Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Plato's Atlantis -- Made Up or Based on Fact?


MissionAtlantis

Recommended Posts

I realize they hired the Phoenicians to sail "around" Africa Puzz. BUT, since the discovery was made of the ships hidden in the caves by the Red Sea, it goes to prove that the Egyptians DID sail the ocean. One of the articles written about those found ships, talks about the barnacles and that they could only be formed if the ship had been in the salt water for a long time. At least 2 months. The histories say that the Egyptians sailed to Punt, and it seems that they would have to enter the ocean at some point, to get to Punt, especially if it was located down on the S. Western coast of Africa. Even if they just sailed the Red Sea and the Med., they must have had some deity they prayed to for protection when they did so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He explains it though - the Athens before Sais, and he says Sais, not Egypt - has been obliterated a few times and Sais hasn't so it retains the knowledge and history others have lost.

She founded your city a thousand years before ours,

Not country.

He's only talking about the people related the the Athenians imo, the Saites with Neith.

Now, now, Puz. Bit naughty only putting part of the quote in. Also, you should use the term "city" in the ancient Greek context, where Plato was using it to define Athenians, or a people.

So, when the priest relates to Solon:

"I'll do so gladly, Solon, not just for your sake and for Athens, but also and especially for the sake of the goddess who is the patron, nurse and governess of both our cities. Your city was founded first, when the goddess received your rootstock from Earth and Hephaestus, and ours was founded a thousand years later. The written records in our temples give the figure of 8,000 years as the age of our culture, so it is Athenians of 9,000 years ago whose customs and whose finest achievements I shall briefly explain to you."

As I said, in this time in Greece, the city was identified with the people, but Hellenistic Egypt was viewed as a single cultural entity. So, when the priest narrates that the "age of our culture" in Sais is 8,000 years, that is also the age of Egyptian culture. As Plato gave Athens precedence, and pre-existence?, over all other cities in ancient Greece, so he granted Sais precedence, and pre-existence, over all other cities in ancient Egypt.

The founding of each city is then linked to the founding of the races of Athenians and Egyptians.

*Whoops, misread what you wrote. Sorry about that!*

Edited by Leonardo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the scientists are correct, and I'm doubtful they are when it comes to datings and time lines, then Egypt existed long before Athens, didn't it? Isn't Egypt in fact, one of the oldest civilizations?

Why then does Plato tell it not like it is? As has been said here, the Greeks took their "gods" from other places, a lot coming from Egypt. And yet in Plato's telling, Athens was created 1000 years before Egypt.

You're very logical but again I can interpret it differently.

The original Athens created 1000 years before Sais has been flooded away, the Gods never went anywhere that they had, they didn't have names for them, the Egyptians only gave them the NAMES of the Gods, as is told, they had Gods, they called them disposers, organisers, Theoi but they used the Egyptian names when the Dodona Oracle was instituted when the Phoenicians stole her and took her to Greece...

But my own belief about it is this. If the Phoenicians did in fact carry away the sacred women and sell one in Libya and one in Hellas, then, in my opinion, the place where this woman was sold in what is now Hellas, but was formerly called Pelasgia, was Thesprotia; and then, being a slave there, she established a shrine of Zeus under an oak that was growing there; for it was reasonable that, as she had been a handmaid of the temple of Zeus at Thebes, she would remember that temple in the land to which she had come. After this, as soon as she understood the Greek language, she taught divination; and she said that her sister had been sold in Libya by the same Phoenicians who sold her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodona

The Oracle was actually instituted into Libya and Greece by Phoenicians, not Egyptians, but was an Egyptian woman who was a priestess of Zeus and transferred him and probably Dione, his wife, to Greece. Zeus starts off as an oak spring God in Dodona.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize they hired the Phoenicians to sail "around" Africa Puzz. BUT, since the discovery was made of the ships hidden in the caves by the Red Sea, it goes to prove that the Egyptians DID sail the ocean. One of the articles written about those found ships, talks about the barnacles and that they could only be formed if the ship had been in the salt water for a long time. At least 2 months. The histories say that the Egyptians sailed to Punt, and it seems that they would have to enter the ocean at some point, to get to Punt, especially if it was located down on the S. Western coast of Africa. Even if they just sailed the Red Sea and the Med., they must have had some deity they prayed to for protection when they did so.

I daresay they did sail a bit later in their history - but they originated on the banks of the Nile and would have had no reason to have had a sea god in their original pantheon. Would they have added a sea god after they started using the seas?

Anyway, I think we're all agreed that the Egyptians had no equivalent to Poseidon.

However, as well as the sea, wasn't Poseidon also god of horses? Could this mean that the original Atlantean god, translated as Poseidon, might in fact have been a horse god? He was also the god of earthquakes - and of course it was an earthquake which later destroyed the victorious Athenian army. Did the Egyptians have a god associated with horses or earthquakes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the Tartessan culture was probably Atlantis. Atlantis is described as being a huge player in the Mediterranean bronze market (which they saw as the "world" bronze market). The position of the Tartessan empire, right outside of the "Pillars of Hercules" (the Straight of Gibraltar), put them in an ideal position to trade with the Celts in what is now Cornwall. That would have provided the tin that is needed in the production of bronze, which is an alloy of tin and copper.

Geographically the position of the Tartessan empire is perfect- right outside of the Pillars of Hercules. One of the big cities near them is Cadiz, which was called Gades in Plato's time.

Here's a quote from Plato's Atlantis story:

And he [i.e.- Posiden] named them all; the eldest, who was the first king, he named Atlas, and after him the whole island and the ocean were called Atlantic. To his twin brother, who was born after him, and obtained as his lot the extremity of the island towards the Pillars of Heracles, facing the country which is now called the region of Gades in that part of the world, he gave the name which in the Hellenic language is Eumelus, in the language of the country which is named after him, Gadeirus.

I think Atlantis was a commercial trade monopoly which controlled a number of islands. This theory isn't mine-- it has been advanced by a number of historians.

Recently there have been major archeological discoveries in the Cadiz area. These discoveries have been made with sonar, areal photography, and so on. The specific buildings haven't been excavated yet. All we know is that they are there. Also we know the street layout of the major city and we know from the depth that it is around 7,000 years old.

Finding the glamorous ancient city of Atlantis is so tantalizing that we tend to forget-- Plato's stories about Atlantis were about the marketplace in the ancient Mediterranean world, not about a mysterious, long lost, ideal civilization.

Edited by Siara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will briefly inform you of their laws and of their most famous action; the exact particulars of the whole we will hereafter go through at our leisure in the sacred registers themselves

I think that's pretty specific.

As I said, the Egyptians kept a library by the sounds of it, and supposedly this story was written on something tangible in that library, although that particular artifact has never been found.

You know I love the story of Atlantis, and if there is any shred of evidence pointing towards it's actual existence, I'd love to find it but so far, everything the story says, is out of line with what we know. NOT that we know everything :D

I really think it depends how you read it and I'd love to see the other translations on this sentence structure.

She founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours, of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old.....

As touching your citizens of nine thousand years ago, I will briefly inform you of their laws and of their most famous action; the exact particulars of the whole we will hereafter go through at our leisure in the sacred registers themselves. If you compare these very laws with ours you will find that many of ours are the counterpart of yours as they were in the olden time.

The constitution in the sacred register would contain the constitution and the recorded laws and ages, I doubt a sacred register would have the story on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the Tartessan culture was probably Atlantis. Atlantis is described as being a huge player in the Mediterranean bronze market (which they saw as the "world" bronze market). The position of the Tartessan empire, right outside of the "Pillars of Hercules" (the Straight of Gibraltar), put them in an ideal position to trade with the Celts in what is now Cornwall. That would have provided the tin that is needed in the production of bronze, which is an alloy of tin and copper.

Geographically the position of the Tartessan empire is perfect- right outside of the Pillars of Hercules. One of the big cities near them is Cadiz, which was called Gades in Plato's time.

Here's a quote from Plato's Atlantis story:

I think Atlantis was a commercial trade monopoly which controlled a number of islands. This theory isn't mine-- it has been advanced by a number of historians.

Recently there have been major archeological discoveries in the Cadiz area. These discoveries have been made with sonar, areal photography, and so on. The specific buildings haven't been excavated yet. All we know is that they are there. Also we know the street layout of the major city and we know from the depth that it is around 7,000 years old.

Finding the glamorous ancient city of Atlantis is so tantalizing that we tend to forget-- Plato's stories about Atlantis were about the marketplace in the ancient Mediterranean world, not about a mysterious, long lost, ideal civilization.

The little problem here is, of course, that Atlantis submerged catastrophically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think it depends how you read it and I'd love to see the other translations on this sentence structure.

She founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours, of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old.....

As touching your citizens of nine thousand years ago, I will briefly inform you of their laws and of their most famous action; the exact particulars of the whole we will hereafter go through at our leisure in the sacred registers themselves. If you compare these very laws with ours you will find that many of ours are the counterpart of yours as they were in the olden time.

The constitution in the sacred register would contain the constitution and the recorded laws and ages, I doubt a sacred register would have the story on it.

Are you reading 'constitution' in that context as being the formation of the city, or a document (like the US Constitution)?

Because it is certainly the former usage of the word that is implied, not the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, now, Puz. Bit naughty only putting part of the quote in. Also, you should use the term "city" in the ancient Greek context, where Plato was using it to define Athenians, or a people.

So, when the priest relates to Solon:

"I'll do so gladly, Solon, not just for your sake and for Athens, but also and especially for the sake of the goddess who is the patron, nurse and governess of both our cities. Your city was founded first, when the goddess received your rootstock from Earth and Hephaestus, and ours was founded a thousand years later. The written records in our temples give the figure of 8,000 years as the age of our culture, so it is Athenians of 9,000 years ago whose customs and whose finest achievements I shall briefly explain to you."

As I said, in this time in Greece, the city was identified with the people, but Hellenistic Egypt was viewed as a single cultural entity. So, when the priest narrates that the "age of our culture" in Sais is 8,000 years, that is also the age of Egyptian culture. As Plato gave Athens precedence, and pre-existence?, over all other cities in ancient Greece, so he granted Sais precedence, and pre-existence, over all other cities in ancient Egypt.

The founding of each city is then linked to the founding of the races of Athenians and Egyptians.

*Whoops, misread what you wrote. Sorry about that!*

What link are you using there Leo, obviously not Jowett's.

He means the Saite culture, not Egyptian culture. You are making a huge assumption there to think he means all of Egypt as we see it, he could mean it as in the Delta Egypt.

YOUR CITY - OURS - OUR CULTURE, that is the Sais city culture. Delta culture. Not Memphis culture or Theban culture.

In fact, Herodotus explains it by saying the Ionians (Athenians) cannot count because only the Delta to them is Egypt.

If then we choose to adopt the views of the Ionians concerning Egypt, we must come to the conclusion that the Egyptians had formerly no country at all. For the Ionians say that nothing is really Egypt but the Delta, which extends along shore from the Watch-tower of Perseus, as it is called, to the Pelusiac Salt-Pans, a distance of forty schoenes, and stretches inland as far as the city of Cercasorus, where the Nile divides into the two streams which reach the sea at Pelusium and Canobus respectively. The rest of what is accounted Egypt belongs, they say, either to Arabia or Libya.

http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.2.ii.html

Sorry, edited link, had wrong one.

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The constitution in the sacred register would contain the constitution and the recorded laws and ages, I doubt a sacred register would have the story on it.

Would this not be Plato's way of trying to make the story more authentic? If a Greek person read the story, they would believe it more readily if it was written somewhere of importance. It's one of those things I call overkill on Plato's part - too much information. Because in his zest to convince his audience that his story is true, he says things that are blatantly not true, but perhaps in the excitement of the festival for their founding goddess, little slip ups are ignored. He's telling a story as part of a contest after all. Or at least, as part of a celebration for entertainment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you reading 'constitution' in that context as being the formation of the city, or a document (like the US Constitution)?

Because it is certainly the former usage of the word that is implied, not the latter.

Both. What they considered a document of their formation of the city and a record of their laws as he says.

Why wouldn't it have laws on it, he says it does. That's what the Constitution is isn't it? Statutes and laws. I'm not American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would this not be Plato's way of trying to make the story more authentic? If a Greek person read the story, they would believe it more readily if it was written somewhere of importance. It's one of those things I call overkill on Plato's part - too much information. Because in his zest to convince his audience that his story is true, he says things that are blatantly not true, but perhaps in the excitement of the festival for their founding goddess, little slip ups are ignored. He's telling a story as part of a contest after all. Or at least, as part of a celebration for entertainment.

Herodotus recounts how the Egyptians has a wooden effigy for every King they have had, they have 330 of them, which equates to 8000 years of Kings.

This is their record, they keep count of their history through these so they know they are that old and which King was first, this is a sacred register also, a register of every King for 8000 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The little problem here is, of course, that Atlantis submerged catastrophically.

I guess I don't take that at face value. I think PART of Atlantis could have perished in a catastrophic event and that would be enough to propagate the story that the entire empire sank. If it were a trade empire (which Plato said it was) damage to their primary ports, in a tsunami or something, could have caused the end of the civilization. Essentially, the death blow to the civilization would have occurred in one night.

BTW, much of the Tartessan culture is currently submerged in the swamp lands of southern Spain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ostanes said, "It would still be true if it were a billionth hand account.

No, it wouldn't. It's called hear-say.

Good point, Cormac. But is it possible for something to remain true and a fact even if it is transmitted through a billion people? I know that the phenomenon of rumors makes accurate transmission even through a few people seem remote. Yet, hypothetically speaking, it really wouldn't matter how many transmissions had occurred. Getting something first hand is no guarantee of accuracy.

In the Critias, Critias claims to have seen and studied Solon's diary which was in his possession.

Which happens to be Plato's writing. Of course in his own writing he would say someone else made that claim. Do you have evidence of an extant text from Critias, himself, making this claim?

Cormac, why are you placing so much emphasis on getting first-hand writing on this? The first-hand writing of Plato could be a complete fiction. It's entirely possible the conversation he covers in such detail never, ever took place. Would you trust writing from Critias any more than from Plato? Don't be illogical. There are many things we just don't know about this entire story. Don't pretend that hearing it from someone else is going to make the story somehow more real, or that the lack of hearing it from someone else makes it less real. That's logically fallacious.

The part in brackets [] are someone elses interpretation and not Plato's words. Plato describes exactly where Atlantis is, in front of the Pillars of Hercules.

Bravo! Very good point. And not only in front of the Pillars of Herakles, but facing Gadira. The two points reinforce each other, so there is no ambiguity. Some forget Gadira and claim that the Strait of Sicily contains the Pillars, while others point to the Strait of Messina. No Phoenician Gadira near either of those locations.

Interesting how Plutarch, who lived some 600 years AFTER Solon, gives the names of two Egyptian Priests which are never mentioned in the preceding 600 years, by anyone. And still, there is no evidence of an Atlantis story in Egypt. By that, or any other name.

Cormac, you seem to have a penchant for "arguments to ignorance." Is that your favorite logical fallacy? If you are omniscient, please tell me how many manuscripts from those ancient times never made it to modern times, even in the commentaries of later writers. Did you happen to look at all of those disappeared manuscripts and documents to ensure they didn't contain those names? Was it omniscience or did you merely have a time machine and a lot of time on your hands to investigate every individual that lived in all that time span?

Cormac, your penchant for extreme generalities (everyone, every, never) makes your arguments suspect. Combined with your penchant for "arguments to ignorance," your arguments become downright hard to believe or trust. You show a zeal for debate. Curb the zeal a bit and show more clarity and accuracy.

He [Crantor] adds, that this is testified by the prophets of the Egyptians, who assert that these particulars are written on pillars which are still preserved." -- Proclus, philosopher, 5th century

Two things wrong with Crantors story: 1) Ancient Egyptians DID NOT have prophets. 2) There is no evidence that any such tale was ever written on pillars in Egypt.

Really? You know with 100% certainty that Ancient Egypt never had anything resembling "prophets," "soothsayers," or "prognosticators?" Would you care to name sources? Or is it omniscience speaking?

And do you know with 100% certainty that Proclus used a word which could unequivocally be translated as "prophet," or did he use some word that has "prophet" as one of many meanings? After all, he wasn't using English.

Cormac, again you make outlandish claims without backing them up with facts. At least some others have the decency to hypothesize and back up such speculation with facts. Your statements are not even hypothesis. They've already graduated to pure, proven, and unequivocal fact (or as Harte would say, "very real fact").

And Cormac, I hate to point out the obvious mistake you've made, because it is so glaringly embarrassing for you: You say, "There is no evidence that any such tale was ever written on pillars in Egypt." Yet, Proclus makes a liar out of you. His statement is at least one piece of evidence. That is a great deal more than "no" evidence. And even with no other evidence, for you to say that one piece of evidence is not enough treads on an argument to ignorance, again.

Hey, I make mistakes, too. And I admit them when they're pointed out (at least if the other fellow or gal is civil). Coming to a debate with arrogance and an attitude of "I know it all and you don't" is not conducive to a cordial discussion of the facts. Can we start over again? If so, try a little more clarity and accuracy. Dump the generalities (everyone, everything, every, never, etc), unless they are explicitly called for.

I admit that Atlantis may be a complete fiction. Are you willing to admit that Atlantis might have been a large island in the Atlantic which subsided around 9600 BCE? As it stands, we don't seem to have proof either way. At least, I haven't seen such proof, and I've been studying the subject for nearly fifty years. I've seen a lot of claims by so-called experts, but their claims are tainted and suspect, because there is more at stake than truth and fact. There is also ego and funding to consider. No working scientist in his right mind is going to talk about the "A" word.

From your take on things you should believe me, then, when I say that Harte said that kmt_sesh said that your great great grandchild will inherit 1 billion dollars from the Easter Bunny. After all, it was said, so it must be true, RIGHT?

Cormac, this is a beautifully written "straw man" fallacy. And your point? Are you saying don't believe anything anyone tells you? We could carry that logic to its absurd extreme. Don't believe any textbook you've ever read. Don't believe the results of any scientific experiment. You have to do it all yourself before you can believe anything. Is that what you're after? Or are you merely calling Proclus a liar? You know, that is a possibility.

And one problem you missed with regard to the Crantor quote. The pronoun "he" may not have referred to Crantor, but to Plato or Solon. The use of Crantor to support the story of Atlantis, depends on the interpretation of the pronoun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I don't take that at face value. I think PART of Atlantis could have perished in a catastrophic event and that would be enough to propagate the story that the entire empire sank. If it were a trade empire (which Plato said it was) damage to their primary ports, in a tsunami or something, could have caused the end of the civilization. Essentially, the death blow to the civilization would have occurred in one night.

BTW, much of the Tartessan culture is currently submerged in the swamp lands of southern Spain.

Yes, not taking Plato's story at face value is the cause of Atlantis being 'found' all over the globe.

Some say Plato didn't talk in solar years, but in moons when he mentioned the date of Atlantis' sumbergence, some others say the Pillars of Hercules or not the ones near Gibraltar, some say Atlantis wasn't an island but a peninsula, and so on.

The problem is, if Plato didn't completely make up the Atlantis story, but that parts of it were true, then which parts are true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is, if Plato didn't completely make up the Atlantis story, but that parts of it were true, then which parts are true?

Yup, that's the question all right. I think one approach is to look at the literary style of his time. Do we have contemporary descriptions of other events which we know more about scientifically?

It seems to me that other descriptions always have round numbers (probably for poetic reasons). Maybe "Ten thousand men died on that horrible night" is to "7,824 men died and 158 wounded died over the next few days"

as "The civilization was submerged in one night" is to "In an hour all their major ports were destroyed and the civilization crumbled soon after".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, that's the question all right. I think one approach is to look at the literary style of his time. Do we have contemporary descriptions of other events which we know more about scientifically?

It seems to me that other descriptions always have round numbers (probably for poetic reasons). Maybe "Ten thousand men died on that horrible night" is to "7,824 men died and 158 wounded died over the next few days"

as "The civilization was submerged in one night" is to "In an hour all their major ports were destroyed and the civilization crumbled soon after".

Heh, I call that changing, adapting and stretching the story to fit a theory.

And it wasn't "The civilization was submerged in one night", it was Atlantis that submerged in one night.

And 9000 years could mean nothing more than 'long ago', so maybe 300 years before Plato lived or something.

And Atlantis being the size of "Lybia and Asia together" was maybe nothing but an expression for 'it was a really big island', so let's say it was Cyprus.

That way we eventually end up almost everywhere in time and space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q - about Punt. I think a few Egyptians might have sailed here and there, probably after contact with Phoenicians but on a whole they did not venture out. The boats with barnacles might not have been manned by Egyptian sailors either, just because the boats were found and the Red Sea was probably about as far as they went.

Here is a cool story of the trip to Punt and note the last bit I have Bolded...night x

Punt

As Egypt once more had Nubia under its control, Mentuhotep III was able to send an expedition to the fabled land of Punt. In Year 8 he sent a force of 3,000 men south , digging water wells as they went, to trade exotic goods. An inscription in the quarries at Wadi Hammamat describe how the expedition went south under the command of the steward Henenu:

"I was sent to conduct ships to the land of Punt, to fetch for Pharaoh sweet-smelling spices, which the the princes of the red land collect out of fear and dread, such as he inspires in all nations. And I started from the city of Coptos. And his Majesty gave the command that the armed men, who were to accompany me, should be from the south country of the Thebaid

....

And I set out then with an army of 3,000 men, and passed through 'the red hamlet' and through a cultivated country. I had skins and poles prepared to carry the vessels of water, twenty in number. And of the people one carried a load daily .... and another placed the load on him. And I had a reservoir of twelve perches dug in a wood, and two reservoirs at a place called Atahet - one of a perch and twenty cubits, and the other of a perch and thirty cubits. And I made another at Ateb, of ten cubits by ten on each side, to contain water of a cubit in depth. Then I arrived at port Seba (?), and I had ships of burthen built to bring back products of all kinds. And I offered a great sacrifice of oxen, cows and goats. And when I returned from Seba (?) I had executed the King's command, for I brought him back all kinds of products which I had met with in the ports of the Holy Land. And I came back by the road of Uak and Rohan, and brought with me precious stones for the statues of the temples. But such a thing never happened since there were kings; nor was the like ever done by any blood relations who were sent to these places since the time (of the reign) of the Sun-god Ra. And I acted thus for the king on account of the great favour which he entertained for me".

http://ib205.tripod.com/mentuhotep3.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And 9000 years could mean nothing more than 'long ago', so maybe 300 years before Plato lived or something.

Well, I'm more flexible about this than you. If it was 8,000 years instead of 9,000 I could go for it. Not 300 years ago-- that's too much error.

Surely you don't believe that Atlantis sank 9,000 to the day before Plato came out with his document. The question is, how big is a reasonable margin of error?

If the date has a margin of error it's logical to assume everything else had a margin of error too. Like the suddenness of the destruction. Also, it is not cleat that the name Atlantis referred to the entire empire. It may have been just one part. Many people think "Atlantis" referred to a specific island situated in the mouth of Guadalquivir River.

Edited by Siara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is Jowett's translation which is more specific about what was written in the register, that being the constitution.

Solon marvelled at his words, and earnestly requested the priests to inform him exactly and in order about these former citizens. You are welcome to hear about them, Solon, said the priest, both for your own sake and for that of your city, and above all, for the sake of the goddess who is the common patron and parent and educator of both our cities. She founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours, of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old.

as well as the story of Atlantis:

As touching your citizens of nine thousand years ago, I will briefly inform you of their laws and of their most famous action; the exact particulars of the whole we will hereafter go through at our leisure in the sacred registers themselves. If you compare these very laws with ours you will find that many of ours are the counterpart of yours as they were in the olden time.
Edited by Qoais
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What link are you using there Leo, obviously not Jowett's.

He means the Saite culture, not Egyptian culture. You are making a huge assumption there to think he means all of Egypt as we see it, he could mean it as in the Delta Egypt.

YOUR CITY - OURS - OUR CULTURE, that is the Sais city culture. Delta culture. Not Memphis culture or Theban culture.

In fact, Herodotus explains it by saying the Ionians (Athenians) cannot count because only the Delta to them is Egypt.

If then we choose to adopt the views of the Ionians concerning Egypt, we must come to the conclusion that the Egyptians had formerly no country at all. For the Ionians say that nothing is really Egypt but the Delta, which extends along shore from the Watch-tower of Perseus, as it is called, to the Pelusiac Salt-Pans, a distance of forty schoenes, and stretches inland as far as the city of Cercasorus, where the Nile divides into the two streams which reach the sea at Pelusium and Canobus respectively. The rest of what is accounted Egypt belongs, they say, either to Arabia or Libya.

http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.2.ii.html

Sorry, edited link, had wrong one.

I am quoting directly from my copy of "Timaeus and Critias", Oxford World Classics, 2008 edition. Translation by Robin Waterfield. ISBN 978-0-19-280735-9.

Consider the time frame given for the story told to Solon. In that period, Egypt was under Persian rule and the Hellenistic influence was basically non-existent. From its previous pharaonic structure, given that Egypt was a conquered country, there would have been a strong 'Egyptian' identity risen from resentment against the foreign rule. If we are to believe this priest was narrating to Solon from his own cultural background, and not some artifically imposed Hellenistic/Athenian cultural style, then it seems unlikely that this reference to the founding of Sais was in any way not the founding of the Egyptian identity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is Jowett's translation which is more specific about what was written in the register, that being the constitution.

That's it, the founding is the institution of the Laws. Athena and her laws, that is the creation of both cities, her laws are the laws in the constitution. Then men probably made the laws and everything went downhill...

I will have to drag myself away really this time. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both. What they considered a document of their formation of the city and a record of their laws as he says.

Why wouldn't it have laws on it, he says it does. That's what the Constitution is isn't it? Statutes and laws. I'm not American.

I don't consider the usage of the word 'constitution' in that context to be any reference to a document, but to the founding/structure of the city.

i.e. The constitution of the city was as follows: a town hall, a library, etc.

or

Leo proceeded with the constitution of his dinner.

Edited by Leonardo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm more flexible about this than you. If it was 8,000 years instead of 9,000 I could go for it. Not 300 years ago-- that's too much error.

Surely you don't believe that Atlantis sank 9,000 to the day before Plato came out with his document. The question is, how big is a reasonable margin of error?

If the date has a margin of error it's logical to assume everything else had a margin of error too. Like the suddenness of the destruction. Also, it is not cleat that the name Atlantis referred to the entire empire. It may have been just one part. Many people think "Atlantis" referred to a specific island situated in the mouth of Guadalquivir River.

This is not about who is more flexible than the other, lol.

What is 'error' if Plato's story was nothing but an allegory? And that is what I think: that Plato mixed some ancient myths from here and there to construct a political allegory.

And Atlantis may be nothing but an anagram for the name of an area in what is now western Turkey, "Tantalis".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.