Abstract

While traditionally Plato has been read as a critic of democracy and an advocate of philosopher-kingship, a number of more recent interpretations have argued that Plato’s views about these issues changed over the course of his life. Several scholars argue that Plato shifts from an authoritarian outlook in “middle period” dialogues, such as the Republic, to a more democratic view in “late” dialogues, such as the Laws. In contrast to these scholars, this article argues that Plato’s attitude towards authority and democracy is consistent in his “middle” and “late” periods. I show that Plato defines law as the writing of political experts, and that the Laws turns to written law as a second-best method for instituting the rule of the wise. This interpretation enables us to understand the Laws as a dialogue about the political use of writing, which helps illuminate some of the more peculiar features of the Laws and account for its place in the Platonic corpus