The Idioms Guide to Plato
(or, Who is "you" and Who is "us"?)

An idiom is a phrase that cannot be translated literally into another language and still be understood. If, for example you literally translated the phrase "slim chance" into another language there is a slim chance a reader might figure out what you mean. If however you literally translated the phrase "fat chance" would people understand it? Fat chance.

We use idioms all the time that, taken literally, would be contradictory if translated literally into another language. Think about this: we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway. But that is not contradiction in English. It's just an idiom.

There is an unusual Greek idiom that occurs a couple places in Plato's Atlantean dialogues. As you would expect, it makes no sense if translated literally into English. It involves two short, parallel phrases. The phrases, when transliterated from Greek are "para humin" and "para hemin" where the "e" in that last word is a Greek eta, not a Greek epsilon. For convenience you can pronounce them "pah-rah hoo-mean" and "pah-rah hay-mean" which is close enough for our purpose here.

Literally, "para humin" is "beside to you" and "para hemin" is "beside to us."

As one would expect with idioms, different translators render these phrases differently in English. However, the translations do all express the same general concept. So lets look the first passage that uses the idiomatic phrases and see how different editions translate the terms.

The First Passage

Now then, the general concept of the term "beside to you" is, roughly, "the area which is near or around your people" and, correspondingly, the general concept of the term "beside to us" is, roughly, "the area which is near or around our people." Thus they are rendered by various translators "your/our land" or "your/our nation" or "your/our region" or "your/our city" or "your/our country" or even "your/our civilization."

The first key passage is in Timaeus 23E. Here is that passage in Peter Kalkavage's translation in which he uses "your land" and "our land" [which I have capitalized below]:

"The goddess who took as her lot both your city and this one here and brought them up and educated them-the city in YOUR LAND first by the span of a thousand years, when she took over your seed from Ge and Hephaestus, and the one here at a later point. And the number of years for the arrangement here in OUR LAND, as it was written down in the sacred texts, is eight thousand."

At this point I suggest you examine this passage in whatever translation you prefer. It would also be good it you compared still other editions.

So Who is "Us"?

More specifically, who is the "us" the priest is representing when he speaks?

This is an important question in relation to our discussion, but not in the sense you might think it is important. However, before I explain the way in which it is important I need to point out that the fact that this is also an extremely controversial question.

The reason it is controversial is simple. It involves various theories about the age of Egypt. And this is a subject that can really raise contentious fire storms online. First, take note that, if we accept translations such as "land" or "region" or "nation" or "country" or "civilization" then we are implying that the Egyptian priest means "us" to be Egypt. That would mean that he was saying Egypt was only 8000 years old. If however, we take the "us" to mean the city of Sais where the priest resided and the conversation was occurring, then he may have been saying that only the city itself was 8000 years old; which leaves us free to speculate on the age of Egypt.

The standard Egyptian King lists I've seen only go back to about 3000 to 3500 years BC. I have been told that there are Egyptian King lists that place Egypt's origin much further back. Yet, to be honest, no one has actually shown me one, although I have asked more than once. But, I did find one on my own; one which places the first king back to about 11,800 BC. Strangely enough, the source of the list is the Greek historian Herodotus. However, his method of calculating the date is somewhat strange. He estimates a king's average reign to equal a generation, which he calculate as lasting 32 years. Then he multiplies that times the number of Kings. Here are his calculations from Book 2, section 142 according to Godley's translation:

"Thus far went the record given me by the Egyptians and their priests; and they showed me that the time from the first king to that priest who was the last, covered three hundred and forty one generations of men, and that in this time such also had been the number of their kings and the number of their high priests. Now three hundred generations make up ten thousand years, three generations being equal to a century. And over and above the three hundred, the remaining forty one cover thirteen hundred and forty years. Thus the whole sum is eleven thousand three hundred and forty years; in all which time, they said, they had no king who was a god in human form, nor had there been any such thing either before or after those years among the rest of the kings of Egypt. Four times in this period, so they told me, the sun rose contrary to where he wont; twice he rose where he now sets; and twice he set where he now rises; yet Egypt in these times underwent no change, neither in the produce of the river, nor in the matter of sickness and health."

Second Guessing Herodotus

Personally I thought his method sounded rather arbitrary so I did a simple experiment. I started with a standard Egyptian king list. Next I took a random sampling of blocks of kings from random places in all sections of the list. I ended up with 68 kings, added up the length of their reigns and divided it by the number of kings. I got an average reign of 15.9 years, not 32 years, less than half that number. My estimate, based on the accepted length of reigns places the founding of Egypt after 6000 BC.

But of course my calculations are also imprecise. What someone needs to do is calculate all the reigns in a King list (which is accepted by as many parties as possible) and calculate an average length of reign while taking into consideration partial reignal years, ascension years, co-rulerships, competing rulerships, foreign rulerships, and any periods when no one was ruling.

My hope is that you now understand the importance to various involved parties of what the priest meant by "beside to us." Moreover, it is also important for you to be aware that those people will argue this point to no end.

But the most important thing for you to understand is that all such arguments are merely distractions. The age of Egypt is completely irrelevant to this discussion. But because people do get sidetracked I wanted you to be aware of this hotly disputed issue simply so you could recognize, ignore it, and remain focused on the real issue involved.

Focus on Context

You may recall that I wrote above concerning the "beside to us" phrase: "This is an important question in relation to our discussion, but not in the sense you might think it is." Well, the sections above explained the sense in which it is not important. It is not important because it is irrelevant.

The sense in which it is an important question is that, this idiom is key to understanding the use of the exact same idiom in another passage, in this same context. Whatever it means, either "city" or something larger, either Sais or Egypt, is unimportant. What is important is simply the fact that these unusual idiomatic phrases mean either one or the other in this context of Timaeus. It really doesn't matter which Plato meant. The key here is that he used this idiom in that passage as well as a parallel in the same context of Timaeus.

The Parallel Passage

In Timaeus 25B Plato wrote regarding the armies of Atlantis:

"So this host, being all gathered together, made an attempt one time to enslave by one single onslaught both your country and ours and the whole of the territory within the Straits."

That text contains the same two idiomatic expressions.

Where Bury translates "both your country and ours" the text literally reads "the beside to you and the beside to us." Obviously, Bury brings the sense across, but it must be admitted that the "country" involves translator's license. In other words "country" can be assumed, but not proven.

I apologize in advance for mixing my metaphors; but I am going to take one step back and go out on a limb. While I admit that it is quite possible that I am completely wrong, I personally believe that "beside to you" refers specifically to Athens and that "beside to us" refers specifically to Sais.

The reason I believe this is simply a matter of context. When you get a chance, read Timaeus 23D through 25D. I believe it is obvious from that overall context that the discussion is centering on the two cities, not the two nations. However, please don't quote me on this in relation to the age of Egypt. I am not saying this is evidence for an earlier Egypt, nor am I saying it's evidence for later Egypt. I am simply saying I believe this discussion in Plato is a tale of two cities.

A More Specific Proof

"So what's your point, Joseph?"

Right. I am writing this for a reason, aren't I?

Ok, since I'm already out on a limb, I might as well bounce on it a bit. So, for the following discussion please assume that "beside to us" means Sais. That way we can keep the irrelevant issues about Egypt's age out of this.

In my previous essay "Taking Plato out of Context, I spoke on the isolated, and possibly contradictory, passage in Timaeus that says: "Now first of all we must recall the fact that 9000 is the sum of years since the war occurred." I further demonstrated the rather obvious fact that this implies that the war between Atlantis and Athens happened at the same time that Athens was founded. I also pointed out a pile of evidence that, according to Plato, it is written that Atlantis was destroyed "many ages" and "many generations" after the founding of Athens at that 9000 year point in time.

My point here is to take the next logical step by providing a more specific proof that further supports the mass of evidence presented in that previous essay.

While it took a lot of build up to get to this point, it's actually very simple. In the war between Atlantis and Athens, Atlantis came against the idiomatic "beside to you" (here assumed to be Athens) as well as the idiomatic "beside to us" (here assumed to be Sais).

Think about what that means. The "beside to you" city of Athens was founded at the 9000 year point. But the "beside to us" city of Sais was not founded until a thousand years after Athens.

Therefore, if, as Plato states, Atlantis came against the "beside to us" city of Sais, then Plato is indicating that the war was being fought at least a thousand years after the founding of Athens, because the "beside to us" area, whatever it was, existed and was involved in that war, according to Plato.

Assessment

The first essay addressed the obviously ludicrous idea that the Atlantean-Athenian war occurred that the same point in time as the founding Athens. It showed that this strange idea hinged on a single passage that, if taken at face value contradicted nearly everything else Plato said on the subject. In addition it was demonstrated the "many ages" and "many generations" passed between the founding of Atlantis and the war.

So the evidence in this essay, that places that war at least 1000 years after the founding of Athens, should not surprise anyone. It simply supports mass of evidence involving many ages" and "many generations" previously described. What this essay does do however, is show a specific time the war had to occur after. Namely the founding of the "beside to us" at the point 8000 years before Solon. By the way, this added evidence further weakens the isolated, already-suspect passages that many quote to support the 9000 year date.

The next essay builds further on this theme. It will look primarily at two key texts from the view point of Plato's original readers; thus placing Plato in more of a historic context.

But before we conclude, there is in fact, a bit more evidence in the material we just covered that shows the "us" in "beside to us" existed during the war.

Was "Us" Enslaved?

As an epilog to this second essays, please note the following from Plato's description of Greece's victory over Atlantis.

"It saved from slavery such as were not as yet enslaved, and all the rest of us who dwelt within the bounds of Heracles it ungrudgingly set free."

Did you notice, in the Priest's narrative, the phrase "all the rest of us" were set free. I will leave this for you to speculate upon the possible implications.

Was Sais, or perhaps all of Egypt, enslaved by the Atlanteans?

Is the use of "us" here yet another indication that the Atlantean war occurred at least 1000 years after the founding of Athens?