‘One first characteristic immediately strikes anyone who opens this treatise: its dialogue form, not dramatically expressed, as in Gorgias, Meno, or Phaedrus, but under the guise of a narrative told by Socrates to an anonymous audience – that is, exactly the same process adopted in Protagoras, Charmides, and Lysis. […] In narrative or dramatic form, in all of them we must always consider, as in theatre, the presence of figures, whose characterization is important, and who are generally historical figures.

The conversation takes place in Piraeus, at Polemarchus’s house. Apart from Book i – where, after inviting and urging Socrates to stay, he is the second actor in the argument – the dialogue is limited to the scene in Book V. Two of his brothers, Lysias and Euthydemus, are present, though they are silent figures here, as is his father, the elderly Cephalus, who appears crowned (for he had just made a sacrifice), seated on cushions, with the dignity conferred upon him by a long and just life.

Affable and serene, he is the one who invites Socrates to visit them more often, to converse with his sons. His is the first to give a definition of justice, according to his experience and simplicity. However, he abandons the discussion, leaving it to his heir. […]

We have, therefore, a gallery of figures, some of whom are active, others, mere listeners. Almost all are known. In the foreground, Socrates, undoubtedly the central figure in the dialectical discussion. Although we will not revisit the question of the historicity of his portrait, we can recall, in passing, the hypothesis […] that it is in this dialogue that the method of Socrates and that of Plato begin to be parted: in Book i, the failure of the former is evident; the latter shows new paths, according to which it is not each individual who organizes his pursuit of good, but rather the social order that will draw out the best from each.’

(From the Introduction by Maria Helena da Rocha Pereira)