Aristotle's The Politics is without a doubt one of the most celebrated works of political science from antiquity. He begins with a description of a state, advances through the numerous types of constitutions, describes the ideal citizen, and defines good government-not to mention numerous other fascinating political insights into the running of a state.

Aristotle's outline for government and state has been influential to political scientists for over 2,400 years. His discussion on the cons of complete unity, as well as his chapter on "the natural and unnatural methods of acquiring goods," certainly must have influenced Karl Marx, and his discussions on the "good of all" certainly led to Mills and Bentham's utilitarianism.

The Penguin Classics edition gives the reader an authoritative, inexpensive copy that is ideal for scholars as well as students. The footnotes are helpful, but not excessive. An excellent purchase all around.

As a mystery novelist, I find that reading a wide variety of materials helps enormously in my work. This book is one I read regularly. I first read POLITICS OF ARISTOTLE during my college days at Claremont McKenna College. The political science department insisted on a classical background for its students, and this book was one of the canon. It impressed me then. It still impresses me today. I only wish Aristotle could collect royalties on the books sold.

Just as in most of his other books, in "The Politics", Aristotle becomes the founder of organized, ordered, and systematic thought. Of course, he was not the first philosopher to think about the organization and governance of societies, but his work is the first classification and comparison of different possible systems. As I said in a recent review of Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics", his greatest originality is the stripping off of myth, legend, metaphor and poetics from his exposition of the subject. This is his main difference with his predecessor and teacher, Plato. This makes for a drier reading, but also for a clearer and better organized rendering of his clear thought. It can be said, moreover, that Plato and Aristotle constitute the founding pillars of the two main currents in Western thought: idealism (Plato) vs. realism (Aristotle). Although any tragedies deriving from these sources is, of course, not a responsibility of these great thinkers, it can be said, in general, the following:

The idealist tradition inaugurated by Plato led to the rise of universal, all-encompassing theories. That is, those which assert that there is a single unifying principle tying up together economics, politics, ethics, and social organization, and that this principle (whichever it may be) is suitable for any society at any time and place. Hence, Rousseaunianism, Socialism, Communism.

The "realist" tradition springing from Aristotle simply says that human problems can not be resolved by magical formulas or recipes. Social situations can not be severed from their immediate environment. Aristotle, then, classifies possible types of systems and defines their advantages and disadvantages for different types of societies. His approach, then, is that there can be no universal and general solutions or organizing principles. Aristotle is absolutely practical in his approach, as opposed to the theoretical systems imagined (as opposed to observed) by Plato. Hence: liberalism, Realpolitik, capitalism, democracy (or I should say "capitalisms" and "democracies", since there are very different varieties of these systems). Aristotle examines then distinct kinds of Constitutions, what they require to be effective, and what effects they might bring upon.

Read it, then, for a clear and well-ordered exposition of themes, subthemes, and advice. Here you will find the origin of half of Western political thought. And precisely the half that seems to be winning the race.

Plato is perhaps the most approachable of the major philosophers. His work is largely presented in short dialogues. Their brevity allow them to be read in a single sitting, and their characterizations, humor, and stories engage even the reader new to philosophy.

Given this, it may surprise those unfamiliar with Plato to learn that the interpretation of him has always been the subject of hot dispute - perhaps only Nietzsche among philosophers has inspired more controversy.

Why is this? Why is Plato so easy to read and yet so difficult?

Five problems are worth calling out:

(1) Dramatic presentation: All of Plato's published works are presented as dialogues between characters - Plato himself is never a character. Thus, any interpretation must have some mapping (implicit or explicit) between the characters' views and Plato's views, as well as how the dramatic structure (setting, characters, story) as a whole presents Plato's views.

(2) Irony: The main speaker in most of Plato's dialogues is Socrates, a character who often speaks ironically. Other characters can be read as sometimes being ironical as well (such as The Athenian in the dialogue "Laws"). Any interpretation must determine when a character is speaking ironically and when seriously.

(3) Stories/Myths: Characters in Plato's dialogues often tell stories whose subject matter is mythological - they concern Gods and Goddesses, the afterlife, and other subject matter beyond ordinary human experience. Any interpretation that deals with them must determine how they are to be read.

(4) The Platonic Lie: In "The Republic", Plato endorses (or seems to endorse) lying as a means of instilling beneficial beliefs in audiences that are unable to acquire philosophical knowledge. A beneficial belief is one that is not true in its substance, but which, if believed, will tend to the same end as would the corresponding knowledge. If we accept that this is Plato's view, then interpretations must consider whether views expressed in the dialogues are themselves Platonic Lies, and not real representations of Plato's thought.

(5) Historical Background: Plato lived in a time and place different from our own, whose language, customs, intellectual background, and attitudes are not ours. This is a much bigger problem than just unfamiliar names - it is the unconscious attitudes we absorb from our culture (and he from his) of which we are not necessarily even consciously aware. Different interpreters do not read these influences the same way (there is no book we can all go to called "How We Thought About Things", authored by "The Ancient Greeks").

With regard to these issues, the dominant view in "A Cambridge Companion to Plato" is something I would call Platonic Fundamentalism: "Socrates says what Plato means, and he means what he says" (this is after the Christian Fundamentalist credo: "The Bible says what it means and it means what it says").

A difficulty with this view is that it leaves Plato contradicting himself an awful lot. The general solution presented here is the evolving-Plato theory - that the dialogues were written over a long period of time and that the contradictions represent real changes in Plato's views. The collection thus abounds in references to Plato's "early dialogues" or "middle dialogues" or "late dialogues".

Now, there are certainly Plato scholars, past and present, who do not accept this particular interpretive framework, but their views, if raised at all, are raised only so that they may be dismissed (sometimes in the same sentence). Those looking for substantial engagement on the problems of Platonic interpretation must look elsewhere.

So, given that the book does not aim to present the scholarly debate on interpreting Plato, it is fair to ask: what does it aim to do? This is an excellent question, but I could not find the answer to it in the book itself.

If it were for the beginning reader, I would think it would focus on the order of reading, and on prepping the reader with background info for each dialogue so as to make reading it more rewarding. But it doesn't do anything like that.

If it were for the intermediate reader, I would think it would focus on illuminating doubtful passages or drawing connecting webs across disparate ones. But it doesn't do that either.

If it were for the advanced reader, I would think it would focus on the debates in the secondary literature, and that it would be used by peers to address peers on controversies. But it doesn't do that either.

So, when it comes to the ultimate question of whether I should recommend the book or not, I just can't think of anyone to whom I would recommend it.

Finally, to take another tack at how worthwhile a book is: the basic challenge any work of secondary literature must face is whether it is more profitable to read it, or to give the primary literature another reading instead.

The only work in the collection that I would say clearly passes that test is Constance Meinwald's essay on "Parmenides" (for those who don't know, "Parmenides" is by far the most formidable work in the Platonic corpus - the first half works to demolish the theory of Forms that we might otherwise hold to be Plato's view, and the second half defies the ability of most readers to make any sense of at all). Even here, however, if you want to read Meinwald's theories on "Parmenides" (and they are worth reading), you would do better to get her book "Plato's Parmenides" than to read the essay excerpted from that book included here.

The Cambridge Companion to Plato is a good book, though I found it a little too dry and academic. I don't think it's for a beginner, but if you've read a little about Plato and know something about such conundrums as the third-man problem, you should do all right. If you are just beginning Plato and philosophy in general, I would suggest books with unified points of view rather than a series of essays. Such books as G.M. Grube's Plato's Thought or Brickhouse's and Smith's Plato's Socrates offer coherent, fully explicated opinions on such subjects as the theory of forms or Plato's relation to Socrates. I think some of the essays in the Cambridge book will seem more pertinent after excursions into such general background works, because most essays tend to be terse regarding background information.

The book contains 15 essays. Depending on your interests, you will prefer some to others. I found several essays useful. Irwin's "The Intellectual Background" discussed various intellectual currents existing in Socrates' time and their influence on him. Penner's "Socrates and the Early Dialogues" argued whether it was possible to separate the historical Socrates from Plato's character of Socrates. Mueller, in "Mathematical Method and Philosophical Truth," described some similarities in several dialogues between Greek techniques of mathematical proof and Plato's method of dialectic. "Plato's Metaphysical Epistemology," by White discussed how difficult it was to separate metaphysics and epistemology in Plato's thought and why Plato's approach was very distinctive compared to approaches by modern philosophers.

I'm sure other readers will find other essays interesting (and some outright bores-stylometry may be necessary, but it is certainly not a fun read). I would say unless you are already an advanced reader of Plato, these essays should add to your knowledge of this philosopher's thought.

The Cambridge Companion to Plato is an extrememly good primer of Plato's philosophy. The book begins with a complete overview of Plato's philosophy and how it progressed through time. This overview is particularly helpful for those who have never studied Plato before and essential for those who use this book, as I did, as their first exposure to the study of philosophy.

Like all books in the Cambridge series, the Companion to Plato consists of a number of essays written by preminent scholars. These essays explain and evaluate various aspects of Plato's philosophy, from "the defense of justice in Plato's Republic" to "mathematical method and philosophical truth."

Like any philosophy textbook, The Cambridge Companion to Plato can, at times, be dense. I won't recommend it for everbody; a hearty interest in learning philosophy is definately required. However, I've found it to be one of the finest introductions to Plato in his philosophy. It provides a good foundation for actual reading of Plato's texts, which is the next logical step beyond this book. It is also perfect for those who wish to gain a working understanding of Plato's view of the world but, like me, simply do not have the patience to garner it from Plato's own work.

In accordance with Plato's 'Apology', Kraut gives a quite convincing rendition of events in 4th century (BC) Athens. Although I favour an oligarchic Socrates, in terms of evidence (from Baker, Xenophon, Aristotle, Vlastos and Guthrie, to name a few) Kraut's argument is feasible. He claims that Socrates was a reluctant friend of democracy, due to the profound epistemological pessimism that he possessed. The status quo in Athens was intolerable to Socrates and his circle, but until a better alternative could materialise, it would have to 'do' for the meantime. Unfortunately, his pessimism meant that the 'meantime' could be for ever, ergo, Athenian democracy could not be improved on.

Well written, with excellent usage of illustrative quotation, but for the more idealisitic reader: Let's face it, Socrates was far from being a democratic angel.