Customer Reviews

The Republic Of Plato: Second Edition

5 star:		(34)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Plato's Republic is really beyond reviews, and it would be presumptuous do anything other than encourage potential readers to study it for themselves. As the overt political slants of some of the other reviews suggest, his ideas resonate in the modern world as much as they did in his own. Whether a reader approaches Republic with positive or negative prejudices, the actual text of the argument forces constant reevaluation and refinement of those preexisting opinions.

Allan Bloom has created a literal translation that is ideal for those who truly wish to engage with Plato. Most other translators have used non-literal methods that attempt to convey in a more contemporary form what Plato "meant" by his arguments. However, in this process the translator's own interpretation of Plato's argument inevitably influences the language in which he renders his translation. Bloom has attempted, with a great degree of success, to separate the processes of translation and interpretation. Rather than imposing his reading on the text itself, he express it in a thought-provoking interpretive essay that follows the text

This is probably not the easiest translation of Plato to read, because Bloom does not attempt to serve as a baby-sitter for his readers. However, the extra time spent in reading this version will be well rewarded by a deeper understanding of Plato's argument.

Plato's 'Republic' is one of the most important works of ancient Greek philosophy, and one of the foundation pieces of political science and political philosophy of that and subsequent ages. It was one of the first pieces I read when undertaking a political science degree. This translation by Allan Bloom is perhaps the most recent 'Republic' I have read.

Plato was not only a great philosopher, but also a great writer. While few master the classical Greek language sufficient to undertake its study in the original language, the text appears in countless translated forms of varying degrees of integrity. This translation by Bloom is one of the best literal translations - it stays very closely to the original, explaining things that do not translate easily, but avoiding many interpretation issues that often show more of the philosophy and/or politics of the translator than of Plato.

The text is traditionally divided into ten sections, although some scholars see this as being a function of the papyrus and scrolls of original composition more than being integral to the structure of the text itself. One of the interesting features of the Republic is that it was not originally intended for scholars and philosophers primarily, but for the common (albeit educated) reader, and remains one of the more accessible texts of ancient Greek philosophy.

In typical fashion, this is done in a dialogue fashion, with the lead character Socrates (fashioned after Plato's teacher, the great philosopher Socrates, although the words Socrates utters in this and many other Platonic dialogues are undoubtedly Plato's own). There is a discussion on method (the Sophist Thrasymachus shows up early to make disparaging comments about the Socratic method) whilst trying to determine an adequate definition of justice, as well as a discussion on the virtues and/or utility of wealth and old age early in the text. Socrates moves the discussion of justice away from the individual toward the communal, and this is where the political philosophy gets played out in full.

Book II shows the setting out of an ideal city (city-states being the most common form of political organisation in Greece at the time of Plato, with Athens and other cities competing for dominant role). Division of labour becomes an immediate necessity if a city grows beyond a small village setting, according to the theory here. These essentially become classes of people, with different rights and responsibilities, and different expectations of education and material well-being. The guardians or army class is the first one introduced, including an extensive discussion of the type of education and indoctrination such a class should have - this involves political and religious aspects.

It follows from this discussion that censorship is not only tolerated, but selectively preferred. The guardian class is elaborated upon - they are to be divided into rulers and helpers (officer and enlisted class, perhaps?), and they should live separately from the city they guard, owning no private property so as to not be corrupted or corruptible.

After establishing the just foundation of the city, the discussion returns to justice for the individual (interesting to note that what is not discussed is if justice is attainable in a non-ideal city). Justice, after all, is that state when everyone is doing what he or she should be doing, not meddling in other affairs, and exhibiting the virtues of moderation, wisdom, and courage. Justice becomes one of the virtues, and is part of an inner state of the soul of one living in such a society.

Interesting parts of the Republic include the very early idea for equal rights and responsibilities for women, particularly in the guardian class. It is unclear whether Plato was aware of how self-serving his dialogue would seem, since his argument leads to the `natural' conclusion that the only ones who could really be in charge in such an ideal city would be the philosophers. Plato is not an advocate for democracy, and pokes fun quite a bit at democratic structures; he similarly disapproves of most of other types of government (oligarchy, plutocracy, timocracy, etc.) - one can discern the frustrated politician here.

However, the real power of the Republic lies in Plato's remarkable images and metaphoric stories in the second half of the dialogue. These include his expositions on theories of the Forms, and trying to explain what the Good is, and how humankind interprets such things. The images of the ship, the Sun, and the men in the cave are powerful images that have lasted in popular literature since the time of Plato.

This is a classic of Western literature and of world literature.

i add my praise of bloom's *translation*, which avoids many of the historical pitfalls in rendering plato's language and concepts and, on the whole, is idiomatic, consistent and accurate. the few criticisms of the translation posted here seem to me to turn on bloom's educational background, which is a silly cavil, or on his translation, which as far as i can tell is objectionable only to readers lacking greek themselves.

i especially praise bloom's *edition*, which provides excellent endnotes to some of the disputed passages and, in particular, clarifies the meaning of key greek words (eidos, doxa, nomos, arete, politeia, etc.) and the translation difficulties the words create. i cite for example his gloss on greek "thymos" (passion) which bloom represents as "the seat of anger" (a common straussian misconception) but consistently translates as "spirit" or "spiritedness", which is about as accurate as english can render its complex meaning. the point is that without this kind of annotation the reader is hostage to the translator's whims. bloom discloses his choices at every turn, so that the reader is aware of the translator's challenge, can approve or evaluate his translation choices, and has the context for further exploration of plato's ideas if that seems fruitful. in this respect, the endnotes are at least as stimulating as the text.

the edition also includes a very useful index to proper names and a separate index to subjects (really, a synoptic index of concepts such as "virtue" or "justice"), which allows the reader to retrace page by page the steps in the argument that hinge on particular words (in the original greek) or specific philosophical ideas. of course the edition uses the berlin marginal numbering which is the standard method to cite passages in plato, but the indices are conveniently keyed to pages or endnote numbers.

finally, bloom's apparently controversial interpretative essay does presume a careful and skeptical reader. while clearly tendentious in certain respects it is also an excellent gloss on the outline and argument of the dialog; a kind of cliff's notes for the mature reader. i see this essay as a culmination in the invitation -- through the text, the notes to the text, the inquiry through the indices, and the questions all these raise -- to encounter the book in a spirit of self inquiry and self education. the book is a fine example of "paideia".

my disappointments are with the typeface, which is a bit small and stodgy, with the paper (too rough and heavy), and with the binding: as with many basic books paperbacks, the glue will split and shed pages if the book is used too familiarly.

materials aside: for a modern american reader with little knowledge of classical greek or of the three centuries of philological and literary scholarship laid over it, this is far and away the best english translation and nonscholarly edition for getting back at least part of the original meaning of plato's supreme political tract, with all the tools necessary for a lifetime of self study.

The famous French philosopher, Rene Descartes, once said that the reading of good books "is like a conversation with the finest men of past centuries." I agree with Descartes; and there are probably few better groups of people to have an intelligent conversation with than Socrates and his friends.

Allan Bloom's translation is a breath of much needed fresh air. We have here a very literal translation of The Republic. Bloom doesn't try to spoon feed Plato to us, and I for one am very glad about that. In the introduction Bloom makes, in my opinion, a very powerful case for the literal translation of The Republic. When I first picked this translation up I wasn't sure that a strictly literal translation was really need, so I'm greatful for this introduction. Bloom tells us precisely why he thinks that it is a good idea to have a literal translation and he's darn convincing, I say.

Give this a shot. Lord knows you'll get more out of it than that dreadful Penguin translation. :)

I have the 2nd edition in both book and Kindle form. I give the book form 5 stars; the Kindle version is horrible. You won't see this from the sample, but the index is completely useless - its simply a list of words with no hyperlinks. Additionally, none of the citations are present in the Kindle version, rendering it worthless for any serious study or using outlines. One wonders whether anyone at the publisher, Basic Books, bothered to read the Kindle version before releasing it.

Again, the book itself gets 5 stars, the Kindle version needs a lot of work before it's worth the money.

For serious students of Plato (i.e. of philosophy) Bloom's translation is a must. Nowadays few can read Greek comfortably, and a translation that does not cheat the readers is needed. There is in fact a conspiracy in Anglo-american universities to prevent students from reading this particular translation, because Bloom was a student of Leo Strauss and the interpretative essay at the end of this translation is very much influenced by his teacher. You'd be surprised how many professors would list all the translations except this one on a syllabus. Well, without getting into a full explanation of the war on Strauss, let's just say that in a democracy such a disturbing practice is less effective than its practioners would expect. Bloom's translation has survived many years. (Gilbert Ryle, who trashed it in NY review of books, though still the major influence in some quarters, is being forgotten.) Conclusion? BUY THIS TRANSLATION AND READ IT.

Strauss and his followers, of whom Bloom is one of the most famous, have been criticized for taking Plato ironically, that is, interpreting Plato to mean something other than what he said. As a complete amateur in this discussion, it seems to me that before you can understand what Plato meant you have to understand what Plato said, and there's the problem: What did Plato actually say?

Well, it's an endless discussion, one that Plato is no doubt pleased to listen to, as his eternal soul hovers over us.

Bloom's contribution to this discussion is to use contemporary English to get as close to Plato's meaning in the original Attic Greek as he possibly can. There seems to be great controversy about whether or not Bloom achieved that goal, but at least that is what he says he tries to do. Attributing hidden agendas to Bloom or Strauss or anyone else is fun, but arguments are always more persuasive when they are supported by evidence, so I take Bloom at his word until proven otherwise.

Bloom says his translation is literal. Bloom's English reads fluently to my ear, so on that basis it is probably not a STRICTLY literal translation. But it may be closer to the original than some of the other popular versions.

As illustration, here are three versions of a famous passage (329 b-c) (I haven't included Cornford's version because I haven't read it yet):

Jowett: "How well I remember the aged poet Sophocles, when in answer to the question, How does love suit with age, Sophocles, - are you still the man you were? Peace, he replied; most gladly have I escaped from the thing of which you speak; I feel as if I had escaped from a mad and furious master." (56 words)

Lee: "For example, I was once present when someone was asking the poet Sophocles about sex, and whether he was still able to make love to a woman; to which he replied, 'Don't talk about that; I am glad to have left it behind me and escaped from a fierce and frenzied master.'" (52 words)

Bloom: "I was once present when the poet was asked by someone, 'Sophocles, how are you in sex? Can you still have intercourse with a woman?' 'Silence, man,' he said. 'Most joyfully did I escape it, as though I had run away from a sort of frenzied and savage master.'" (48 words)

Although I don't care for Desmond Lee's translation of "Republic", his description of the problem of translating someone like Plato (and of translation in general) is exactly correct: "... perhaps the main impression which the revision has left on me is that of the extreme difficulty of transferring the thought of even so lucid a writer as Plato from one language to another without some damage in the process."

In part translation is a matter of taste, but language is meaning and use of language affects how we understand content. In the disputes over the meaning of our Constitution, for example, much reference is made to "original intent". Intent by whom? And when? Madison in "The Federalist"? Or in his later years as President? Likewise with Plato, as subtle a writer as ever wrote. He puts his ideas into the mouths of other people, many of whom were well-known to his contemporaries, which adds to the nuance of meaning in ways we can only guess at. And in the Seventh Letter, if authentic, Plato as much as says that his true ideas can't be found in any of his written works.

Bloom in his interpretative essay shows us the evolution of Plato's thoughts on politics and morality as they are played out in the dramatic dialogue between Socrates and his companions, which I found helpful.

In the end Bloom finds no closure in Plato's thought:

"The 'Republic', which seems to give a completed teaching about politics and the soul, ends with a return to philosophic doubt, to the conviction that one's opinions are open to unanswered, if not unanswerable, questions. In one sense one can even say that the book has taught us nothing other than the necessity of philosophy and its priority and superiority to the political life."

The Western tradition of thought, for better or worse, starts with Plato, and the place to start with Plato is "Republic". Every person aspiring to be well-educated should pick a version that suits his or her taste and read it. I like Bloom as a guide, but (to paraphrase Osler) better to sail with someone than never go to sea at all.

Bloom's notes show you how his literal translation brings the development of Plato's key concepts clearly into the Enlish. He refuses to recast Plato's thinking according to current cultural wisdom. Combined with his excellent intrepretive assay at the back of the book, it becomes clear why this book is at the base of Western thinking and how it powerfully addresses our deepest cultural and philosophical issues. And, if you've had even a little classical Greek, this is the translation to get.

There probably isn't much I can add in a scholarly vein to what people have already said about Plato. So I thought I would make a few personal observations from the standpoint of a somewhat philosophically literate, 21st century man who is reading such an august classic in middle age.

I came to this book with more of a background in modern epistemology and the philosophy of science than in classical philosophy. So political philosophy isn't exactly my strong suit, but nevertheless I found the book interesting reading in a way I hadn't really thought of before.

Actually, I had read portions of this book 20 years ago when I was a young student first studying philosophy, and I have to say, there is something to be said for having a more mature outlook in approaching such a venerable work. At the time I thought political philosophy pretty dull stuff, and besides, I felt there was no real way to answer any of the important political questions that get debated here, despite the easy way Socrates disposes of everybody else's half-baked opinions and theories.

The fact is, if you move ahead 2400 years and read something like Karl Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies," an advanced modern work, you can see how much, or how little, political philosophy has progressed in the last 24 centuries.

Well, that may be true, but at least with this book you know where it basically all started. The best way to decide this issue is to read the book and decide for yourself.

Although entitled "The Republic," this society isn't like any republic you've probably ever read about. Plato proposes an ant- like communism where there is no private ownership of property, philosophers are kings, kings are philosophers, people cultivate physical, moral, and ethical qualities, and the idea of the good takes the place of political and social virtues.

Another odd facet is that the bravest citizens are permitted more wives than those less brave in battle. And then there is the infamous proposition that all poets and artists are to be banished since they are harmful purveyors of false illusions.
I find the Socratic method as a way of moving along the dialogue between the participants sort of interesting, and it is certainly an effective device. However, none of these people, even the famous Sophist Thrasymachus, are really Socrates' intellectual equal, so he really doesn't have much competition here.

If ancient Athens disproportionately had so many towering intellects, relative to its small population (about 20,000 people, most of whom were slaves anyway), you'd think they would show up in Plato's dialogues more. But all we seem to get are second- raters who are really no match for the clever Socrates. Of course, since the dialogues we have were written down by Socrates' most famous student, Plato, perhaps the cards were stacked a little in his teacher's favor.

Yet I would say this is still a great book. Classical scholars say there are more perfect, less flawed dialogues than Plato's Republic, but none that are as profound, wide-ranging, and as influential and important for later philosophy. As someone once wrote, in a sense the entire history of western philosophy "consists of nothing but footnotes to Plato." After finally reading it, I can see why there is so much truth to that statement.

Bloom's essay is possibly the best commentary on Plato I've read. An overly simple summary is that he suggests many of Socrates' proposals were intentionally preposterous, with the aim of leading his interlocutors to grasp that no truly legitimate political system is possible, and that the best course for individuals is to tend their souls, necessarily within a polity, going along with its requirements as necessary, but avoiding involvement in it as much as possible. He also suggests that much of what Socrates says is not a definite political program, but directed to the particular characters of his interlocutors (Glaucon and Adeimantus) to lead them towards philosophy and away from their particular weaknesses (as Socrates saw them).

Bloom makes a very good case for this interpretation, which I've grossly oversimplified (and left important parts out). There'll never be an end to the debate, but this essay is one to be reckoned with by anyone interested in the Republic. Regarding the translation, it's very precise; someone with a little knowledge of Greek can often see the Greek through the English. This makes for less flowing language; with a lesser dialogue such as the Euthyphro I prefer a more literary translation, but it seems appropriate for such an important work. As for the Republic itself:

In the West, at least, this is the touchstone of all political philosophy, and Plato pretty much covered all the issues people have been fighting and arguing about since people started wondering how societies should be organized and governed. It's easy to say that Plato's ideal state is nutty beyond imagination, but that misses the point. He asked the questions that really matter, and just about all of them, and considered them deeply and carefully, and then came up with his nutty system. (It's for us to ponder what he meant us to consider carefully, to accept, to reject, and what was humor).

We live in a largely unquestioning age - maybe virtually everyone has. But it's hard for, say, a modern American to read Plato's assessment of the relative merits and demerits of different political systems and come away with the kind of mindless idolization of "democracy" with which we're inundated by politicians and the media. It's easy to say Plato's system is goofy, but do you ever hear anyone in America publicly saying, "Democracy has a lot of serious weaknesses, one of them being its tendency to develop a pitifully dumbed-down culture." Or, "Elites provide some real benefits to society, as does an aristocratic element." Could these ideas have some merit? Well, we never even get that far since they're too blasphemous for our society (even though they're partially built into our Constitution).

It's funny how open-minded we consider our modern selves, but when's the last time you heard a serious, thoughtful critique of modern liberal democracy (as opposed to a silly neo-Marxist rant)? Plato had the courage, the detachment, and the brilliance to give his honest assessments of the various systems (honest but not straightforward, with much irony, overstatement, paradox, intentional contradiction and crucial matter between the lines), to compare them and then judge them. His purpose, at least apparently, had little to do with an agenda other than asking a question - what might constitute good government? And not only good, but the best? Those questions require asking and answering questions about human nature and the nature of social relationships.

Plato asks so well and considers so well, and so comprehensively, that his ideal system (regardless of whether he was even very serious about it) isn't the issue. What is good government? What is virtue? Was there genuine legitimacy in the founding of any existing states? Is truly legitimate government possible in this world? And, depending on the answers, how should we live? Plato doesn't provide the answers, at least not overtly. The significance, I think, is that he gets us to consider all the important questions he considers, many of which we otherwise probably wouldn't have considered, and among other things to then uncover our unexamined assumptions and prejudices and reassess them.