Attack of the Parrot People

Looking at websites and books on the subject of Atlantis I have come to the conclusion that a lot of people comment on Plato's dialogues, but have never really read those dialogues closely. There are often misquotes of Plato on both sides of the issue. Usually, it appears that the writers are simply parroting something they heard.

For example, people often parrot a common claim some skeptics make; specifically skeptics who evidently haven't read the dialogues very carefully. I'm sure you've seen this claim repeated as well. It involves the idea that the story of Atlantis is only hearsay. In fact, I heard it parroted it just the other day, on the National Geographic Channel.

One skeptic website puts it this ways:

"It is then a matter of a tenuous thread of hearsay: 1) the priests tell Solon about the legend; 2) Solon tells Dropides; 3) Dropides tells his son, the elder Critias, who 4) tells his ten-year-old grandson, the younger Critias; 5) and finally this Critias, now a grown man."

Is this correct?

Well, if you actually read the dialogues you get a very different picture.

First, Plato says Solon was shown the "actual writings." In Timaeus 23e the Egyptian priest says to Solon:

"Of the citizens, then, who lived 9000 years ago, I will declare to you briefly certain of their laws and the noblest of the deeds they performed: the full account in precise order and detail we shall go through later at our leisure, taking the actual writings."

Second, Solon planned to use the tale in his poetry. So translated the text (or parts of it), taking special care with the names. And Critias said he had Solon's writings in his possession. This is all stated in Critias 113a:

"Since Solon was planning to make use of the story for his own poetry, he had found, on investigating the meaning of the names, that those Egyptians who had first written them down had translated them into their own tongue. So he himself in turn recovered the original sense of each name and, rendering it into our tongue, wrote it down so. And these very writings were in the possession of my grandfather and are actually now in mine, and when I was a child I learnt them all by heart."

Thus the idea of "hearsay" is not actually what Plato said. He says there was a single written link between the Egyptian writings and Critias the younger; namely Solon's writings.

Where then does that leave people who haven't actually examined Plato's account and parrot the claim that Plato's account is based merely on hearsay? It leaves them guilty of... yes... you guessed it; they are guilty of hearsay. The very "crime" of which they would wrongly convict Plato.

Plato's source was not hearsay. So what was the quality of this evidence?

Critias was Plato's uncle (or, some claim, his grandfather). So then, since Plato's uncle had Solon's original writings, it is quite likely Plato also had access to Solon's translation (Plato and Critias both lived in Athens). Therefore, it seems very likely that Plato had direct access to Solon's original translation of the original Egyptian record. If that is the case, then the only way to get closer to the source would be to have Solon's original writings or, better yet, to find and translate the original Egyptian records themselves; but sad to say we don't have either of those today.

Moreover, what if Plato intended his writing to be more extensive on the subject? There is evidence that this was his intention.

The Critias dialogue ends abruptly, in mid-sentence. Earlier in that dialogue, when Critias speaks in 109a he indicates that there was indeed a lot more to the story than what we have today. There he states:

"Now as regards the numerous barbaric tribes and all the Hellenic nations that then existed, the sequel of our story, when it is, as it were, unrolled, will disclose what happened in each locality; but the facts about the Athenians of that age and the enemies with whom they fought we must necessarily describe first, at the outset; the military power, that is to say, of each and their forms of government. And of these two we must give the priority in our account to the state of Athens."

In the text that follows, after giving priority the Athens [109b], he discusses Atlantis [113b] and explains what brought about the war. The text ends right after that, just as it is about to go into the war.

Since that war was the main "subject" of the dialogue, what we have today is just the introduction to the subject.

So why didn't he complete it?

The Critias dialogue is not Plato's only unfinished work. It is generally believed that the Critias dialogue was "put on hold" while Plato wrote his last work, the Twelve books of Laws. That book also ends abruptly, and it is generally believed Plato died before completing it.

If that is the case, he may have intended to complete the Critias and write yet another dialogue as well; namely the Hermocrates. In Critias 108b-c, it is evident Hermocrates was to speak next, when Critias finished.

So, evidently, Plato did have access to more extensive writings on Atlantis, and he did intend his writing on Atlantis to be more extensive as well.

Sad to say, he died before he could complete the account of the war between Athens and Atlantis in detail.

We must therefore conclude that people who parrot the claim that Plato's account is hearsay, are either ignorant of the facts, or are intentionally being deceptive.