The Laws is Plato's last and longest dialogue. Although it has been neglected (compared to such works as the Republic and Symposium), it is beginning to receive a great deal of scholarly attention. Book 10 of the Laws contains Plato's fullest defence of the existence of the gods, and his last word on their nature, as well as a presentation and defence of laws against impiety (e.g. atheism). Plato's primary aim is to defend the idea that the gods exist and that they are good - this latter meaning that they do not neglect human beings and cannot be swayed by prayers and sacrifices to overlook injustice. As such, the Laws is an important text for anyone interested in ancient Greek religion, philosophy, and politics generally, and the later thought of Plato in particular. Robert Mayhew presents a new translation, with commentary, of Book 10 of the Laws . His primary aim in the translation is fidelity to the Greek. His commentary focuses on philosophical issues (broadly understood to include religion and politics), and deals with philological matters only when doing so serves to better explain those issues. Knowledge of Greek is not assumed, and the Greek that does appear has been transliterated. It is the first commentary in English of any kind on Laws 10 for nearly 140 years.

Ever since antiquity, the presence of evil has been considered incompatible with the existence of God. This apparent contradiction gave rise to the argument from evil, which turned into a formidable weapon against theism. Faced with this challenge, theists of all creeds have been proposing theodicies, or justifications of God’s ways. This monograph is the first book-length treatment of the subject from a Platonic perspective. Its essential message is that Plato devised a noteworthy and influential theodicy comprised of several theodicean strategies, some of which remain relevant even today. Hence, Plato’s pioneering contribution to the field of theodicy deserves the attention of both philosophers and theologians.

Just Prospering? Plato and the Sophistic Debate about Justice introduces new research about the first secular discussions concerning the value of justice from the Western Tradition. In Part I, Anderson addresses the debates of the sophists, a group of politically minded intellectuals from the 5th Century BCE, considering relevant extant texts to produce the following conclusion: some of the sophists argued that being just was bad for the just individual, and that an individual would do well to be unjust instead, whereas others took it upon themselves to defend justice by arguing that the just life was best. Anderson continues in Part II to demonstrate that Plato, writing in the 4th Century, was aware of this debate and wanted to settle the matter himself. In his Republic, one of the great philosophical treatises of all time, he revives the earlier dialogue of the sophists to argue that the just life is the best life for human beings.

Reprint of the original, first published in 1876.