x Preface

further thought is required"; one must try to get at what "the text as a whole"
is trying to communicate (xx). The only safe path to Plato's meaning is to read
each dialogue in its full literary and philosophical integrity, carefully consider­
ing the arguments in their context, interpreting as well as critically evaluating
what we are being shown and told. This holds, Cooper rightly argues, even in
the late dialogues, which do not wear their aporiai on their sleeves; even there,
"what we have before us is partial and provisional at best" (xxii).
And even when we faithfully follow this hermeneutical strategy, and
keep the importance of Platonic anonymity very much in mind, we may
never be in a position fully to grasp Plato's meaning, as though "Plato's
meaning" is like a pot of gold hidden in some underground spot, just wait­
ing to be dug up and put on display for all time. For it seems to be a part of
Plato's conception of the written word that no text could ever claim final­
ity, as the famous passages from the Phaedrus remind us.' The dialogue
form embodies the famously Socratic conception of philosophy as a search
for the truth that each of us must-in cooperation with others, to be sure­
undertake throughout life, examining and reexamining assumptions and
views. And this is a conception of philosophy the reader arrives at through
studying the Platonic dialogues with the above-mentioned interpretive
principles in mind. The "Why did Plato write dialogues" and "How ought
we to read Plato's dialogues" questions are inseparable.
Even the familiar grouping of dialogues into the early, middle, and late
is increasingly subject to critical examination. j As representative of this
movement, consider once again Cooper, who advances the view that the
chronology of Plato's writings (that is, the chronology of composition) is by
and large unknown, and further that the chronology is not in principle a
fruitful way of organizing one's approach to the interpretation of Plato. Con­
sequently he urges the reader "not to undertake the study of Plato's works
holding in mind the customary chronological groupings of 'early', 'middle',
and 'late' dialogues" (xiv). As he also stresses, "so far as possible, the indi­
vidual texts must be allowed to speak for themselves" (xv). Thematic group­
ing of the dialogues is to some extent useful, but "we know no reason to
conclude that Plato wrote dialogues of this genre [the "Socratic"] during
only one phase of his career as an author, whether early or late" (xvi). Plato
was perfectly capable of writing a "Socratic" dialogue in, say, his "middle"
period. The day may soon arrive when the "early, middle, late" interpretive
grid falls well into the background. A shift in that direction would quite obvi­
ously represent a very important change in our interpretation of Plato.
The emerging consensus in Platonic scholarship should help motivate us
to drop the tired contrast between "literary" and "philosophical" approaches
to Plato, insofar as these terms are used to describe supposedly self-standing
approaches that could represent genuine alternative interpretive stances.
Although the terms might still be useful as designating types of questions that
pick out different aspects of the text, a sound interpretation of a Platonic