If for no other reason, this book is worth reading for the attention Professor Wallach affords the methods of interpretation. While the bulk of this lengthy study aims at a wide-ranging understanding of Plato’s political art “by focusing on the literary and philosophical connections between words and deeds in his ethical and political dialogues”, the structure of the argument and the structure of the book itself takes shape around the attempt to establish a new interpretive method. Wallach calls this interpretive (...) perspective “critical historicism”. The method is intended to rescue Plato from textualists and deconstructionists on the one hand, who “tend to liquefy the concreteness of the historical situation to which Plato’s dialogues responded” and the contextualists, on the other hand, who tend to dismiss Plato’s political art as merely an expression of “class interest, elitist bias, or linguistic convention”. As such, Wallach’s critical historicism attempts to cut across the dichotomy of textualism and contextualism; it “subordinates questions of authorial identity to questions about the discursive and practical problems that an author addresses, without ignoring authorial intention”. In short, the method aims to historicize, then to dehistoricize, and finally to rehistoricize so that Plato’s political art “can be used to invigorate contemporary political theory and benefit democracy”. (shrink)

In this volume Peter A. French sets out to resurrect the role and meaning of vengeance. For French, vengeance is a fundamental aspect of morality that has “fallen into disrepute without being seriously examined”. Although at times this book appears less than serious, it is indeed an earnest analysis worth reading not only for ethicists but for philosophical and political audiences alike. His central argument is that very often “wrong doing requires a hostile response”. Thus, rightly understood, vengeance is an (...) essential principle of morality that ought not to be entirely done away with. Revenge, French argues, “is the technology of moral empowerment, a technology for the sustaining of morality. I do not claim that it is the only one or indeed that it is the best one, although in some situations it well may be the only available one”. (shrink)