Ego Wars and Atlantis

Plato's writings on Atlantis are reasonably straight forward. In nearly all cases, the meaning of the original Greek is clear enough. And, as far as I am concerned, people should be free to choose to accept what Plato wrote, or reject it.

What I do have a problem with, however, is when people take what Plato actually said and twist it into what they claim he "meant" in an effort to adjust Plato to support their theory about Atlantis; just so they can then say "Plato supports this."

There's a word for this. It is "eisegesis" and it means "the interpretation of a text by reading into it one's own ideas." It is the opposite of the more common word "exegesis", which means "an explanatory or analytical interpretation of a text", which is commonly used by translators. So eisegesis involves adjusting what the text says to fit your interpretation, whereas exegesis involves adjusting your interpretation to fit what the text says.

The most common examples I have seen of Platonic eisegesis involve the location of Atlantis.

The Pillars of Heracles

One example involves the "pillars of Heracles" that are located at the Straits of Gibraltar. Many people try to relocate these to suit their own theories. However, the location is not actually in question, because it is clearly described well before Plato's day. So both Plato and his intended audience would know where the location was.

That the "Pillars of Heracles" were what we call the Straits Gibraltar, was clearly defined in the 6th century BC by Hecataeus (who was contemporary with Solon). He described "the coast of Libya, from the confines of Egypt to the Pillars of Hercules." Pindar also describes the pillars.

Here is a link to a map based on Hecataeus.

Herodotus (who died about the time Plato was born) also describes the coast of Libya from Egypt to the Pillars of Hercules.

Here is a link to a map based on Herodotus.

Moreover, there is an interesting story in Herodotus involving the Pillars of Heracles. In Book 4 section 42, he describes an expedition that circumnavigated Africa clockwise and returned through the pillars and on to Egypt in the days of Necos (7th Century BC), which was before Solon's time.

"For Libya shows clearly that it is bounded by the sea, except where it borders on Asia. Necos king of Egypt first discovered this and made it known. When he had finished digging the canal which leads from the Nile to the Arabian Gulf, he sent Phoenicians in ships, instructing them to sail on their return voyage past the Pillars of Heracles until they came into the northern sea and so to Egypt. So the Phoenicians set out from the Red Sea and sailed the southern sea; whenever autumn came they would put in and plant the land in whatever part of Libya they had reached, and there await the harvest; then, having gathered the crop, they sailed on, so that after two years had passed, it was in the third that they rounded the pillars of Heracles and came to Egypt. There they said (what some may believe, though I do not) that in sailing around Libya they had the sun on their right hand."

Note that last point. Herodotus didn't believe the sun was on their right as they went west around "cape horn." He knew nothing of the equator and a southern hemisphere, so he thought the sun being north of them was impossible. This actually indicates the story was true.

Another example of eisegesis concerns the location of Atlantis. It involves the use of the Greek prepositions "pro" and "ek" and the Greek adverb "exothen" which all appear in a short phrase describing the location of Atlantis.

Before

The most often discussed of these is "pro" which has the basic meaning of "before" in either time or location. When "pro" is used in relation to entrances like "before the gate" or "before the door" it implies "at the gate" and "at the door" and thus implies closeness.

Yet the word "pro" is rare in Plato. He uses the word only 113 times in all his writings. Of the 15 common prepositions, pro is the least used in Plato; and he uses the other 14 standard prepositions on average about times 2565 times each. (A less common preposition "sun" (with) is used by Plato 41 times.)

Plato uses pro seven times in Timaeus and twice in Critias. In eight of those cases, it is used in relation to "time before" rather than "place before." Is it used only one time in relation to place or position. That single occurrence is where he refers to the island of Atlantis being before (pro) the straits at the Pillars of Heracles.

Literally the Greek phrase translates: "an island before the mouth." What follows below is the readings from six translations of Timaeus. The phrase is in brackets.

"There was [an island opposite the strait] which you call the Pillars of Hercules." Lee
"It had [an island in it in front of the strait] that you people say you call the Pillars of Heracles." Zeyl
"Had [an island before the mouth] which is called by you Pillars of Hercules." Taylor
"There was [an island situated in front of the straits] which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles." Jowett
"[An island was situated in front of the mouth] that you people call, so you claim, the Pillars of Hercules." Kalkavage
"For [in front of the mouth] which you Greeks call, as you say, 'the pillars of Heracles, there lay [an island]." Bury

That's four "in front of" a "before" and an "opposite." All of which imply a nearness. Keep this in mind.

From Out Of

The preposition "ek" means "out of" or "from" and the adverb "exothen" means "from without" or "from outside" and they are also used in the same context to describe the location of Atlantis.

Literally the Greek phrase translates: "from outside invaded, out of the Atlantic sea." And again what now follows below is the readings from six translations of Timaeus.

"From its base in the Atlantic Ocean". Lee
"From beyond, from the Atlantic Ocean." Zeyl
"From the Atlantis sea." Taylor
"Out of the Atlantic Ocean." Jowett
"From a distant point in the Atlantic ocean." Bury
"From somewhere far out in the Atlantic Ocean." Kalkavage

All of the readings demonstrate that Atlantis was "outside" the Pillars of Heracles and "in" the Atlantic. However, please note that the last two renderings imply the location was far off in the Atlantic, whereas the others do not. The first four are more literal, but the final two cannot be ruled out grammatically. So how do we determine which is correct?

Simple. We look at the immediate context.

The Immediate Context

Immediately after stating that the Atlanteans "invaded from outside, out of the Atlantic sea" we find the statement we looked at first, namely that these was "an island before the mouth." As we have already noted, "pro" in relation to entrances implies closeness. So the immediate context weakens the idea that Atlantis was "far out in the Atlantic" as Bury renders it.

I should point out at this time that the readings by Bury and Kalkavage could imply that the armies came from a more distant part of the Atlantean Kingdom rather than the main island just outside the pillars. That idea however, would be unsupportable speculation.

Besides, there is more of the immediate context that calls into question the "far out in the Atlantic" claim. Look at how Bury himself translates that immediate context.

"A mighty host, which, starting from a distant point in the Atlantic ocean, was insolently advancing to attack the whole of Europe, and Asia to boot.

"For the ocean there was at that time navigable; for in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say, 'the pillars of Heracles,' there lay an island which was larger than Libya and Asia together; and it was possible for the travelers of that time to cross from it to the other islands, and from the islands to the whole of the continent over against them which encompasses that veritable ocean."

Note that from Atlantis, travelers could cross to other islands and from those to the continent beyond. This implies that the other islands were between Atlantis and that far continent. This in turn implies that Atlantis was the furthest island from that far continent. Which makes perfectly good sense if Atlantis was indeed "in front of the mouth" as Bury puts it.

If we take Plato as it is written then the location of Atlantis, according to Plato, was just outside the straits of Gibraltar. Still, many Atlantologists interpret Plato in a manner to support their own claims. Or, as I said before, adjusting what the text says to fit their interpretation, rather than adjusting their interpretation to fit what the text says.

So why do some Atlantologists do this?

How Egos Hinder Atlantean Research

Plato also said the kingdom of Atlantis had spread to many other islands, to parts of Europe and North Africa, as well as a "Continent" beyond the sea, which many equate to the Americas. Moreover, while he does say the main island "was swallowed by the sea" he does not specifically say other parts of the kingdom were destroyed.

Is it possible other parts of its territories remain findable today either above or below water? While they would be remnants of the Atlantean civilization, they would not be the island of Atlantis itself.

The problem is this. When some searcher locates what may be an outpost of Atlantis, their ego kicks in and they claim the found "Atlantis" itself, instead of humbly admitting it might just be an outpost.

Thus if the location contradicts Plato's description, yet the searcher wants to claim Plato's support, then what the text says must be adjusted to fit the interpretation. Problem solved by simple eisegesis.

Could this be the main reason there are so many conflicting claims today?

Think about it. If you admit you found an outpost that may mean someone else's claim is the real Atlantis. Also, your admitting you found an outpost might be exploited by another searcher as an admission on your part that their claim is stronger.

Cuba, Azores, Canaries, Spain, South America, Ireland, Iceland, Bimini. Is it possible they are all Atlantean outposts, while Atlantis itself has never yet been found?

Could it be that a lot of what we read today is a big ego game; or even an ego war? After all, claiming you found an outpost of Atlantis is neither as press-worthy nor as grant-worthy and saying you finally found lost Atlantis itself.