The Republic is a challenging, intricate, subtle work in which every word counts. This is why a "literal" translation is necessary -- a translation that truly reflects the Greek. Bloom's introduction, in which he defends this approach, is an excellent argument against paraphrasing translations, which water down Plato and make him easy and unsurprising. (One exception to Bloom's literality: he translates "hyôn polis," 372d, as "city of sows" rather than the traditional "city of pigs." There is no justification for the female "sows" in the Greek, and I must assume that this is just Bloom's own chauvinist pigdom coming out.)

Bloom's interpretive essay presents his reading of the Republic as an implicit criticism of the thirst for absolute political justice. A plausible reading, but not as obvious as Bloom sometimes makes it sound. (To see the more subtle source of Bloom's ideas, read Leo Strauss's "The City and Man." And for a fictionalized portrait of Allan Bloom, see Saul Bellow's new novel, "Ravelstein.")

Plato's Republic is really beyond reviews, and it would be presumptuous do anything other than encourage potential readers to study it for themselves. As the overt political slants of some of the other reviews suggest, his ideas resonate in the modern world as much as they did in his own. Whether a reader approaches Republic with positive or negative prejudices, the actual text of the argument forces constant reevaluation and refinement of those preexisting opinions.

Allan Bloom has created a literal translation that is ideal for those who truly wish to engage with Plato. Most other translators have used non-literal methods that attempt to convey in a more contemporary form what Plato "meant" by his arguments. However, in this process the translator's own interpretation of Plato's argument inevitably influences the language in which he renders his translation. Bloom has attempted, with a great degree of success, to separate the processes of translation and interpretation. Rather than imposing his reading on the text itself, he express it in a thought-provoking interpretive essay that follows the text

This is probably not the easiest translation of Plato to read, because Bloom does not attempt to serve as a baby-sitter for his readers. However, the extra time spent in reading this version will be well rewarded by a deeper understanding of Plato's argument.

What is so fascinating about this translation and the essay is that it deviates in important ways from the typical Christian Platonist conception of philosophy. Bllom is engaged in a war of sorts, it is stunning oh so many other academics fail to recognize how Bloom undermines their common assumptions about 'The Republic' and philosophy itself. Note the absence of comment on the 'Divided Line' of Book VI, and the entire discussion of the 'Theory of Forms' get short shrift. Why? There is a reason, if you follow the interpretitive essay, a parenthitic expression sends shivers- did Bloom really suggest 'The Just City in Speech' is not the best regime? Haunting. This view of 'The Republic' is deeply dependent on Leo Strauss' earlier groundbreaking sensitivity to irony. This is easy to say-IRONY- Plato was ironic, "The Republic' is ironic, but what does that really mean? An excellent read, and read, and read again.