Taking Plato out of Context

or, Translation Creates Contradiction

Here is Benjamin Jowett's translation of part of Critias 108 E. Note especially the phrase between the asterisks.

"Let me begin by observing first of all, that *nine thousand was the sum of years which had elapsed since the war* which was said to have taken place between those who dwelt outside the Pillars of Heracles and all who dwelt within them; this war I am going to describe."

This makes it sound like the war between Athens and Atlantis ended 9000 years before Solon. Since Solon visited Egypt in about 570 BC that would be 9570 BC or about 11,570 years ago.

However, Plato also says Athens was founded 9000 years before Solon. This creates a contradiction.

Are we to understand that Athens fought and defeated Atlantis at the same time (or even soon after) it was founded? How could the founding of Athens and the end of the war with Atlantis both occur in 9000 years before Solon?

This makes no sense, especially since Plato describes the history of Athens, before it defeated Atlantis, in terms of "many ages" and "many generations." Read this for yourself in Timaeus 23c and in Critias 110a and 111a. Besides which Plato says in Timaeus 23c that, according the Egyptian priest, Athens had grown into the greatest city in the world.

So here is our quandary: Since Athens is described in terms of many ages and generations, then the claim Athens was founded in 9570 BC, and the claim that Athens also defeated Atlantis in 9570 BC, is a contradiction. Both cannot be correct.

However, is it possible that Jowett's translation only implies a contradiction?

Yes. The Greek text presents a different understanding. Here is my literal translation of the phrase in question: "It has been 9000 years from the beginning of a war."

Jowett does not bring across the meaning of the verb gignomai, which means "to come into being," "to begin" or "to be born." Nor does he reflect the fact that the word "war" does not have the definite article and so carries the indefinite sense "a war." Also, the word war can also mean "fight" or "hostilities."

This literal translation then implies that "a war" or "hostilities" _began_ sometime around the year 9570 BC. So a war may have started when the Atlantean kings spread to other islands and into the western Mediterranean and ended at some point, or hostilities may have begun between Athens and Atlantis at some early point and continued over a long period of time. The literal translation can support either of those views.

But does my literal translation stand alone against Jowett's?

No it does not.

Desmond Lee's translation from Penguin Classics correctly brings across the idea of a beginning when he says that 9000 years "have elapsed since the declaration of war."

Moreover, Thomas Taylor's translation supports the ideas that it was "a war" and that the war started at that point and continued for some time after 9570 BC. He describes the 9000 years as "the period of time from which a war is said to have subsisted." If you're unfamiliar with "subsisted" it means "continued" or "persisted".

So a literal translation demonstrates that hostilities of some sort began sometime around 9570 BC and continued after that point. This solves the apparent contradiction of Athens winning a war against Atlantis sometime soon after it's founding.

But does the idea that the hostilities between Athens and Atlantis lasted for a long time, even for millennia, make any sense?

Well maybe not to us, but it would make perfect sense to Plato's original readers; his intended audience. Keep in mind that the people in those days believed in the flood of Deucalion and that people lived before it; even as Solon told the priests in Timaeus 22a. They also believed that the three ages before the deluge (the bronze age, the heroic age, and the iron age) were a time of constant war; which by the way is why Zeus brought the deluge upon mankind.

So a literal translation, and common sense, give evidence that Athens did not defeat Atlantis at the same as or soon after it was founded. It also invalidates the claim that Plato says Atlantis was destroyed around 9570 BC.

Moreover, keep in mind as well that Plato indicates Atlantis was destroyed at some time after the war, not during the war. For after describing Athens defeating Atlantis he adds: "At a later time there were earthquakes and floods of extraordinary violence, and in a single dreadful day and night all your fighting men were swallowed up by the earth, and the island of Atlantis was similarly swallowed up by the sea and vanished." This moves the destruction of both civilizations to an even later date.

The date of that destruction is not specifically given. All that is certain from what Plato says is that it was many ages, many generations, after the founding of Athens around 9570 BC.

Therefore, if you cite Critias 108E as proof that Atlantis was destroyed sometime around 11,600 years ago, then you are taking the passage out of context. You are also contradicting the overall context. Because the overall context shows that this was the time of the founding of Athens and probably of Atlantis as well. Moreover, the context also shows that both nations had a long history over many ages, before the end of the war. So then, since a literal translation, supported by other translators, removes this apparent contradiction, it should be accepted as the preferred rendering; and mistranslations should not be cited as evidence simply to support preconceived scenarios. Knowing the facts and misrepresenting them by ignoring the context is deceptive (to say the least).