of Plato's system. It was reprinted in Vlastos' 1971 anthology Plato I: Metaphysics and Epistemology and Allen's 1965 anthology Studies in Plato's Metaphysics. Here Cherniss argues that Plato's Theory of Forms at once served as the foundation of Plato's ethics, epistemology, and ontology, and resolved skeptical problems in all three areas: The phenomena for which Plato had to account were of three kinds, ethical, epistemological, and ontological. In each of these spheres there had been developed by the end of the fifth century doctrines so extremely paradoxical that there seemed to be no possibility of reconciling them with one another or any one of them with the observable facts of human experience. The dialogues of Plato, I believe, will furnish evidence to show that he considered it necessary to find a single hypothesis which would at once solve the problems of these several spheres and also create a rationally unified cosmos by establishing the connection among the separate phases of experience. After establishing that the Theory of Forms was the common root of Plato's system, Cherniss argued in the second place that, by a principle of "economy," the effectiveness of the theory in three disparate areas justified Plato's assertion of the existence of the Forms. Aristotle's Criticism of Plato and the Academy (1944) This monumental, massive, and dense (600 pp.) tome aims to be a comprehensive assessment of whether or not Aristotle generally understood Plato's doctrines and whether or not Aristotle's much debated reports of Plato's mathematical ontology are credible. Cherniss treats the following topics in turn: diaeresis, matter, the origin and nature of the Platonic Forms, the arguments for the Forms, the relation of Plato's Forms and Substances, and the relation of Forms and Particulars. In each case, Cherniss finds that Aristotle has rather grossly and willfully misunderstood Plato. The chapter on diaeresis, for example, concludes: From the passages thus far considered there emerge certain general tendencies of Aristotle's critical method … Essential distinctions among various Academic theories are likely to be disregarded, and a criticism pertinent to one form of a given doctrine may be applied to all of its variations … and, finally, a doctrine may be attacked in a form which is the result of Aristotle's own interpretation and formulation … Cherniss's pre-war preface announces this as the first of two volumes, but after the war he never published the sequel on Plato's supposed mathematical ontology.