A research by Dhani Irwanto, 26 September 2025
Abstract
This article reviews Plato’s Critias 113a-b, where the text explicitly states that Solon adapted the Atlantis story to suit a Greek audience. All names of places, figures, and entities were “borrowed” from Classical vocabulary rather than preserved in their Egyptian form. Supporting passages in Timaeus and Critias reinforce this narrative strategy: the exaggerated chronology of Athens, the symbolic geography of the “embodied” Athens, and the reshaping of genealogies such as Atlas as the son of Poseidon. These examples illustrate how audience accommodation shaped the entire narrative. Recognizing this adaptation helps distinguish literary construction from historical geography and prevents confusion between Classical references and their supposed archaic origins.
Keywords: Plato, Atlantis, Solon, Critias 113a-b, Timaeus, Athens, Atlas, Poseidon, audience accommodation, borrowed names, consilience.
1. Introduction
Among Plato’s dialogues, the story of Atlantis is framed through the figure of Solon, who in turn is said to have received the tale from Egyptian priests. Yet Plato is not merely reporting; he is constructing a narrative that his Athenian audience could understand. This becomes especially clear in Critias 113a-b, where the text acknowledges that Solon “accommodated” the foreign story to Greek ears. This passage provides one of the clearest statements that the names of places, figures, and entities in the Atlantis story are not Egyptian at all, but deliberately rendered into familiar Greek equivalents.
2. Critias 113a-b: The Key Clause
In this passage, Critias explains that Solon translated and borrowed names so that the story would be intelligible to his audience. As a result, every toponym, ethnonym, or personal name is given in Classical Greek form. The implication is sweeping: the geography, characters, and divine figures in the Atlantis account appear clothed in Greek cultural terms, regardless of their supposed original context.
3. Supporting Clauses Across Timaeus and Critias
Other sections of Plato’s narrative reinforce this conclusion:
- Timaeus 24e: The priests describe a landmark “which you Greeks call the Pillars of Heracles.” This shows direct acknowledgment that the Greek name is a translation, not the original, and underscores the principle of audience accommodation.
- Timaeus 24e: The reference to a distance point in the “Atlantic Ocean” situates the narrative outside the Mediterranean, but still uses a term recognizable to the Greeks.
- Timaeus 23e: The claim that “the Athens” existed a thousand years before Egypt is archaeologically unsubstantiated, pointing again to narrative accommodation rather than literal history.
- Critias 110d–112e: The description of “the Athens” does not match the real Classical Athens, but rather an idealized embodiment of the city.
- Critias 114a: Atlas is called the son of Poseidon—contradicting established Greek mythology—another sign of adaptation for a Hellenic audience.
Taken together, these passages underline that Plato’s text consistently operates within the bounds of Greek cultural imagination, even when claiming foreign origin.
4. A Catalogue of “Borrowed” Names
From Critias 113a-b, we must recognize that the names are not “originals” but Greek renderings:
- Places: Atlantic Ocean, the Athens, Cithaeron, Parnes, Oropus, Asopus, Attica, Acropolis, Eridanus, Ilissus, Pnyx, Lycabettus, Pillars of Heracles, Gades, Gadeirus, and others.
- Figures: Poseidon, Cleito, Evenor, Leucippe, Atlas, Eumelus, Ampheres, Evaemon, Mneseus, Autochthon, Elasippus, Mestor, Azaes, Diaprepes, Athene, Hephaestus, and others.
- Entities: Nereids and other mythic beings.
This list illustrates how comprehensively the narrative relies on Greek vocabulary. It is not a literal record of Egyptian transmission but a cultural translation.
5. Discussion
5.1 Solon’s Strategy of Audience Accommodation
The priests in Sais may have spoken of cities, rulers, and landscapes unfamiliar to a Greek audience. Plato underscores that Solon, faced with this barrier, chose to “translate” and borrow names into familiar Greek terms. Timaeus 24e makes this explicit, when the priests remark that the landmark was “which you Greeks call the Pillars of Heracles.” The story thus admits openly that names were reshaped to ensure recognition. This was not a distortion, but a narrative strategy: the story had to be intelligible and memorable to Athenians. Without such adaptation, the foreign account would have remained alien and unpersuasive.
5.2 The Chronology of “the Athens”
The assertion in Timaeus 23e that Athens existed a thousand years before Egypt immediately strains credibility. Archaeology shows no such reality. Rather, the chronological claim functions as part of the same accommodation strategy. It elevates Athens into a primeval status, allowing the audience to view their city not only as ancient but as surpassing even the Egyptian civilization. In this way, Solon’s narrative serves the ideological purpose of Greek cultural pride.
5.3 The Embodied Athens
The description of “the Athens” (Critias 110d–112e) diverges strikingly from the Classical city. Plato presents an earlier Athens as vast, fertile, and forested, later reduced to bare rocky soil — the “bones of the wasted body.” The land’s decline from abundance to sterility reinforces a theme of civilizational loss. As argued in my previous article (Plato Embodied Athens as Part of the Atlantis Story), this Athens is not historical but symbolic, embodying the moral contrast Plato wished to draw against Atlantis.
5.4 Atlas as Son of Poseidon
In Critias 114a, Atlas is described as Poseidon’s son, a genealogy foreign to traditional Greek myth. Here again, we see Solon’s accommodation at work. Rather than preserving Egyptian mythic figures or lineages, the story reframes them into recognizable Greek divine structures. Atlas becomes assimilated into the Olympian framework, ensuring that the tale speaks the language of its intended audience.
5.5 Are the Earlier Clauses Affected by Critias 113a-b?
Yes. Although the explicit statement of accommodation appears at 113a-b, the principle operates throughout the narrative from the beginning. The description of Athens’ geography, the mythical genealogy of Atlas, and the exaggerated chronology all reveal the same underlying process: unfamiliar foreign elements reshaped into Greek cultural forms. Critias 113a-b merely articulates openly what had already been practiced in the narrative’s construction.
6. Conclusion
Critias 113a-b makes explicit what is implicit throughout Plato’s Atlantis narrative: the story has been thoroughly filtered through Greek cultural lenses. All names are “borrowed” from Classical vocabulary to ensure audience comprehension. This does not necessarily undermine the possibility of deeper historical kernels but reminds us that the text is a literary construction. To confuse these accommodated names with real-world Classical referents risks a failure of consilience—blurring the distinction between narrative adaptation and historical geography.
No comments:
Post a Comment