Melissa Lane

Cet article examine les relations entre deux dialogues tardifs de Platon à partir de la notion de juste mesure. Dans le Politique, cette notion intervient dans le cadre d’une distinction entre deux types de métrétiques, dont l’Étranger renvoie toutefois la discussion détaillée à une autre occasion. La thèse ici défendue est que cette autre occasion est le Philèbe, dont l’argumentation complexe peut être lue comme une clarification de la notion de mesure. Ce rapprochement permet d’éclairer deux aspects importants du Politique : d’une part, le rôle qu’y joue l’Idée du Bien ; d’autre part, le lien entre la juste mesure et le problème de la participation.This paper examines the relations between two late Platonic dialogues by focusing on the notion of due measure. In the Statesman, this notion occurs in the context of a distinction between two types of metretics, although the Stranger defers its detailed discussion to another occasion. The thesis here argued is that this other occasion is the Philebus, the complex argument of which can be read as a clarification of the notion of measure. This parallel makes it possible to shed light on two important aspects of the Statesman : on the one hand, the role played in that dialogue by the Idea of the Good, and on the other hand, the relation between due measure and participation

In this excellent book, drawing on previously published articles, George Duke gathers the scattered threads of Aristotle's discussions of law while defending clear stances in the various philosophical debates they have engendered. The book works within Aristotelian methodology and metaphysics, developing the view that a politeia should be understood as a formal cause that is worked out in terms of the successive definitions offered in book III of Politics. Building on studies of the evolution of the meaning of nomos and making occasional reference to Greek legal history and practice, primarily in Athens, it treats what I see as three themes, spread across seven chapters.In chapters 1 and 2, Duke addresses the...

While leaders in many times and places from ancient Greece to today have been called to account, it has been claimed that leaders in ancient Athens were called to account more than any other group in history. This paper surveys the distinctive ways in which Athenian accountability procedures gave the democratic people as a whole a meaningful voice in defining, revealing, and judging the misuse of office, and in holding every single official regularly and personally accountable for their use of their powers. By then assessing a drastic case of unaccountability in a certain moment of Athenian history – the rule of the Thirty in 404–403 BCE – and how accountability was ultimately imposed on them, the paper concludes with thoughts about what might deepen and restore trust in the accountability of public officials today.

ABSTRACTThis paper explores and reevaluates the place of Plato in the history of liberty. In the first half, reevaluating the view that he invents a concept of ‘positive liberty’ in the Republic, I argue for two claims: that he does not do so, insofar as this is not the way that virtuous psychological self-mastery in the Republic is understood, and that the Republic works primarily with the inverse concept of slavery, relying on entrenched Greek ideas about the badness of the status of being a slave and the actions and dispositions associated with it. Turning in the second half to seek Platonic innovation not in the domain of ‘positive liberty’ but in reflection on liberty as a political value, understood as the liberty of action of citizens within the laws, I argue for two further claims: that as such a political value, liberty is limited and reshaped in both the Republic and the Laws to be compatible with obedience to rule / willingness to be ruled, ideally willing obedience; and that for this limited and reshaped value to be secured, such obedience must be manifested not only in regard to a constitution’s laws, but also to the magistrates who hold office within it.

This article rejects the claim made by other scholars that Plato in the Statesman, by employing the so-called ‘architect’ (ὁ ἀρχιτέκτων) in one of the early divisions leading to the definition of political expertise, prefigured and anticipated the architectonic conception of political expertise advanced by Aristotle. It argues for an alternative reading in which Plato in the Statesman, and in the only other of his works (Gorgias) in which the word appears, closely tracks the existing social role of the architektōn, who was designated as such only in virtue of appointment by a city to a role that was crucially defined as epitactic, involving overseeing the workers on site engaged in constructing some civic building works. It is this epitactic dimension of the role on which Plato relies in the Statesman, as opposed to the kind of claim to overarching integrative expertise that Aristotle would use the figure of architectonic political knowledge to make.