Taylor's translation of Apuleius' "On the God of Socrates" is a beautiful translation, but his prose is slightly dated. It seems most apt for an academic setting, and I recommend it to classicists or those with a knowledge of the classical world.

In this text of the fragments there is not a single mention of the Bywater edition or of the excellent edition, now out of print,which includes the Bywater with a translation and commentary by Patrick ? --sorry, forgot the last name; but this edition can be borrowed from major academic libraries. What's the deal?

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.

Chris Taylor has produced an apalling book. Impossible to read, convoluted and meandering, 'Socrates' appears designed to make philosophy less accessible to the average reader than more. It is strange that Oxford would publish such a jargon-filled book as an introduction. Most of the text deals with Socrates' background and his historical context. This is fine in theory, but leaves little space to explain the philosopher's work. When Taylor finally gets around to Socrates' position, he seems to assume that the reader has a full understanding of the philosophical lines of thought of the time (eg. the sophists, the cynics). I finished the book having no idea of the meaning of Socrates' key belief, that "knowledge is virtue". Taylor uses visual language that confuses rather than clarifies his arguments, such as "a keystone of the arch". The conclusion is a good example of Taylor's absurd style: "Every age has to recreate its own Socrates. What is his significance for a post-Christian, post-idealist epoch for whom neiher the figure of a precursor of Christ nor that of the embodiment of the world-spirit in its development of a higher form of consciousness has any meaning?"

This is the fifth Very Short Introduction I've read (others included Logic, Ancient Philosophy, Anthropology, and Sociology) and it is the first that wasn't fun to read. I think Taylor's style is too academic for a series like this. Sentences like "I do not wish to suggest that Plato had a clear grasp of the distinction between purely conceptual definitions and the substantive type of account exemplified by the cognitive theory" (60) require entirely too much examination and prior knowledge of the subject to be considered introductory material for most people reading without tutelage. And there are plenty of more detailed books alraedy available that are written in that style.

I do not wish to suggest that I'm an idiot, but I do look for something a bit more breezy in an introduction to a topic. I think many people turn to introductions because the original works can sometimes be a slog to read. I choose carefully which original works I'm going to make the effort to read, and I want introductions to material that will either a) bring me up to speed on things I don't have the time to read, b) give me basic information to choose more wisely which works to read or c) expand works I've already read. Having already read The Republic, I found that none of these 3 goals was accomplished by this volume. Its a shame, too, because VSI has been by far and away my favorite series of introductions. I hope they rethink this Socrates introduction and publish a new one aimed at a more general audience.

Taylor's SOCRATES is detailed and scholarly, and a useful work for those who have already had a fair amount of exposure to the Platonic dialogues. However, its level of technicality is liable to confuse and frustrate beginners, who just want a readable overview of who Socrates was and what he taught. Even these readers will benefit from the first chapter, which discusses the life of Socrates, but the following chapters, which deal with his thought and influence, will be heavy-going for the average reader. As such, this book is recommended to philosophers, but really is too advanced to qualify as a standard introduction.

Solon, a man that wasn't satisfied with the way of life and decided to take it in his own hands to make new laws

One of the better surveys of classical Greek historyavailable, this book begins with short introductory chapters on the8th and 7th centuries B.C. before moving on to a chronological history ending with the death of Socrates in 399 B.C. Topics include Athens under the tyrants, the Persian Wars, the rise of the Athenian Empire, the Peloponnesian War, and a fascinating final chapter on the "revolution of the mind" which culminated in Socrates and signaled a great change in Greek history and civilization. Ehrenberg wrote this book later in his career, so it can be seen as a summation of a lifetime of study, thought, and research. The text is littered with very precise, enlightening observations--he has a gift for distilling complicated ideas into manageable gems without trivializing or losing their core meaning. Not many historians have this talent.

Ehrenberg's style is engaging and will appeal to the specialist as well as the educated general reader. Unlike so many surveys, he wisely uses endnotes rather than extensive footnotes and keeps the source references within the text to a minimum, allowing interested readers to turn to the appropriate notes on their own without disrupting the narrative for those who may not care about the scholarly arguments on particular points. This makes the book far more readable than many similar studies. Ehrenberg also peppers the text with wonderful accounts of the literature of each period discussed, showing how drama and poetry can illuminate our understanding of Greek history as a whole. This also gives the reader some relief from political and military analysis, which is sometimes a bit dry and hard to follow since the surviving evidence is often inadequate and controversial. Ehrenberg does a wonderful job of sustaining the reader's interest, and his obvious passion for his subject comes through.

This book is used as a standard text in many British universities, and I suspect it will remain required reading for many years to come. The strength of this study, and what sets it apart from so many others, is that it is equally accessible to the general reader who may not have the benefit of regular lectures to supplement it. Ehrenberg provides here a series of his own lectures in a sense, and there are many suggestions for further reading and study. If you are looking for a good general history of this critical period in Western history, Ehrenberg's book is an excellent choice.

This book is the worst book I ever read. Please throw it out. Pl author do not write further, you are no good,as a writer and your scholarship is next to nothing

rubbish.... rubbish.... Need I say mor

Only for its cover, to start with, I would recommend this unique book. It depicts information that due to certain particular interests have been hidden and unknown for too long. The author makes important contributions to make the truth prevail. He is making efforts to provide evidences as big as the mountains regarding the participation of one of the greatest man in the history of mankind: ZOROASTER. Mr. Afnan, I do not know who you are,if you are still alive,or where you are, but please continue with the promotion of a great legacy of wisdom left to humanity by Zarathushtra also known as Zoroaster. Few people in the Western Civilizations and in the entire world have had the opportunity of acquiring the truth about the positive influence of the philosophy of Zoroaster on the greek civilization. This is a fact that the time has come to spread it. More books on this topic should be written and in many different languages without restrictions on this TRUTH. In summary, the book is a gem of literature.
Dr. José Abreu, from South America.

Exhaustive detail fills this Brickhouse & Smith book, neglecting Socrates the person. This is yet another philosophy book that reduces Socrates to a mere series of arguments. Concerned with synthesizing and/or refuting interpretations of other scholars, this book joins the several that fail to present the trial of Socrates in cultural context. The authors also fail to show the dissident character of Socrates, choosing instead to bury him under a mound of philosophical abstractions. Undervalued in this book is Socrates the civil disobedient. The reader is led to think that this great ironic philosopher, as represented in Plato's CRITO, was opposed to civil disobedience. Misreading the CRITO, this book portrays Socrates as a mere apologist for the status quo rather than the political dissident that he actually was. If the Socrates of history depicted in this book is the true one, he probably would not have been tried and executed.

Like many philosophy books, this work is not reader-friendly, making one wade through myriad sections and subsections.

A far better book is the recent one by James Colaiaco, entitled SOCRATES AGAINST ATHENS. Praised for its clarity and elegant prose style, Colaiaco's book captures the drama of Socrates' trial better than any other one, and makes the dissenting philosopher relevant for today. As Colaiaco persuasively argues, Socrates represents a radically new conception of a hero-- the hero as philosopher. Colaiaco's account of the Socrates in Plato's CRITO is illuminating and accurate, with due appreciation for Socrates' brilliant use of irony. Looking for the best book on the trial of Socrates? Read Colaiaco's.

Plato is turning in his grave. Some people just do not get what a "Classic" is.

The editor of this paperback edition has the gall to substitute what he or she calls "humanist pronouns" throughout. (Apparently, all Bandanna Books adhere to this policy, so watch out.) The preface ends with a self-serving statement to the effect that the editor can't help but think that Plato would have agreed with this decision. Uh-uh.

Whereas Plato wrote in a very clear style, Benardete does not. I'm reading the Republic for the first time and this commentary is obviously meant for specialists who have read all the dialogues of Plato and all of Greek philosophy, and can then make subtle analyses of it all through a cryptic reading of the Republic. Some great scholars have written clear commentaries on the Republic though: Annas, White, Bloom (as an appendix to his translation).

The font was extremely difficult to read. The topics covered do not adequately represent even the major areas of philosophy. Assuming the reader survives the eye straining font, he or she might walk away with the impression that Socrates' ideas are all about secular humanism and modern liberalism. Included in this book are discussions of Zen Buddhism, being kind to trees, and the hackneyed "diversity is good."