Julia Annas has made a complex and subtle book out of her 1997 Townsend lectures at Cornell. 1 Its chief contention is that contemporary approaches to Plato would be improved by attention to ancient interpretations, specifically those of Middle Platonism which purported to derive from the dialogues a unified system of doctrines. The very remoteness of such interpretations from contemporary thought is an advantage because it adds an unfamiliar perspective, which the commentators shared with Plato himself. Armas's working out of this theme is crammed with ideas and information, and all serious students of Plato will want to study it. There is space here only to remark on a few notable topics and features.
Annas keeps saying that 'we' must find this or that Platonic theme (such as the ideal of 'likeness to god') strange. But who is this 'we'? That is nowhere explained. Sometimes Armas's 'we' seems to be primarily exchangers of articles in academic journals, sometimes the sharers of Armas's own specific social and cultural background. But readers of Plato's dialogues are used to reading how philosophical ideas are bound to seem strange to the uninitiated, who do not understand the arguments and have no habit of critical thinking. If 'we' is to be read as 'we readers', or 'we students of Plato', the 'we' seems to place Annas herself and her contemporaries among the uncomprehending and uncritical, who have a prescriptive right not to be challenged and disconcerted by Plato's ideas. Such a placing sorts ill with the ostensible thesis of the book, that contemporary ways of reading Plato need to be challenged. The resulting 1