “Self-Reference, Textuality, and the Status of the Political
Project in Plato’s Laws,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 21 (Winter): 29–59.
Alfonasin, Eugene, John Dillon, and John F. Finamore, eds. 2012. Iamblichus and the
Foundations of Late Platonism. Ancient Mediterranean and medieval texts and
contexts. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
Allen, Reginald. 1999. “Two Arguments in Plato’s “Protagoras.” In Plato and Platonism.,
edited by J. Ophuijsen, 19–38. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America
Press.
Allen, Danielle. 2010. Why Plato Wrote. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Altman, William H. F. 2010. “The Reading Order of Plato’s Dialogues,” Phoenix 64:
18–51.
———. 2012. Plato the Teacher: The Crisis of The Republic. Lanham, MD: Lexington
Books.
———. 2016. The Guardians on Trial: The Reading Order of Plato’s Dialogues from Euthyphro
to Phaedo. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Ambuel, David. 2006. Image and Paradigm in Plato’s Sophist. Las Vegas: Parmenides
Publishing.
Annas, Julia. 2002. “What are Plato’s ‘Middle’ Dialogues in the Middle of?” In Annas
and Rowe 2002, 1–23.
Annas, Julia, and Christopher Rowe, eds. 2002. New Perspectives on Plato, Modern and
Ancient. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Apolloni, David. 2011. The Self-Predication Assumption in Plato. Lanham, MD: Lexington
Books.
Archie, Andre. 2015. Politics in Socrates’ Alcibiades: A Philosophical Account of Plato’s Dialogue
Alcibiades Major. New York: Springer.
Aronadio, Francesco. 2011. I fondamenti della riflessione di Platone sul linguaggio: il Cratilo.
Roma: Edizioni di storia e lettere.
Bailly, Jacques A. 2003a. Plato’s Euthyphro and Clitophon. Newburyport, MA: Focus
Books.
———. 2003b. The Socratic Theages. Hildesheim, Germany: Georg Olms Verlag.

107
Karamanolis 2007 particularly well emphasizes the nonauthoritative character of
Plato’s philosophic work.
108
Thesleff 1999; Press 2007.
109
Lane 2001.
22 GERALD A. PRESS

Balansard, Anne. 2001. Techne dans les dialogues du Platon. L’empreinte de la sophistique. Sankt
Augustin, Germany: Academia Verlag.
Barney, Rachel. 2001. Names and Nature in Plato’s Cratylus. New York: Routledge.
Barney, Rachel, Tad Brennan, and Charles Brittain, eds. 2012. Plato and the Divided Self.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baracchi, Claudia. 1995. Of Myth, Life, and War in Plato’s Republic. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Barrett, James. 2002. “Plato’s Apology: Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the World of Myth.”
Classical World 95, no. 1 (Autumn): 3–30.
Barris, Jeremy. 2009. The Crane’s Walk: Plato, Pluralism, and the Inconstancy of Truth.
New York: Fordham University Press.
Beck, Martha. 2001. “Virtue without Fragility: Nussbaum’s Account of Detachment in
the Republic, Crito, and Phaedo,” Sophia 40, no. 1: 45–59.
Belfiore, Elizabeth S. 2012. Socrates’ Daimonic Art: Love for Wisdom in Four Platonic
Dialogues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Benatou€ıl, Thomas, Emanuele Maffi, Franco Trabattoni, eds. 2011. Plato, Aristotle, or
Both? Dialogues Between Platonism and Aristotelianism in Antiquity. Hildesheim, Germany:
Georg Olms Verlag.
Benatou€ıl, Thomas, and Mauro Bonazzi, eds. 2012. Theoria, Praxis, and the Contemplative
Life After Plato and Aristotle. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
Benitez, Eugenio. 1996. “Characterisation and Interpretation: The Import of Drama in
Plato’s Sophist,” Literature and Aesthetics 6: 27–39.
Benson, Hugh, ed. 2008. A Companion to Plato. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2000. Socratic Wisdom: The Model of Knowledge in Plato’s Early Dialogues. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Bentley, Russell. 1998. “On Reading Plato: Methods, Controversies and Interpretations,”
Polis 15, no. 1–2: 123–38.
Beversluis, John. 2000. Cross Examining Socrates: A Defense of Interlocutors in Plato’s Early
Dialogues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blackson, Thomas. 1995. Inquiry, Forms, and Substances. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Blondell, Ruby. 2002. The Plato of Character in Plato’s Dialogues. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Blossner, Norbert. 2001. “Sokrates und Sein Gluck, oder: Weshalb hat Platon den
Phaidon Geschrieben.” In Havlıček and Karfik, Plato’s Phaedo, 96–139.
Bobonich, Christopher. 2002. Plato’s Utopia Recast. His Later Ethics and Politics.
New York: Oxford University Press.
———., ed. 2010. Plato’s Laws: A Critical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bonazzi, Mauro, and Franco Trabattoni, eds. 2003. Platone e la tradizione platonica. Studi
di filosofia antica. Milan, Italy: Cisalpino.
Bonazzi, Mauro, and Jan Opsomer, eds. 2009. The Origins of the Platonic system: Platonisms
of Early Empire and Their Philosophical Contexts. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters Publishers.
Bordt, Michael. 2000. “The Unity of Plato’s Lysis.” In Plato: Euthydemus, Lysis Charmides:
Proceeding of the V “ Symposium Platonicum” Selected Papers, T. M. Robinson, 157–71.
Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag.
 STATE OF THE QUESTION IN THE STUDY OF PLATO 23
———. 2006. Platons Theologie. Freiburg, Germany: Josef Albers Verlag.
Bowery, Anne-Marie. 1995. “Plato Visits Postmodernity: Reflections on Narrative
Philosophy,” Southwest Philosophy Review 11, no. 1 (January): 135–42.
Boys-Stones, G. R. 2001. Post-Hellenic Philosophy: A Study of its Development from the Stoics to
Origen. New York: Oxford University Press.
Boys-Stones, G. R., Dmitri El Murr, and Christopher Gill eds. 2013. The Platonic Art of
Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boys-Stones, G. R., and J. H. Haubold, eds. 2010. Plato and Hesiod. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bradley, Marshell. 2012. Who is Phaedrus? Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publishing.
Bremer, John. 2002. Plato and the Founding of the Academy. Based on a Letter from Plato Newly
Discovered. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Brickhouse, Thomas, and Nicholas Smith, 2010. Socratic Moral Psychology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brisson, Luc. 2002. “‘Is the World One?’ A New Interpretation of Plato’s Parmenides,”
Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 22 (Summer): 1–20.
Brisson, Luc, and Francesco Fronterotta eds. 2006. Lire Platon. Paris: Presses Universitaires
de France.
Broadie, Sarah. 2003. “The Contents of the Receptacle,” Modern Schoolman 80, no. 3
(March): 171–90.
Bryan, Jenny. 2012. “Pseudo-Dialogue in Plato’s Clitophon,” Cambridge Classical Journal
58 (December): 1–22.
Capra, Andrea. 2001. Agon Logon: Il Protagora tra Eristica e Commedia. Milan, Italy:
Edizioni Universitarie di Lettere Economia Diritto.
———. 2014. Plato’s Four Muses: The “ Phaedrus” and the Poetics of Philosophy. Washington,
DC: Center for Hellenic Studies.
Casertano, Giovanni, ed. 2000. La struttura del dialogo platonico. Naples, Italy: Loffredo
Editore.
Cerri, Giovanni. 1996. Platone sociologo della communicazione. Lecce, Italy: Argo Editrice.
Chappell, Timothy. 2005. Reading Plato’s Theaetetus. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Cherniss, Harold. 1936. “The Philosophical Economy of the Theory of Ideas,” American
Journal of Philology 57, no. 4: 445–56.
Cholbi, Michael. 2002. “Dialectical Refutation as a Paradigm of Socratic Punishment.”
Journal of Philosophical Research 27: 371–79.
Clay, Diskin. 2000. Platonic Questions: Dialogues with the Silent Philosopher. University Park,
PA: Penn State University Press.
Collobert, Catherine, Pierre Destree, and Francisco Gonzales, eds. 2012. Plato and
Myth: Studies on the Use and Status of Platonic Myth. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
Comack, Michael. 2006. Plato’s Stepping Stones: Degrees of Moral Virtue. London: Continuum
International Publishing.
Cook, Albert. 1996. The Stance of Plato. Lanham, MD: Littlefield Adams.
Corrigan, Kevin. 1997. “The Comic-Serious Figure in Plato’s Middle Dialogues: The
Symposium as Philosophical Art.” In Laughter Down the Centuries, edited by S. J€akel
and A. Timonen, 55–64. Turku, Finland: Turun Ylioptisto.
24 GERALD A. PRESS


Cossutta, Frederic, and Michel Narcy, eds. 2001. La forme dialogue chez Platon. Evolution et
re ceptions. Grenoble, France: Editions Jer^ome Millon.
Cotton, A. K. 2014. Platonic Dialogue and the Education of the Reader. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Crotty, Kevin. 2009. The Philosopher’s Song: The Poets’ Influence on Plato. Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.
Coulloud-Streit, Marlis. 2005. F€unf platonische Mythen im Verh€altnis zu ihren Textfeldern.
Fribourg, Switzerland: Academic Press.
Danzig, Gabriel. 2010. Apologizing for Socrates: How Plato and Xenophon Created Our Socrates.
Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Darchia, Irine. 1999. “For a Compositional Organization of Plato’s Phaedo.” In Phasis,
Greek and Roman Studies, vol. 1, 7–18. Tbilisi, Georgia: Publishing Program Logos.
Demos, Marian. 1999. Lyric Quotation in Plato. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Desclos, Marie-Laurence. 1997. “Come non essere filosofo: Antifonte o la voce che
risuona.” In Filosofia, storia, immaginario mitologico, edited by M. Guglielmo, 11–39.
Turin, Italy: Edizioni dell’Orso.

———. 2000. Structure des dialogues de Platon. Paris: Ellipses Editions.
———, ed. 2000. Le rire des Grecs. Anthropologie du rire en Grèce ancienne. Grenoble, France:
Jer^ome Millon.
Demetriou, Kyriakos. 2000. “Reconsidering the Platonic Cleitophon,” Polis 17, no. 1–2:
133–60.
———. 2011. Studies on the Reception of Plato and Greek Political Thought. Burlington, VT:
Ashgate.
Denyer, Nicholas. 2001. Plato Alcibiades. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Destree, Pierre, and F.-G. Hermann, eds. 2011. Plato and the Poets. Leiden, Netherlands:
Brill.
Dillon, John. 1997. The Great Tradition. Further Studies in the Development of Platonism and
Christianity. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
———. 2003. The Heirs of Plato: A Study of the Old Academy. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Divenosa, Marisa. 2001. “Dialogo y discurso indirecto en Platon,” Nova Tellus 19: 75–97.
Dixsaut, Monique. 1995. Contre Platon. Renverser le platonisme. Paris: J. Vrin.
D€oring, Klaus et al., eds. 2005. Pseudoplatonica: Akten des Kongress zu den Pseudoplatonica,
held July 6–9, 2003, in Bamberg. Stuttgart, Germany: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Dorion, Louis-Andre. 2011. “Rise and fall of the Socratic problem.” In Cambridge
Companion to Socrates, edited by Morrison, 1–23. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Duranti, Gian Carlo. 1995. Verso un Platone “ Terzo”: Intuizioni e Decezioni nella Scuola di
Tubingen. Venice, Italy: Marsilio Editore,
Ebert, Theodor. 1997. “Studien zur griechischen Philosophie von Gregory Vlastos.”
Philosophische Rundschau 44: 271–87.
Elkaisy-Friemuth, Maha, and John Dillon, eds. 2009. The Afterlife of the Platonic Soul:
Reflections of Platonic Psychology in the Monotheistic Religions. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
Emlyn-Jones, Chris. 1999. “Dramatic Structure and Cultural Context in Plato’s
Laches.” Classical Quarterly 49, no. 1 (May): 123–38.
 STATE OF THE QUESTION IN THE STUDY OF PLATO 25
Erler, Michael. 1997. “Ideal und Geschichte: Die Rahmengespr€ache des Timaios und
Kritias und Aristoteles’ Poetik.” In Interpreting the Timaeus-Critias, edited by T. Calvo,
83–98. Sankt Augustin, Germany: Academia Verlag.
———. 2007. Platon. Munich, Germany: Verlag C. H. Beck.
Evans, David. 2003. “Dialogue and Dialectic: Philosophical Truth in Plato,” Diotima
31: 21–26.
Fagan, Patricia. 2013. Plato and Tradition: The Poetic and Cultural Context of Philosophy.
Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Fattal, Michel. 2009. Le langage chez Platon: autour du Sophiste. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Fendt, Gene, and David Rozema. 1998. Platonic Errors: Plato, a Kind of Poet. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.
Ferrari, G. R. F., ed. 2007. The Cambridge Companion to Plato’s Republic. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Fine, Gail, ed. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Plato. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fischer, Franck. 2003. “Qu’est-ce qu’une experience ‘aisthetique’ selon Platon?”
Dialogue 42, no. 1: 27–52.
Foley, Richard. 2008. “Plato’s Undividable Line: Contradiction and Method in Republic
VI,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 46, no. 1 (January): 1–23.
Follon, Jacques. 1997. “Le Platon de Diogene Laerce.” In Images de Platon et lectures de
ses oeuvres, edited by A. Neschke-Hentschke, 3–34. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters.
Ford, Andrew. 2008. “The Beginnings of Dialogue: Socratic Discourses and fourth-
century prose.” In The End of Dialogue in Antiquity, edited by Simon Goldhill, 29–44.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freydberg, Bernard. 1997. The Play of the Platonic Dialogues. New York: Peter Lang.
Fronterotta, Francesco. 2000. “Une Enigme  platonicienne: La question des doctrines
non-ecrite,” Revue des etudes anciennes 11: 115–57.
———. 2001. Methexis: la teoria platonica delle idee e la partecipazione delle cose empiriche. Pisa,
Italy: Scuola Normale Superiore.
Gerson, Lloyd. 1997. “Socrates’ Absolutist Prohibition of Wrongdoing.” Apeiron 30, no.
4: 1–11.
———. 2003. Knowing Persons: A Study in Plato. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2004. Aristotle and Other Platonists. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
———. 2013. From Plato to Platonism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Giannantoni, Gabriele. 1995. “Socrate et il Platone esoteric.” In La Tradizione Socratica,
edited by G. Giannantoni et al., 9–37. Naples, Italy: Bibliopolis.
Gill, Christopher. 1998. “Is Plato Proleptic?” Polis 15, no. 1–2 (January): 113–21.
Gill, Mary Louise. 2012. Philosophos: Plato’s Missing Dialogue. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Girgenti, G. 1998. La nuova interpretazione di Platone. Un dialogo tra Hans-Georg Gadamer e la
Scuola di Tubinga e Milano e altri sudiosi. Milan, Italy: Rusconi.
Giuliano, Fabio. 2000. “Filosofia in letteratura: il dialogo platonico e la sua inter-
pretazione,” Atene e Roma 45: 1–43.
———. 2005. Platone e la poesia: teoria della composizione e prassi della ricezione. Sankt Augustin,
Germany: Academia Verlag.
26 GERALD A. PRESS

Gonzalez, Francisco. 1995. “Plato’s ‘Lysis’: An Enactment of Philosophical Kinship.”

Ancient Philosophy 15, no. 1: 69–90.
———, ed. 1995. The Third Way: New Directions in Platonic Studies. Lanham, MD: Row-
man & Littlefield.
———. 1998. “Nonpropositional Knowledge in Plato,” Apeiron 31, no. 3: 235–84.
———. 2003. “How to Read a Platonic Prologue: Lysis 203A-207D.” In Ann
Michelini 2003, 15–44.
Gordon, Jill. 1996. “Dialectic, Dialogue, and Transformation of the Self,” Philosophy
and Rhetoric 29, no. 3: 259–78.
———. 1999. Turning Toward Philosophy: Literary Device and Dramatic Structure in Plato’s
Dialogues. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.
———. 2012. Socrates’ Erotic World. From Cosmic Origins to Human Death. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Grabowski, Francis. 2008. Plato, Metaphysics and the Forms. New York: Continuum
Publishers.
Gregory, Andrew. 2001. Plato’s Philosophy of Science. London: Duckworth.
Griswold, Charles. 1999. “E Pluribus Unum? On the Platonic ‘Corpus.’” Ancient
Philosophy 19, no. 2: 361–97.
Halliwell, Stephen. 2009. “The Theory and Practice of Narrative in Plato.” In Narratology
and Interpretation: The Content of Narrative Form in Ancient Literature., edited by J. Grethlein
and A. Rengakos, 15–41. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Hardy, Joerg. 2001. Platons Theorie des Wissens im “ Theaitet.” G€ottingen, Germany:
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
Harte, Verity. 2002. Plato on Parts and Wholes: The Metaphysics of Structure. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Havlıček, Ales, and Filip Karfik, eds. 2001. Plato’s Phaedo: Proceedings of the Second
Symposium Platonicum Pragense. Prague: Oikoumene.
Heitsch, Ernst. 2001. “Was Autor und Dialogpersonen des Phaidon von Ihren
Argumenten Halten.” In Havlıček and Karfik 2001, 78–95.
Held, Dirk. 2002. “Was Plato a Platonist?” Polis 19, no. 1–2: 157–62.
Hermann, Fritz-Gregor, ed. 2006. New Essays on Plato: Language and Thought in Fourth-Century
Greek Philosophy. Swansea, UK: Classical Press of Wales.
Hobbs, Angela. 2000. Plato and the Hero: Courage, Manliness, and the Impersonal Good.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hunter, Richard. 2012. Plato and the Traditions of Ancient Literature: The Silent Stream.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, Drew. 1994. “Potentiality and Presence in Plato: The Significance of Place in
the Platonic Dialogues,” Journal of Speculative Philosophy 8, no. 1: 28–43.
———. 1995. Finitude and Transcendence in the Platonic Dialogues. Albany: SUNY Press.
Irwin, Terence. 1995. Plato’s Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 1998. “Common Sense and Socratic Method.” In Method in Ancient Philosophy,
edited by J. Genzler, 29–66. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Jenks, Rod. 2001. The Contribution of Socratic Method. Lewiston, UK: Edwin Mellen.
Johnson, Marguerite, and Harold Tarrant, eds. 2011. Alcibiades and the Socratic Lover-Educator.
London: Bristol Classical Press.
 STATE OF THE QUESTION IN THE STUDY OF PLATO 27
Johnson, William A. 1998. “Dramatic Frame and Philosophic Idea in Plato,” American
Journal of Philology 119: 577–98.
Joyal, Mark. 2000. The Platonic Theages. An Introduction, Commentary and Critical Edition.
Stuttgart, Germany: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Kahn, Charles. 1996. Plato and the Socratic Dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
———. 2000. “Response to Griswold.” Ancient Philosophy 20: 189–93.
———. 2002. “On Platonic Chronology.” In Annas and Rowe 2002, 93–128.
Karamanolis, George. 2006. Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from
Antiochus to Porphyry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kato, Shinro. 2000. “The Crito Socrates Scenes in the ‘Euthydemus’: A Point of View
for a Reading the Dialogue.” In Plato: Euthydemus, Lysis Charmides, edited by T. M.
Robinson, 123–32. Sankt Augustin, Germany: Academia Verlag.
Keller, Simon. 2000. “An Interpretation of Plato’s Cratylus,” Phronesis 45, no. 4
(December): 84–305.
Kennedy, Jay. 2011. The Musical Structure of Plato’s Dialogues. Durham, UK: Acumen
Press.
Kim, Alan. 2010. Plato in Germany: Kant - Natorp - Heidegger. Sankt Augustin, Germany:
Academia Verlag.
Kirby, John T. 1997. “A Classicist’s Approach to Rhetoric in Plato,” Philosophy and
Rhetoric 30: 190–202.
Kobusch, Theo, and Burkhart Mojsisch, eds. 1996. Platon, seine Dialoge in der Sicht neuer
Forschungen. Darmstadt, Germany: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Kremer, Mark. 2000. “Socratic Philosophy and the Cleitophon.” Review of Politics 62:
479–502.
———, ed. 2004. Plato’s Cleitophon: On Socrates and the Modern Mind. Lanham, MD: Lex-
ington Books.
Kuhn, Wilfried. 2000. La Fin du “ Phedre” de Platon: Critique de la Rhetorique et de l’Ecriture.
Florence, Italy: Leo S. Okschki Editore.
Laidlaw-Johnson, Elizabeth. 1996. Plato’s Epistemology: How Hard Is It to Know? New York:
Peter Lang.
Laks, Andre, and Ada Neschke, eds. 1990. La naissance du paradigme herme neutique:
Schleiermacher, Humboldt, Boeckh, Droysen. Lille, France: Presses Universitaires de Lille.
Lampert, Laurence. 2010. How Philosophy Became Socratic: A Study of Plato’s Protagoras,
Charmides, and Republic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lane, Melissa. 2001. Plato’s Progeny. How Plato and Socrates Still Captivate the Modern Mind.
London: Duckworth.
Ledbetter, Grace. 2003. Poetics Before Plato: Interpretation and Authority in early Greek Theories
of Poetry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Leibowitz, David. 2010. The Ironic Defense of Socrates: Plato’s Apology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Levin, Susan. 1995. “What’s in a Name?: A Reconsideration of the Cratylus’ Historical
Sources and Topic.” Ancient Philosophy 15: 91–115.
Liesegang, Hans. 1929. Die Platondeutung der Gegenwart. Karlsruhe, Germany: Braun
Verlag.
28 GERALD A. PRESS

Lind, L. R. 1998. “Movement in Plato’s Dialogues,” Classical and Modern Literature 18,
no. 3: 183–88.
Lisi, Francisco, Maurizio Migliori, and Josep Monserrat-Molas, eds. 2011. Formal Struc-
tures in Plato’s Dialogues: Theaetetus, Sophist and Statesman. Sankt Augustin, Germany:
Academia Verlag.
Li Volsi, Rocco. 2001. “Sulla cronologia dei dialoghi platonici,” Giornale di Metafisica
23: 217–56.
Lorenz, Hendrik. 2006. The Brute Within: Appetitive Desire in Plato and Aristotle. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Losev, Aleksey. 1998. “Plato’s Dialogues as a Drama of Thought,” Keksis 3–4: 33–51.
Lutz, Mark. 2012. Divine law and political philosophy in Plato’s Laws. DeKalb, IL: Northern
Illinois University Press.
Madhu, Chandra. 1999. “Plato’s Homer.” Ancient Philosophy 19: 87–95.
Mahoney, Timothy. 1995. “Plato’s Practical Political Rhetorical Project: The Example
of the Republic.” Polis 14, no. 1–2: 30–52.
Manuwald, Bernd. 2003. “Der Platonische Dialog als Kommunikationsform.” In Medien
in der Antike: Kommunikative Qualit€at und normative Wirkung, edited by H. von Hesber,
123–44. Wiesbaden, Germany: Reichert Verlag.
Mason, Andrew. 2010. Plato. Durham, UK: Acumen.
McAvoy, Martin. 1996. “Carnal Knowledge in the Charmides,” Apeiron 29, no. 4
(December): 63–103.
McCabe, M. M. 1999. “Silencing the Sophists: The Drama of the Euthydemus,” Proceedings
of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy, edited by John Cleary, 14: 139–76.
———. 2000. Plato and His Predecessors: The Dramatisation of Reason. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
McCoy, Marina. 2007. Plato on the Rhetoric of Philosophers and Sophists. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McPherran, Mark, ed. 2010. Plato’s Republic: A Critical Guide. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Michelini, Ann, ed. 2003. Plato as Author. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
Migliori, Maurizio, Linda Napolitano, and Arianna Fermani, eds. 2011. Inner Life and
Soul: Psyche in Plato. Sankt Augustin, Germany: Academia Verlag.
Miller, Mitchell. 1995. “The Choice between the Dialogues and the ‘Unwritten
Teachings’—A Scylla and Charybdis for the Interpreter?” In Gonzalez 1995, 225–44.
———. 1999. “Dialectical Education and Unwritten Teachings in Plato’s ‘Statesman.’”
In Van Ophuijsen 1999, 218–41.
———. 2003. “The Timaeus and the ‘Longer Way’: ‘God-Given’ Method and the
Constitution of Men and Animals.” In Reydams-Schils 2003, 17–59.
Miller, Jr., Fred. 1999. “Plato on the Parts of the Soul.” In Van Ophuijsen 1999,
84–101.
Monoson, S. Sara. 2000. Plato’s Democratic Entanglements: Athenian Politics and the Practice of
Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Moes, Mark. 2000. Plato’s Dialogue Form and the Care of the Soul. New York: Peter Lang.
Moore, Christopher. 2012. “Clitophon and Socrates in the Platonic Clitophon,” Ancient
Philosophy 32: 1–22.
 STATE OF THE QUESTION IN THE STUDY OF PLATO 29
Moravcsik, Julius. 2000. Plato and Platonism: Plato’s Conception of Appearance and Reality.
Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Morgan, Kathryn. 2003. “The Tyranny of the Audience.” In Popular Tyranny: Sovereignty
and its Discontents in Ancient Greek., edited by K. Morgan, 181–207. Austin: University
of Texas Press.
Morris, T. F. 1990. “Plato’s Euthyphro,” Heythrop Journal 31, no. 2 (April): 309–23.
Moss, Jessica. 2007. “What Is Imitative Poetry and Why Is It Bad?” In Ferrari 2007,
415–44.
Naddaff, Ramona. 2003. Exiling the Poets. The Production of Censorship in Plato’s Republic.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nails, Debra. 1995. Agora, Academy, and the Conduct of Philosophy. Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Kluwer.
———. 1997. “Tidying the Socratic Mess of a Method,” Southwest Philosophy Review 13,
no. 2 (July):1–14.
———. 1998. “The Dramatic Date of Plato’s Republic,” Classical Journal 93, no. 4
(April–May): 383–96.
———. 2002. The People of Plato: A Prosopography of Plato and Other Socratics. Indianapolis:
Hackett.
———. 2012. “Plato’s Republic in its Athenian Context,” History of Political Thought 33,
no. 1: 1–23.
Narcy, Michel. 2000. “Le Socratisme du “Lysis” est il un sophiste?” In Robinson 2000,
205–33.
Nichols, Mary P. 2009. Socrates on Friendship and Community: Reflections on Plato’s Symposium,
Phaedrus, and Lysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nightingale, Andrea. 1995. Genres in Dialogue: Plato and the Construct of Philosophy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2002. “Distant Views: ‘Realistic’ and ‘Fantastic’ Mimesis in Plato.” In Annas
and Rowe 2002, 227–48.
———. 2004. Spectacles of Truth in Classical Greek Philosophy: Theoria in its Cultural Context.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nikulin, Dmitri, ed. 2012. The Other Plato: The T€ubingen Interpretation of Plato’s
Inner-Academic Teachings. Albany: SUNY Press.
Nola, Robert. 1990. “On Some Neglected Minor Speakers in Plato’s Symposium:
Phaedrus and Pausanias,” Prudentia 22, no. 1: 54–73.
Nonvel Pieri, Stefania. 1995. “Tracce per il Timeo,” Philo Logica 4, no. 8: 19–38.
———. 2000. “Il limite della complessita.” In Casertano 2000, 140–70.
———. 2001. “Le dialogue platonicien comme forme de pensee ironique.” In Cossutta
and Narcy 2001, 21–48.
Opsomer, Jan. 1998. In Search of the Truth: Academic Tendencies in Middle Platonism.
Brussels: Brepols.
Orwin, Clifford. 1982. “The Case Against Socrates: Plato’s Cleitophon,” Canadian Journal
of Political Science 15, no. 4: 741–54.
Ostenfeld, Erik-Nis. 1999. “Hypothetical Method in the Charmides and in the elenchus.”
Classica et Medievalia 50: 67–80.
30 GERALD A. PRESS

Pangle, Lorraine Smith. 2014. Virtue is Knowledge: The Moral Foundations of Socratic Political
Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pangle, Thomas. 1987. The Roots of Political Philosophy: Ten Forgotten Socratic Dialogues.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Pappas, Nickolas, and Mark Zelcer. 2015. Politics and Philosophy in Plato’s Menexenus:
Education and Rhetoric, Myth and History. New York: Routledge.
Parry, Richard. 2001. Plato’s Craft of Justice. Albany: SUNY Press.
Partenie, Catalin, ed. 2009. Plato’s Myths. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Patterson, Richard, Vassilis Karasmanis, and Arnold Hermann, eds. 2012. Presocratics
and Plato: A Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Charles Kahn. Las Vegas: Parmenides
Publishing.
Pawlak, Anna. 1996. “Elementi di dramma nel Protagora di Platone,” Eos 84: 277–83.
Pelosi, Francesco. 2010. Plato on Music, Soul, and Body. Translated by Sophie Henderson.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pender, Elizabeth 2000. Images of Persons Unseen: Plato’s Metaphors for the Gods and the Soul.
Sankt Augustin, Germany: Academia Verlag.
———. 2003. “Plato on Metaphors and Models.” In Metaphor, Allegory and the Classical
Tradition, edited by G. R. Boys-Stones, 55–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Penner, Terry. 2002. “The Historical Socrates and Plato’s Early Dialogues: Some
Philosophical Questions.” In Annas and Rowe 2002, 189–212.
Penner, Terry, and Christopher Rowe. 2005. Plato’s Lysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Perez-Estevez, Antonio. 2001. “Dialogo, verdad y alteridad en Platon,” Utopia y Praxis
Latinoamericana 6: 2001.
Peterson, Sandra. 2011. Socrates and Philosophy in the Dialogues of Plato. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Petraki, Zacharoula. 2011. The Poetics of Philosophical Language: Plato, Poets and Presocratics
in the Republic. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Planeaux, Christopher. 2001. “Socrates, An Unreliable Narrator? The Dramatic Set-
ting of the Lysis,” Classical Philology 96, no.1 (January): 60–68.
Plax, Martin. 2001. “The Roots of Socratic Philanthropy and the Rule of Law: Plato’s
Crito,” Polis 18: 59–89.
Poster, Carol. 1998. “The Idea(s) of Order of Platonic Dialogues and Their
Hermeneutic Consequences,” Phoenix 53, no. 3–4: 282–98.
Pradeau, Jean-François. 2001. Platon: Les formes intelligible. Sur la forme intelligible et la par-
ticipation dans les dialogues platoniciens. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Press, Gerald, ed. 1993. Plato’s Dialogues: New Studies and Interpretations. Savage, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield.
———. 1995. “Plato’s Dialogues as Enactments.” In Gonzalez 1995, 133–52.
———. 1996. “The State of the Question in the Study of Plato,” The Southern Journal of
Philosophy 34, no. 4 (December): 507–32. Reprinted in Smith, Plato: Critical Assess-
ments, vol. 1, 309–32.
———, ed. 2000. Who Speaks For Plato? Studies in Platonic Anonymity. Savage, MD: Row-
man and Littlefield.
———. 2007. Plato: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Continuum.
 STATE OF THE QUESTION IN THE STUDY OF PLATO 31
———, ed. 2015. The Bloomsbury Companion to Plato. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Proimos, Constantinos. 2002. “The Politics of Mimesis in the Platonic Dialogues: A
Comment on Plato’s Art Theory from the Vantage Point of the Statesman.” International
Studies in Philosophy 34, no. 2: 83–93.
Protopopova, Irina, ed. 2013. Gkanjyjdcrb½ c,jhybr (Collected Papers on Plato and
Platonism), vol.1. Moscow.
Reale, Giovanni, and Samuel Scolnicov, eds. 2002. New Images of Plato: Dialogues on the
Idea of the Good. Sankt Augustin, Germany: Academia Verlag.
Reece, Andrew. 1998. “Drama, Narrative, and Socratic Eros in Plato’s Charmides,”
Interpretation 26, no. 1: 65–76.
Regali, Mario. 2012. Il poeta e il demiurgo: teoria e prassi della produzione letteraria nel Timeo e
nel Crizia di Platone. Sankt Augustin, Germany: Academia Verlag.
Renaud, François. 1999. Die Resokratisierung Platons: Die platonische Hermeneutik Hans Georg
Gadamers. Sankt Augustin, Germany: Academia Verlag.
———. 2001. “La rhetorique socratico-platonicienne dans le Gorgias (447a–461b),”
Philosophie Antique 1: 65–86.
Reydams-Schils, Gretchen. 2002. “La requ^ete de Socrate dans le Time e (19B-20C) et
les dieux,” Philologus 146, no. 2: 265–76.
———, ed. 2003. Plato’s Timaeus as Cultural Icon. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre
Dame Press.
Rickless, Samuel. 2007. Plato’s Forms in Transition: A Reading of the Parmenides. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ritter, Constantin. 1980. Bibliographies on Plato 1912–1930. New York: Garland.
Robinson, T. M., ed. 2000. Plato: Euthydemus, Lysis, Charmides. Sankt Augustin,
Germany: Academia Verlag.
Roochnik, David. 1984. “The Riddle of the Cleitophon,” Ancient Philosophy 4, no. 2:
132–45.
———. 2001. “The Deathbed Dream of Reason: Socrates’ Dream in the Phaedo,”
Arethusa 34, no. 3 (Fall): 239–58.
———. 2002. “Self-Recognition in Plato’s Theaetetus,” Ancient Philosophy 22, no. 1:
37–51.
———. 2003. Beautiful City: The Dialectical Character of Plato’s Republic. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Rosenstock, Bruce. 1997. “From Counter-Rhetoric to Askesis: How the Phaedo Rewrites
the Gorgias.” In The Rhetoric Canon., edited by B. D. Schildgen, 83–106. Detroit, MI:
Wayne State University Press.
Rowe, Christopher. 1999. “La forme dramatique dans la structure du Philebe.” In La
f^e lure du plaisir., edited by M. Dixsaut, 9–25. Paris: J. Vrin
———. 2000. “The Lysis and the Symposium: Aporia and Euporia?” In Robinson 2000,
205–15.
———. 2001. “Killing Socrates: Plato’s later thoughts on democracy.” Journal of
Hellenic Studies 121: 63–76.
———. 2007. Plato and the Art of Philosophical Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
32 GERALD A. PRESS

Rudebusch, George 2002a. Socrates, Pleasure, and Value. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
———. 2002b. “Dramatic Prefiguration in Plato’s Republic,” Philosophy and Literature 26,
no. 1 (April): 75–83.
Russell, Daniel. 2005. Plato on Pleasure and the Good Life. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Rutherford, Richard. 1992. “Unifying the Protagoras,” Apeiron 54: 135–56.
———. 1995. The Art of Plato. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sallis, John. 1996. Being and Logos: Reading the Platonic Dialogues. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
———. 1999. Chronology: On Beginning Plato’s Timaeus. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
———. 2002. “Phronesis in Hades and Beyond,” Epoche 7, no. 1: 121–31.
Samaras, Thanassis. 2002. Plato on Democracy. New York: Peter Lang.
Santas, Gerasimos, ed. 2006. The Blackwell’s Guide to Plato’s Republic. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Sayre, Kenneth. 1995. Plato’s Literary Garden. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre
Dame Press.
Schefer, Christina. 2001. Platos unsagbare Erfahrung: Ein anderer Zugang zu Plato. Basel,
Switzerland: Schwabe.
Schindler, D. C. 2008. Plato’s Critique of Impure Reason: On Goodness and Truth in the
Republic. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.
Schmid, W. Thomas. 1998. Plato’s Charmides and the Socratic Ideal of Rationality. Albany:
SUNY Press.
Schuhl, Pierre-Maxim. 1960. “Vingt annee d’etudes platonicienne.” In Etudes  Platonici-
ennes, 23–47. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Schofield, Malcolm. 2006. Plato: Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schoos, Daniel J. 1999. “Timaeus’ Banquet,” Ancient Philosophy 19: 91–107.
Schultz, Anne-Marie. 2013. Plato’s Socrates as Narrator. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Scott, Gary. 2000. Plato’s Socrates as Educator. Albany: SUNY Press.
———, ed. 2002. Re-Examining the Socratic Elenchos. University Park, PA: Penn State
University Press.
Sedley, David. 1997. “Plato’s Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition.”
In Philosophia Togata II: Plato and Aristotle, J. Barnes and M. Griffin, 110–29. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
———. 2002. “Socratic Irony in the Platonic Commentators.” In Annas and Rowe
2002, 37–58.
Shorey, Paul. 1903. The Unity of Plato’s Thought. Chicago: Decennial Publications of the
University of Chicago.
Silverman, Allan. 2003. The Dialectic of Essence. A Study of Plato’s Metaphysics. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Simterre, Raymond. 1948. Introduction a l’e tude de Platon. Paris: Le Belles Lettres.
Skemp, J. B. 1976. Plato. Greece & Rome New Surveys in the Classics, no. 10. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Slings, S. R. 1999. Plato: Clitophon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 STATE OF THE QUESTION IN THE STUDY OF PLATO 33
Smith, Nicholas D., ed. 1998. Plato: Critical Assessments. London: Routledge.
Smith, Nicholas, and Paul Woodruff, eds. 2000. Reason and Religion in Socratic Philosophy.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Solcan, Dan. 2009. La pie te chez Platon: une lecture conjugue e de l’Euthyphron ed de l’Apologie.
Paris: L’Harmattan.
Solère-Queval, Sylvie. 1998. “Quand le prologue se fait epilogue: reflexions sur le pre-
mier prologue du Thee tète.” In Entrer en matiere. Les prologues, edited by J.-D. Dubois

and B. Roussel, 9–21. Paris: Editions du Cerf.
Stern, Paul. 2008. Knowledge and Politics in Plato’s Theaetetus. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Stone, Abraham. 2012. “On the Teaching of Virtue in Plato’s ‘Meno’ and the Nature
of Philosophical Authority,” New Yearbook for Phenomenology and Phenomenological
Philosophy 10, no. 1: 251–82.
Szlezak, Thomas. 1999. Reading Plato. New York: Routledge.
———, ed. 2001. Platonisches Philosophieren. Hildesheim, Germany: Georg Olms Verlag.
———. 2003. Die Idee des Gutens in Platons Politea: Beobachtungen zu den mittleren Buchern.
Sankt Augustin, Germany: Academia Verlag.
Talisse, Robert. 2002. “Misunderstanding Socrates.” Arion, 3rd series 9: 48–56.
———. 2003. “Teaching Plato’s Euthyphro Dialogically,” Teaching Philosophy 26, no. 2
(June): 163–75.
Tanner, Sonja. 2010. In Praise of Plato’s Poetic Imagination. Lanham, MD: Lexington
Books.
Tarnopolsky, Christina. 2010. Prudes, Perverts, and Tyrants: Plato’s Gorgias and the Politics of
Shame. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tarrant, Harold. 2000. Plato’s First Interpreters. London: Duckworth.
———. 2005. Recollecting Plato’s Meno. London: Duckworth.
Tarrant, Harold, and Dirk Baltzly, eds. 2006. Reading Plato in Antiquity. London:
Duckworth.
Taylor, C. C. W. 2002. “The Origins of Our Present Paradigms.” In Annas and Rowe
2002, 73–84.
Tecusan, Manuela. 1992. “Speaking about the Unspeakable: Plato’s Use of Imagery,”
Apeiron 54: 69–88. Reprinted in The Language of the Cave, edited by A. Barker and
M. Warner. Edmonton: Academic Printing and Publishing, 1992.
Tell, Hakan. 2011. Plato’s Counterfeit Sophists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Teloh, Henry. 2008. “Rhetoric, Refutation, and What Socrates Believes in Plato’s
Gorgias.” In Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium on Ancient Philosophy 23, edited by
Cleary and Gurtler, 57–77. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
Thein, Karel. 2000. “Entre anoia et agnoia. La ‘nature humaine’ et la comedie dans
les dialogues de Platon.” In Le rire des Grecs. Anthropologie du rire en Grèce ancienne,
edited by M. Desclos, 169–80. Grenoble: Jer^ome Millon.
Thesleff, Holger. 1982. Studies in Platonic Chronology. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum
Fennica. Reprinted in Platonic Patterns: A Collection of Studies by Holger Thesleff. Las
Vegas: Parmenides Press, 2009.
———. 1989. “Platonic Chronology,” Phronesis 34, no. 1: 1–26.
34 GERALD A. PRESS

———. 1999. Studies in Plato’s Two-Level Model. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.
Reprinted in Platonic Patterns: A Collection of Studies by Holger Thesleff. Las Vegas:
Parmenides Press, 2009.
Trabattoni, Franco. 2003. “Il dialogo come ‘portavoce’ dell’opinione di Platone: il case
di Parmenide.” In Platone e la tradizione platonica, Bonazzi and Trabattoni, 151–78.
Milan, Italy: Cisalpino.
Trapp, Michael, ed. 2007. Socrates from Antiquity to the Enlightenment. Aldershot, UK:
Ashgate.
Trindade Santos, Jose. 2000. “La struttura dialogica del Menone: Una lettura retro-
attiva.” In La struttura del dialogo platonico, edited by G. Castertano, 35–50. Naples:
Loffredo.
Tuozzo, Thomas. 2011. Plato’s Charmides: Positive Elenchus in a “ Socratic” Dialogue.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turnbull, Robert. 1998. The “ Parmenides” and Plato’s Late Philosophy. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press.
Turner, John, and Kevin Corrigan, eds. 2010. Plato’s Parmenides and Its Heritage. Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature.
Van Ophuisen, Johannes, ed. 1999. Plato and Platonism. Washington, DC: Catholic
University of America Press.
Vasiliou, Iakovos. 2002. “Disputing Socratic Principles: Character and Argument in
the ‘Polus Episode’ of the Gorgias” Archiv f€ur Geschichte der Philosophie 84: 245–72.
———. 2008. Aiming at Virtue in Plato. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vegetti, Mario. 2003. Quindici lezioni su Platone. Torino: Einaudi Editore.
Von der Walde, Giselle. 1998. “Is Philosophy Possible?: The Quarrel between
Philosophy and Poetry in Plato,” Universitas Philosophica 15: 105–27.
Vonessen, Franz. 2001. Platons Ideenlehre: Wiederentdeckung eines verlorenen Wegs. Zug: Graue
Edition.
Warnek, Peter. 2003. “Teiresias in Athens: Socrates as Educator and the Kinship of
Physis in Plato’s Meno,” Epoche 7, no. 2: 261–89
Warner, Martin. 2016. The Aesthetics of Argument. New York: Oxford University Press.
Weiss, Roslyn. 1998. Socrates Dissatisfied: An Analysis of Plato’s Crito. New York: Oxford
University Press.
———. 2001. Virtue in the Cave: Moral Inquiry in Plato’s Meno. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Williams, Thomas. 2002. “Two Aspects of Platonic Recollection,” Apeiron 35, no. 2:
131–52.
Wolfsdorf, David. 2008. Trials of Reason: Plato and the Crafting of Philosophy. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Wood, Robert. 1999. “Self Reflexivity in Plato’s Theaetetus: Toward a Phenomenology
of the Lifeworld,” Review of Metaphysics 52, no. 4 (June): 807–33.
Worman, Nancy. 2008. Abusive Mouths in Classical Athens. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Yunis, Harvey. 2005. “Eros in Plato’s ‘Phaedrus’ and the Shape of Greek Rhetoric,”
Arion (3rd series) 13, no. 1 (Spring/Summer): 101–26.
———. 2007. “The Protreptic Rhetoric of Plato’s Republic” in Ferrari 2007: 1–26.
 STATE OF THE QUESTION IN THE STUDY OF PLATO 35
Zamir, Tzachi. 2002. “Phaedo’s Hair,” Iyyun 51 (July): 139–54.
Zafiropoulos, Christos A. 2015. Socrates and Aesop. A Comparative Study of the Introduction of
Plato’s Phaedo. Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag.
Zuckert, Catherine 1996. Postmodern Platos: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Gadamer, Strauss, Derrida.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zuckert, Catherine. 2009. Plato’s Philosophers: The Coherence of the Dialogues. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Zwicky, Jan. 2009. Plato as Artist. Kentville, NS, Canada: Gaspereau Press.