Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T09:35:06.630Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE PROTAGORAS - J.C. Shaw Plato's Anti-hedonism and the Protagoras. Pp. viii + 222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Cased, £65, US$99. ISBN: 978-1-107-04665-8.

Review products

J.C. Shaw Plato's Anti-hedonism and the Protagoras. Pp. viii + 222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Cased, £65, US$99. ISBN: 978-1-107-04665-8.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2016

Jonathan Lavery
Jonathan Lavery*
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
*
jlavery@wlu.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 66 , Issue 2 , October 2016 , pp. 355 - 358
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Still, no references are made to some valuable and relevant work, most notably: M. Stokes, Socratic Conversations: Drama and Dialectic in Three Dialogues (1986), pp. 183–439; Penner, T., ‘Socrates on the Strength of Knowledge: Protagoras 351b–357e’, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 79 (1997), 117–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; C. Rowe, ‘Hedonism in the Protagoras again: Protagoras 351bff’, in A. Haveliček and F. Karfic (edd.), Plato's Protagoras: Proceedings of the Third Symposium Platonicum Pragense (2003), pp. 133–47; C.C.W. Taylor, ‘The Hedonism of the Protagoras Reconsidered’, ibid., pp. 148–64; C. Kahn, ‘Socrates and Hedonism’, ibid., pp. 165–74. The final three omissions are especially puzzling, given their focus and the fact that S. cites another study (p. 55) from the same volume (T. Robinson, ‘Protagoras, the Protagoras, and the Dissoi Logoi’, ibid., pp. 233–45). Also notable: S. does not engage any commentators writing in languages other than English.