(37a1–2). In the end, it was unclear to me why the ethical purpose of cosmology couldnot be served as well if the cosmos as a generated god remained distinct from thedemiurge.

Now the present cosmos is a combination of intelligence and disorder. In so far asintelligence dominates, C. rightly argues, the cosmos presents a model for how we maycontrol the disorderly element in our own lives. This is clearly true of the Timaeus;and C. seems on μrm ground when she argues that the discussion in the Philebus ofthe four kinds in the current universe is geared to articulating the proper relationshipbetween intelligence and pleasure in the good life. However, C.’s addition of thePoliticus myth and Laws 10 to this picture creates complications. On the traditionalinterpretation, the Politicus myth presents the current state of the world as one ofincreasing disorder, brought about by god’s absence. But how can such a worldpresent an ethical paradigm to us, as C. would like it to? In response, C. argues thatthe current world is in fact teleologically ordered and presided over by god. Herevidence here seems tenuous. For example, she uses (p. 141) the gifts of the gods (μre,etc.) to show the continued care of the gods for us during the age of Zeus, but at 274dthese are clearly premised on the care of the gods no longer being available to us.

As for Laws 10, C. seeks to dispel the notion that cosmic evil comes from an evilworld soul – again a threat to the status of the cosmos as moral exemplar – byshowing that the evil in fact arises from the human soul. This view of the origin ofcosmic evil shows, C. argues, how Plato now conceives of ethics and cosmology asmore strongly interdependent: not only are our actions determined by the cosmos,they also in turn determine it in a way that makes C. think of the message of modernenvironmentalism. But, if so, we may wonder whether the cosmos is still certain topresent a moral paradigm to us. To the extent that our actions make the cosmos itselfevil, it seems to undermine C.’s previous contrast between the domination ofintelligence over unreason in the universe as a given, but as an achievement for us(p. 102).

On this and other issues one may have the impression that C. tinkers with Platoniccosmology to make it support favoured philosophical positions (ethical populism,avoidance of mind–body dualism, environmentalism). While C.’s coverage of theliterature is extensive, it should also be said that several of her polemics – most ofthem conducted through 67 pages of endnotes – hardly do justice to the intentionsand strengths of the opposition. (J. Lennox, G. Vlastos and M. Frede seemed to meparticularly hard done by.) None the less, this book represents a bold and signiμcantattempt to bring out why Plato thought we could learn about the good from thecosmos.

Oxford University T.K. JOHANSENthomas.johansen@philosophy.ox.ac.uk

THE SYMPOSIUM

Hunter (R.) Plato’s Symposium. Pp. xiv + 150. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2004. Paper, £9.99 (Cased, £45). ISBN:978-0-19-516080-2 (978-0-19-516079-6 hbk).doi:10.1017/S0009840X06003040

In this short volume, the second of a series entitled Oxford Approaches to ClassicalLiterature, Richard Hunter attempts to combine the dual aim proposed by the series

38 the classical review

The Classical Review vol. 57 no. 1 © The Classical Association 2007; all rights reserved

editors, namely to provide an ‘accessible introduction’ to the μrst-time readerof Plato’s Symposium while simultaneously o¶ering ‘an essay in criticism thatdoes justice to [its] subtlety and complexity’. The outcome, which perhapsinevitably proves more successful in the latter than the former aim, is a highlycondensed exposition of the Symposium combined with a scholarly appraisal ofits background, philosophical arguments and literary afterlife. The μrst sentence ofthe opening chapter is fairly representative of the style and density of H.’sexposition:

Plato’s Symposium is the account of a (presumably μctional) gathering in the house of theAthenian tragic poet Agathon to celebrate his μrst victory in 416 b.c. in one of the greatdramatic festivals of the city; the work itself was probably composed in the period 385–370b.c., and belongs to the same broad period as some of Plato’s other most famous works, suchas Phaedo, Phaedrus, and Republic.

To this sentence, with its demands on the reader’s readiness to engage withcomplex cultural, chronological and literary assumptions, are attached two notinsubstantial footnotes citing three scholarly articles as well as two ancient works(Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae and Xenophon’s Symposium) with which anyoneunacquainted with Plato’s Symposium is likely to be even less familiar. H. wouldbe fortunate, therefore, to realise the fervent hope he expresses in his Prefacethat this book will ‘persuade those [who have not read the Symposium] that theyshould become acquainted with Plato’s marvellous work without delay’; suchbeginners would indeed be better advised to embark without further ado ona readable translation of the Symposium with a brief introduction and helpfulnotes. Those, however, who are already familiar with the dialogue will μnd in H.’swork many new observations and insights, thanks to the author’s scholarly scopeand wide-ranging reference to ancient texts, modern scholarship and scattered sitesof Platonic reception. In the last of these areas (the subject of the book’s lastchapter, ‘The Morning After’) H. discusses ‘sympotic revisions’ ranging fromPlutarch to Plotinus, and from Renaissance commentators such as Ficino andErasmus to a 1998 stage show called Hedwig and the Angry Inch. He notes howelements of the Symposium have in·uenced treatments of love, and speciμcallyquestions of homosexual desire, in authors such as E.M. Forster, psychoanalystssuch as Freud and Lacan, and a U.S. Federal Appeals Court judge calledPosner who published a 1992 study on the history of the relations between lawand sexual behaviour. The careful scholarship and wealth of compact detail o¶eredby H. make this book one that can be appreciated on many levels by academicreaders; but unfortunately even the most dedicated beginner would be unlikely toμnd it a protreptic to reading Plato, let alone discover from it that in the SymposiumPlato has produced a work of literature which is apt to inspire not just admiration,but love.

Jesus College, Oxford ARMAND D’ANGOURarmand.dangour@jesus.ox.ac.uk

the classical review 39