LAUSR

(176b8–c1), descends into the cave in the Laws, that is, addresses the details of legislation. But, as Centrone rightly observes, these are merely two sides of the same coin (321). In the Theaetetus, Plato, in the guise of the Platonic Socrates, recommends leaving the cave, while in the Laws, he returns to the cave, in the guise of the Athenian. Thus, Plato’s philosophy, and especially the vision of the Good, remains not merely contemplative, but also has a quite practical purpose founded in the Socratic axiom that virtue is knowledge—in other words, only by knowing the Good are we ultimately able to do the good. One could even say that the Socratic question of “how we should live [pôs bioteon]” (Gorgias 492d5, 500d3–4) is answered in detail in the Laws. The main condition for a happy life is the same for the individual and for the state: first to do yourself no injury nor allow any to be done to you by others. Of course, this has to be spelled out, and there remains much to do in the cave, so it is understandable that Plato did not give this huge work its final version. In the twentieth century, the Laws generally remained in the shadow of the interpretation of the Republic, although it received more attention than the Republic in antiquity (cf. Aristotle, Politics I.6, 264b26–266a30). In recent years, the situation has changed, and the Laws has received due attention. One culmination, written especially for an Italian audience, is now Centrone’s Introduzione. One problem that readers of the Laws often encounter is that it is easy to lose sight of its main ideas because of the wealth of details. This introduction provides a remedy to this difficulty. It is divided into eleven chapters, which are subdivided into subsections that succinctly treat the content and problems pertaining to the particular parts of Plato’s last magnum opus. One critique may be allowed: the author lucidly interprets the Laws, but he does not compare Plato’s laws with the then existing laws, for example on slavery, nor does he give an overview of the issues that belong definitively to the past and those that may also be considered of value today. This especially applies to Plato’s penal code. Plato does not acknowledge the modern human rights of freedom of conscience and religion, and his penal code harshly punishes atheists (see e.g. 908e2–3). On the other hand, Plato is far ahead of his time in relation to the rights and duties of women, for example, when he urges the same education for women and men, including military service (cf. 829b3–7, e4). On my estimation, very few of us would elect to live in the city of the Laws. We ought, therefore, be relieved that the seconda polis has not been realized. Nevertheless, the Laws discusses a plethora of political considerations, from the regulation of the education of children, to sexual behavior, to funerals, that are still worth pondering today. All this is elucidated by Centrone in his Introduzione, which is not just an introduction but an exhaustive treatment of Plato’s longest work. It is my hope that this “introduzione ” passes the torch to new generations of Plato scholars in and outside of Italy. R a f a e l F e r b e r University of Lucerne/University of Zurich