1. Alvis, John. Divine Purpose and Heroic Response in Homer and Virgil: The Political Plan of Zeus. Lanham: Towman & Littlefield Publishers, 1995. (Morgan Seifert)

      The first 8 lines of the Iliad tell of the rage of Achilles and the will of Zeus.  What the will of Zeus actually is has been debated by many people and Alvis spends the first few chapters telling the many aspects of Zeus will.  Alvis claims that Zeus will is not just everything that happens and all that he assents too, but also the recurring themes that you find in the book.  He believes Zeus will has 4 parts, the fourth aspect, “humans must observe usages (especially that of burial) that acknowledge their difference from gods” (13).
      Alvis shows how Achilles and Agamemnon both strive to have the honors and respect of gods shown to them.  He claims that Achilles oversteps his bounds when he puts his own honor above the good of the rest of the army.  When Agamemnon first refuses to return Chrysies and then later takes Briseis against the will of the rest of the army, he is putting himself in Zeus’ position.  He acts as if his rule is ordained and without any weakness, where the reality is that his status as head leader is tenuous at best.   By helping the Trojans Zeus seeks to put Agamemnon in his place.  However, I disagree that this is truly Zeus’ will, Alvis does not talk about any punishment brought to Achilles for his actions.  I also disagree with Alvis statement of the third part of Zeus’ will, “Injustice must be checked” (13).”  The injustice that Zeus corrects does exist but his favor seems more fickle than a definite code of honor.

2. Becker, A.S. The Shield of Achilles and the Poetics of Ekphrasis. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1995. (Timothy Rhee)

      This book defines the basics of ekphrasis. Ekphrasis is the poetic device that allows verbal art to present visual art. Using such a literary device, Becker’s work not only reflects, but demonstrates the esthetic and conceptual world of a given visual art. It also illuminates the very nature of the verbal art that reflects the world and society. Becker uses Hepheastus as the artist and the shield of Achilles in the Iliad as an example to define the purpose of ekphrasis. 
      To interpret ekphrasis within the Homeric tradition, Becker begins his book with the “four levels of representation.” The first level is Res Ipsae – referent. Beckett defines referent as a focus on the event in which the character that constitute the subject matter of the picture. He claims that, “[a] dramatization of an image marks full engagement in the illusion of the representation; the surface of the work becomes a transparent window to the scene evoked therein” (p42). In other words, what an artist put on their work is a representation or foreshadow in events to come. Secondly, Opus Ipsum is the second level of representation. It is a focus on a physical medium. He states, “[that] epkphrasis is the surface appearance of the work of visual art” (p42). Becker emphasizes that attention to color, shape, texture, arrangement, and size are important factors in interpreting an artist’s work. The third level of representation is known as arifex and ars. Becket explains the relation on to historical references to a work of art – how an artist’s work represents historical scenes. Lastly, animadversor – a focus on the effect of or reaction to the work of visual art is the fourth level of representation. Becket states, “in [Achilles’] shield, [animadversor] is the reaction of the bard to the images described, which then guides the reaction of the audience. It calls attention to the interpreter between the audience, the bard, the artistry, the object, and the referent. This is another way of making a story within a story” (p43).
      Throughout the book, Becket uses the aforementioned levels of analysis to describe Achilles Shield. He also compares and contrasts commentaries made by other scholars within his work. Overall, this is an excellent source if you are looking for theory to support your argument. 

3. Brann, Eva.  “Hephaestus’ World: The Shield.”  The American Poetry Review 31.6 (2002): 41-42. (Erin Kendig)

     Through primarily close readings of the text, the author of this article discusses how the shield Hephaestus makes for Achilles represents both the essence of the smithy god and the world of Achilles.  The author describes the “vivid physical portrayal” of Hephaestus, and that his mortal-like characteristics (he is crippled) make it only suiting that he would create a depiction of the human realm.  The article also draws a comparison between Homer and Hephaestus; both create imagery of a world through their art, and both are physically handicapped (Homer was blind).   The author implies that Homer felt a connection with Hephaestus because of these reasons, and that is why the shield of Achilles is given so much weight in The Iliad.  In regards to the contents of the shield itself, the article points out how completely the world of Achilles is represented in its imagery.  The article states “on this shield are earth, heaven and sea, the common and separate domains of Zeus and Poseidon, but no House of Hades, the murky realm of the third brother…yet he too is there—not in the armor but in its wearer.” (42).   I agree with the article in that the shield of Achilles is a representation of the world of the Greek warrior, but do not fully buy into the argument presented about the comparisons drawn between Homer and Hephaestus.  I didn’t find the article very insightful for the most part.

4. Burgess, Jonathan S.  The tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. (Hiko Swanson)

     This book does a great job of providing comparative and internal analysis, challenging Homer’s authority in the history of the Trojan War, and discussing the very foundations of the history of European literature.  Burgess describes the epic cycle tradition as reflected in surviving commentaries, poems, and works of art, such as cyclic poems.  He explains brilliant arguments and suggestions that provoke further thought for those interested in the poems of Homer, or in epic generally.

5. Due, Casey.  Homeric Variations on a Lament by Briseis.  Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002. (Hiko Swanson)

     This book puts forth the idea that, and challenges the reader to face the importance of the character, Briseis, in the Iliad—a topic that may not necessarily be talked about in-depth in most courses when studying the Iliad.  The books itself is very fun, entertaining, and easy to read, and would be suitable for freshman-level English classes.  It is separated into six parts: a preface and introduction discussing the variations of Briseis, multiform of the Iliad (Briseis as prize-booty, as girl, as daughter, as wife), and finally the conclusion covers tradition and innovation.  The author works from the section of the Iliad when Achilles compares Briseis' situation and pivotal value to that of Helen herself—her role, the dispute between Achilles and Agamemnon is about life or death, about immortality after death, among many other things.

6. Gitlin, Michael.  “Irresistible joys and discouraging pitfalls in diagnosing personality disorders.”  Western Journal of Medicine 176.3 (2002): 215. (Hiko Swanson)

     This article uses the descriptions of Achilles' behaviors and personality traits in The Iliad to diagnose him according to DSM-IV criteria.  The author selects passages from the text that are consistent with his conclusion that Achilles had a disorder, but at the same time, the reader should view this conclusion with caution.  This article was particularly interesting and creative for the fact that it diagnoses personality disorders by means of what is presented in literary text.

7.     Griffin, Jasper. “Heroic and unheroic ideas in Homer.” Homer: Readings and Images. Eds. C Emlyn-Jones, L. Hardwick, J. Purkis. London: The Open University, 1992. 21-32. (Matthew Schneider)

      This article discusses the attributes and values of heroes, and what it means to be “heroic” in Homer’s works, particularly in the Iliad.  In particular, this article argues that the values and the portrayals of heroes in Homers’ works were heavily influenced by the time in which the works were written.  Since the writers lived in a much more humble and poor world which followed the end of the wealth and prominence of the Mycenean Age, Griffin argues that they transfer their own situations and ideals onto the Heroes.
      Griffin backs up his argument with textual evidence.  He gives many examples of situations in which incredibly wealthy heroes in Homeric works are very concerned with saving and making money.  In one example, a king living in a castle of gold and such makes his guests bring their own food.  Another strong example is the lump of iron given as a prize in the funeral games for Patroclus.  Though this would have been a very practical gift for a farmer in the time period that Homer’s works are written, it does not make sense as a prize for a wealthy hero in the setting of the Iliad.
      Overall, I agree with Griffin’s argument that battle prowess coexists with humbler virtues such as proficiency in hunting, plowing, and pirating.  Griffin’s argument is clear and is well backed up in the texts.  This article was interesting to me as it brought up many details which I had not previously considered.

8. Haubold, Johannes. Homer’s People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. (Matthew Schneider)

      The subject of this book is the state of the ordinary people, the laoi, in the Iliad and in Homers other works.  Haubold groups people in Homer’s works into two categories: leaders and everyone else.  Haubold says the role of the leader should be the protection of his people, however, he says that Homeric heroes do not fulfill their roles.  He proposes in the beginning that there is an inherent conflict in the desires of the Homeric leaders and the common people; the leaders are concerned with honor, and the ordinary people seek survival and permanence.
      Haubold examines the conditions of the leaders and of the ordinary people in different situations in the Iliad and in the Odyssey.  The results of his examination lead him to conclude that the leaders are predominantly concerned with their honor, and are willing to risk their own lives as well as that of their subjects.  As a result, he states that “Instead of saving his people and fulfilling his task, the leader of early Greek epic traditionally destroys them.” (p.46)  Accordingly, he concludes that the situation of the ordinary person in the Greek epic is “bleak.”
       Overall, the argument of this book was well supported and fairly easy to follow.  I would definitely agree with his analysis, as I can think of many situations where the deaths of nameless masses of people come as a result of their leaders’ selfish desires for fame and fortune.  My one criticism of this book is that it is very repetitious and wordy, and sometimes this makes Haubold’s argument less clear rather than more clear.  In spite of this, I would recommend this article on the whole.

9. Latacz, Joachim.  Homer: His Art and His World. Trans. James P. Holoka.  Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1974. 71-133. (Josh Smith)

     I like Latacz’s analysis Homer’s Iliad.  Some very interesting points and diverse arguments are made and supported throughout the analysis.  In the first part of his criticism of the Iliad, Latacz claims that, through the prologue, “The text evokes false questions for the modern reader…”(72).  He supports this argument by stating that modern readers will have many more questions regarding the setting of the story, what certain vocabulary may mean, as well as the stories behind certain gods and goddesses in the prologue.  He uses historical facts to state that “The Troy saga was an indispensable common element in the education of Homer’s public-the aristocracy; they had taken in the saga with their mother’s milk”(73).  Latacz claims that, due to the fact that he or she may be at a disadvantage from the start, the modern reader may “be a complete failure in his or her role as a recipient of the poem”(72).
     The remainder of Latacz’s argument served to validate the superiority of Homer’s rendition of the Trojan War above the other versions of the story being told at the time.  Though his position in this portion was fairly theoretical, I found that Latacz argued most of this portion fairly well.  He makes the point that most of the stories being told during Homer’s time regarding the Trojan War were from a standard perspective with the war as the focal point while “Homer…exploded that framework with a spectacular revolution in perspective”(75).  According to Latacz’s theory, Homer’s original audience was not nearly as interested in proper prose and poetic structure as his modern audience, and the fact that Homer centered his story around a human emotion, rage, and created such diversity and depth to the characters in his story is the reason that his story was the version of the Trojan War that was written down.  Homer’s fresh perspective used the war as a backdrop instead of the focal point and focused instead on very real human emotions and relationships, which the audience of the time would have been able to relate to and appreciate.  Latacz further supports his argument by claiming that many of the post-Homeric stories written on the Trojan War took portions of the story written by Homer and rounded them out.  This seems like a fairly weak position, and Latacz even concedes that this may be pushing it by stating, “It is altogether unclear whether the perspective of these post-Homeric, written Troy epics in fact corresponded to that of the oral versions of pre-Homeric singers who dealt with the same subject matter”(75).  Overall, most of Latacz’s arguments, though largely theoretical, have some basis in history and are argued well.

10. McDonough, Christopher Michael.  “Afraid to Admit we are not Achilles.” Classical and Modern Literature 20 (2000): [#?]. (Matt Harrow)

      This article focuses on comparing two war texts that where written thousands of years apart.  One of them being Tim O’Brien’s “The Things They Carried” and the other obviously being the “Iliad” Written by Homer.  The article draws links between the characters in the texts and also presents a study on Homer’s Hector, and how he related to the soldier’s in O’Brien’s work on Vietnam. 
      The main point that this article makes is that Hector was a character motivated by shame.  Aidos is the word used to describe shame as it is used in the original text and the writer of this critique uses it to solidify his point.  He states that Hector, when faced with a choice of death or shame, chooses death.  This is true in his last appearance in the epic as a living being.  Book Twenty-two shows us Hector faced with choosing to own up to his faults and running inside the safety of the walls of Troy or staying to fight Achilles in a battle he himself knows he cannot win.  The concept of shame it is argued is closely tied in with the more well known and accepted concept of honor.  They are the opposites.  You seek the greater, but walk away with one or the other, McDonough would tell us.  It is only right that the greatest warrior would be the one who avoids the greatest shame.  Hector’s run from Achilles and his encircling or the walls or Troy is often seen as a shameful move, but McDonough would argue otherwise.  Relating it to the real life situations in the reflecting work by O’Brien, McDonough argues that when faced with Hector’s dilemma, running for a last hope is a human reaction, and not the work of a man loosing face.  What is shame really but a human condition?  Like Honor it is measured in the eye of the beholder and can only be realized and laid upon oneself if it is conceptualized in life.  That is why death creates no shame, it cannot be realized.  The article goes on the compare Hector running the walls of Troy with an episode from O’Brien’s work where a drafted soldier drives his car around the lake near his home pondering his choice to accept his draft or to run inside the safe “walls” of Canada.  Like Hector the Soldier will choose death over shame.
      This Critique and the observations made have caused me to think about Hector as a personification of the hero that still exists in modern times.  McDonough is correct in his assessment of Hector and his comparisons to modern text bring it closer to home for the reader.  Hector is a modern day hero, he is not the greatest fighter (Achilles) or the leader with the highest rank, (Priam) but he is a man set out with a goal.  He is a man who would rather face death then to return with that goal not at hand.  He is every soldier that fights on the front lines in far off land and even more so he is every soldier that fights to save his own home land.  Right or wrong, hope or hopeless, he fights to the bitter end, and that end will come for heroes like Hector soon rather then later.

11. Richard, M. “The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad.” American Journal of Philology 113 (1992): 87-90. (Timothy Rhee)

      Martin Richard approaches Homer’s Iliad as a performance. He focuses primarily on the main characters in the Iliad and the poetic speeches Homer uses to rank them in importance. Martin says that hierarchy and status are shown by performance time: the longer and more often one speaks in the poem, the more important one is (p87). Martin also comments on Achilles mostly within his piece. He examines the type of speech used by Zeus and concludes that Achilles have similar tone and style. He further states that “only Achilles and the narrator (Homer) share certain devices (like recusatio); thus the narrator is a heroic performer in the role of Achilles (p89).  Martin’s conclusions are that the Iliad is written in direct competition with rival earlier epics about Herakles (hence the derogator references in the Iliad to Herakles and to other singers) and that Achilles’ adversarial and competitive rhetoric is a reflection of Homer’s own composition (p89). Throughout his piece, he enlightens the reader with literary terms to assist you in analyzing language and speech in classical literature. 
      This is a good source to help me establish the protagonist in the Iliad. There are other possibilities of who the protagonist and antagonist are, however, by analyzing language and speech in the Iliad, Martin piece provides evidence that Achilles is the central character and the protagonist in the Iliad. 

12. Scott, John A.  Homer and His Influence. Boston: Marshall Jones Company, 1925. (Josh Smith)

      Scott’s argument was based on the idea that Homer’s Trojan War tale was superior in that the war itself was merely a backdrop to a much more personal, emotionally-driven plot.  “The historical element in the Iliad is thus but slight, even if it does concern an actual war”(41).  Scott wants to drive home the idea that Homer used historically accurate information but that it was only used to create a setting for the story and is not the story itself.  “A real Mt. Ida there must have been, but the scene thereon between Zeus and Hera is still mythical; genuine is the wall of Troy, but Helen’s appearance at its summit and Hector’s parting from Andromache are merely the creation of the poet’s fancy”(42).  He also supports with text the fact that, in contrast to other stories, the men in Homer’s tale were considered honorable for reasons other than war prowess.  Scott states that, “…the assembly was called ‘man-ennobling,’ and the council is referred to as ‘the place where men become very conspicuous’”(52).  This further accentuates the fact that war is such a little part in the story, which sets it apart from the other stories of the time.  Though I believe that the war was obviously not the main subject of the story, Scott may be slightly downplaying the role of the war by claiming that it has nearly no effect on the plot at all.
      Scott uses extensive close reading of the text to support his claim that character development is so important to Homer’s tale rising above the rest.  He argues that the brilliance of Homer’s character development is proven by the fact that the characters introduced in the Iliad have lived on in literature.  “Each [of the outstanding characters] appears as a distinct personality and has ever since preserved the Homeric features”(42).  Scott’s analysis of Homer’s use of specific language in character development is well supported in most circumstances but seems to fall short when he states that “Homer was able so to stress the kindlier elements in the character of Hector as to win for him the appearance of greatness in spite of his repeated military failures”(51).  This does not seem well-supported throughout in the text because Hector is unanimously regarded as the most excellent of all warriors in Troy, regardless of his kindness.  Scott’s final argument was that the characters in the Iliad were much more real than in other stories.  This allows the audience to identify with the characters, which is important in increasing the interest of an audience in a story.  This is very well supported when the vulnerable, very human characters of the Iliad are compared to “…the Irish tales [in which] the hero has seven pupils in each eye, and in his anger flames stream from his mouth while a jet of blood higher than the mast of a ship shoots up from the top of his head”(52). 

13. Slatkin, Laura M. The Power of Thetis: Allusion and Interpretation in The Iliad. [Berkeley?], California: University of California Press, 1991. (Erin Kendig)

     This book argues that in order to fully understand the theme and purpose of The Iliad, it is important to analyze the mythological choices Homer makes concerning his characters.  Homer’s presentation of the mythological characters in the Iliad underscores the themes of mortality that the Iliad encapsulates.  While Homer may be a creator, the book argues that Homer is also an interpreter of myth; the author states that “The Iliad draws on tradition in order to assert as well as to alter convention, initiating its audience into an epic world at once familiar and unprecedented“ (52).  Just because a mythological subject is not overtly touched upon in the epic does not mean that Homer is not drawing upon preexisting information from myth when he creates his characters.  Therefore, according to the author, in order to understand Homer, it is important that the reader is familiar with the mythology that Homer alludes to, but does not explicitly detail.
      Through close readings of the Greek language used in the Iliad, as well as drawing upon a deep knowledge of ancient myth and existing studies on Homer, the author of the book argues specifically the importance of one mythological character in The Iliad: Thetis.  As she notes, although Thetis is not the previously the subject of any critical scrutiny, she is a pivotal character as she both helps define Achilles, the hero of the epic, and contributes to the wider theme of the story.  The author explores the implications of Thetis’s portrayal in The Iliad, and how she is helpless, powerful, and wrathful simultaneously.  One particularly interesting observation the author makes is how Homer plays with the already established similarities between the Goddess of Dawn, Eos, and Thetis; she claims that by associating Thetis with the dawn (something that is expected, renewing, and never-changing) the mortality of Achilles, her son, is emphasized.  Overall I agree with the book; I think that understanding the mythology Homer alludes to is very important in deciphering the true intent of The Iliad.  I enjoyed how the author took a unique route in her research of the myths, by examining the role of Thetis, and I agree with the arguments she makes concerning the goddess.  I feel that by reading the book, I myself have a better grasp of what The Iliad is really about.  The only complaint I have about the book is that it was fairly difficult to understand upon the first reading due to the challenging vocabulary it incorporates along with its rather lofty concepts.

14. Teffeteller, Annette. “Homeric Excuses.” Classical Quarterly 53.1 (2003): 15-31. (Morgan Seifert)

 This paper focuses on how Homeric characters use the gods to justify or excuse their actions.  Teffeteller differentiates excuses and justifications as, a justification is accepting responsibility but deny that it was bad; an excuse is to accept that an action is bad but do not accept full or any responsibility (16).  She focuses on the excuses and how they are justified in Homeric tradition.  Teffeteller points to the poet himself excusing the actions of heroes this way, this shows that when a character in the epic does the same thing it has credibility and is not a last ditch effort.  She does not, however, say that this is always accepted by the reader or the characters in the epic.  Priam tells Helen he does not blame her for the war but it is the gods fault, do readers believe that this is true? (23)
 There is a relation to Christian beliefs and Greek beliefs.  Every action can be traced back to Zeus, his will is all that happens.  Just as in Christian faith, this does not mean that people have no free will or that people usually do not take responsibility for their actions.  Snell is brought in with the belief that, “Homer’s characters do not recognize themselves… as the source of their own impulses.” (24)  Teffeteller does not believe this and attributes most divine intervention to ‘double credit’ or partial credit.  She ends showing how the Homeric gods were so powerful in his epics that they, “seem to eclipse life altogether.” (27)

15. Vivante, Paolo. The Homeric Imagination. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1970. (Matt Harrow)

      Vivante has written a scholarly critique on Homers work in the Iliad that attempts to shine light on the less then possible within the story.  He analyzes the fictional element that has made the Iliad such a debatable source for historical accuracy since the day it was first released on the public.  His finest chapter pertains to the relationship between gods and men in Homer’s epic works.  Vivante discusses the trouble facing Homer upon including divine characters in a human interest story.  “To be born of gods, and yet to be human-here is a disconcerting ambiguity, (49)” he states.  He goes on to compare the power and role of Hector and Apollo.  Arguing that both are fleeting figures that swoop down for those in need and then slide back in to ambiguity.  His stated proof is that Apollo never comes into the action to save or meddle with anyone, he doesn’t even save Hector from his fate, but Apollo is still very much taking an active role in the story with his “haunting” of Troy as the author calls it.  Perhaps the finest point taken in this book is when Vivante points out that Achilles’ rage is a “god like temper humanized.”  He argues that Achilles is not much different from the god’s portrait in the epic poem, he is short tempered and petty, but he is human and he is interaction with other people more directly within the story line.  Achilles is coming into his own as a human in the Iliad and his emotions and god like features reflect that.  Achilles is much different then the other heroes in the Iliad.  He was born into a hero, he is one by divine right.  His struggle is not to become a great fighter or a noble leader, like Hector seeks out, but rather to come to terms with whom he is as a person living on earth.  That is what sets him apart from the other heroes of the epic.
      Vivante doesn’t argue anything he can’t back up.  I can’t say that I totally agree with his view of Apollo and Hector having a connection in character, but Vivante tries hard to convince me otherwise.  In arguing against him I would bring up the fact that Hector being a mere mortal cannot be compared with a god.  To say that Hector swoops in a saves the day when necessary is understating him as a hero and a person.  Hector is mentioned in every chapter of the book.  He is involved in every action of the war, and he is the pride and last hope of Troy.  In that respect Hector has more power then the god Apollo, because he can save Troy and as we all know Apollo could not and did not save Troy.  Perhaps it was not power and ability that stopped Apollo from saving Troy and Hector, but it surly was valor.  Hector is a representation of bold and outstanding character.  He gives his life to help save his city.  He never stalls to fight on the field and he never backs down from a challenge, even if it surly means his demise.  The pair cannot be connected the way Vivante attempts to do so, but in comparing there importance to Troy and to the action of the Iliad, Hector’s power and effort far outweighs that of the great god, Apollo.

Cooper, John M. “Plato’s Theory of Human Motivation.” Reason and emotion: essays on ancient moral psychology and ethical theory. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999. 118-138. (Jessica Lazdins)

     This essay describes in detail the purpose of characterization of the soul as containing three parts: reason, spirit and appetite in Plato’s Republic. Cooper argues that in The Republic Plato presents a compelling psychological theory of human motivation because of the desires that Plato presents.  Cooper composes his essay into different sections separating reason, spirit and appetite. He states that reason produces desires which are the desire to know truth and the desire to rule ones own life. He presents desires that stem from the appetite as having their origin in fact or experience. Cooper ends with the spirit that is rooted in competitiveness and desire for self esteem. He also adds that Plato obtains his concept of spirit from Homeric heroes by both using the Greek term thumos, the state of fuming from anger. 
     As an analysis of Plato’s Republic this essay lays out his objective in showing the psychology behind Plato’s breakdown of the soul. He uses examples to support his claims and clearly explains his inferences from these examples. His link between Plato and Homer is extremely valuable for my term paper which is to explain the relationship between the two texts. 

Santas, Gerasimos. Plato and Freud: two theories of love.  New York, NY, USA : Blackwell, 1988. 89-91. (Jessica Lazdins)

     The chapter of this book, “Plato on friendship and familial love in The Republic” explains Plato’s perception on the purpose of love and relationships. Santas states that there is no conception of biological love in Plato’s time but soul love. Soul love allows friends to share everything that they have in common which is the goal in the Republic. In this sharing, everyone in the Republic will have things in common and there will be no need for possession. If there is no possession, then everyone will love everything because Plato believes that everyone tends to love what is their own. 
     This book has value when it comes to summarizing Plato’s Republic but does not have much critical value. Regarding my paper, this book helps to explain why there is such an emphasis on the population of the Republic not having any possessions. It also helps to condense and simplify the entire book of the Republic’s stance on love.