{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03194888178913738, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01597444089456869, 'mean_word_length': 4.383954154727793, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
New Perceptions of the Theaetetus

Myles Burnyeat has already given us a good number of articles on various aspects of Plato's Theaetetus. He here adds a careful revision of Miss M. J. Levett's translation, furnished with some useful footnotes, and an Introduction to the dialogue of 240 pages. The Introduction is deliberately uneven in its manner of treatment. It treats the first part of the dialogue (151-86) in only 60 pages, the much shorter second part (187-200) in another 60, while the third part, which is the shortest (201-10), gets a very thorough discussion of 120 pages. B.'s reason is that the three parts become successively more difficult to understand, and each therefore demands discussion at a different level. His suggestion is that we should ' think of Part I of the Introduction as addressed to undergraduates, Part II to graduates, and Part III to colleagues in the Academy' (p. xii). My own feeling is that the undergraduates to whom Part I is addressed could usefully be given rather more assistance, though no one could complain that Parts II or III were insufficiently full. (Of course, many of B.'s published articles are on Part I, and they fill some, but not all, of the gaps left here.) The strategy of Part I is to set out two competing interpretations of Plato's aims throughout this part, to indicate for each section of the text how the two interpretations should respond to them, and to invite the reader to work out for himself which is to be preferred. One interpretation is, roughly, Cornford's; the other is credited to Bernard Williams in a lecture in 1964. B. aims to keep both in play, though he makes no secret of his preference for the second. But since he is giving only a broad outline, one is quite often left to speculate on how he would himself answer some of the many problems that he merely leaves as questions to the reader.