the myth of Atlantis in context

[Van Gorp]

To lend the story a semblance of authenticity. Is this concept really that difficult for you to understand? Plato wasn't the first to do it, nor will he ever be the last.

cormac

Hah, to lend the story a semblance of authenticity but not to make appear the story as a real fact, while he is stating sideways it IS a real fact.

That kind of logic IS indeed difficult to understand.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Van Gorp

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Hah, to lend the story a semblance of authenticity but not to make appear the story as a real fact, while he is stating sideways it IS a real fact.

That kind of logic IS indeed difficult to understand.

Maybe, just maybe, he did it so his students/listeners/readers would be inspired to go out and check the facts for themselves and to not take him as the ultimate authority on the subject?

I've done much the same, left out things so my students can discover them for themselves should they be so inspired, it'd be nice to think I'm following in a Platonic tradition.

[Proclus]

Hah, to lend the story a semblance of authenticity but not to make appear the story as a real fact, while he is stating sideways it IS a real fact.

That kind of logic IS indeed difficult to understand.

FULL number of points for this statement. Agreed. Go on!

[cormac mac airt]

Hah, to lend the story a semblance of authenticity but not to make appear the story as a real fact, while he is stating sideways it IS a real fact.

That kind of logic IS indeed difficult to understand.

I think the problem you're having with the story is that you're obsessing over Atlantis when the story isn't really about Atlantis, despite the trappings. It's about the perceived one time greatness of ancient Athens as opposed to the reality of Athens of Plato's day. As a literary device Plato had to create a great and powerful Atlantis which was defeated by ancient Athens, in order to compare it's alleged greatness to it's current state during his time.

cormac

[Mario Dantas]

Now Solon, having begun the great work in verse, the history or fable of the Atlantic Island, which he had learned from the wise men in Sais, and thought convenient for the Athenians to know, abandoned it; not, as Plato says, by reason of want of time, but because of his age, and being discouraged at the greatness of the task; for that he had leisure enough, such verses testify, as-

"Each day grow older, and learn something new;" and again-

"But now the Powers, of Beauty, Song, and Wine,

Which are most men's delights, are also mine." Plato, willing to improve the story of the Atlantic Island, as if it were a fair estate that wanted an heir and came with some title to him, formed, indeed, stately entrances, noble enclosures, large courts, such as never yet introduced any story, fable, or poetic fiction; but, beginning it late, ended his life before his work; and the reader's regret for the unfinished part is the greater, as the satisfaction he takes in that which is complete is extraordinary. For as the city of Athens left only the temple of Jupiter Olympius unfinished, so Plato, amongst all his excellent works, left this only piece about the Atlantic Island imperfect.

http://classics.mit....arch/solon.html

Somehow, the rest of Plato's Critias got lost (probably on purpose, imo)...

After telling the whole story of Athens and Atlantis, it appears that the tale reached a turning point. For what reason was Zeus "introduced" at the end of the book? What was he about to say? We will never know, but the story was not near the end...

It is to me obvious that Plato wrote something disturbing and shameful, like the priest said mankind being turned into "children" by a catastrophic event.

How could we have "rehabilitated" from such (hypothetical) demise? Plato stated a tectonic shift in the north Atlantic occurred! A large island "supposedly" vanished from the map...

What is missing in Critias?

The rest of the incomplete story, was probably the revelation of how mankind evolved from that demise onward. What sort of consequences were there after the disappearance of Atlantis. Why would Plato (through Sonchis) relate that the Greeks were nothing but "children" and had no old memory?

Why would Plato denote a clear Greek "inferiority" regarding history? What is the logic behind such details? To make it more real?

Plato might not have believed in Atlantis, but he surely wanted to give that story a chance to be heard, after having been intoxicated with the wealth of information...

Hegel wrote:

Plato is not the man to dabble in abstract theories and principles; his truth-loving mind has recognized and represented the truth of the world in which he lived, the truth of the one spirit that lived in him as in Greece itself. No man can overleap his time, the spirit of his time is his spirit also; but the point at issue is, to recognize that spirit by its content^[13]

http://en.wikipedia....Republic_(Plato)

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Edited February 5, 2014 by Mario Dantas

[Atlantisresearch]

I think the problem you're having with the story is that you're obsessing over Atlantis when the story isn't really about Atlantis, despite the trappings. It's about the perceived one time greatness of ancient Athens as opposed to the reality of Athens of Plato's day. As a literary device Plato had to create a great and powerful Atlantis which was defeated by ancient Athens, in order to compare it's alleged greatness to it's current state during his time.

cormac

The setting of Critias is the panathenaea. The Atlantis myth itself focuses on the prehistoric Athenians. IMO this is why Solon's manuscript was a panegyric, written to record the deeds of Athenians. Of course there is fiction and exaggeration, but there is still a historical substratum. Even skeptic classical scholars (e.g. Naddaf, 1994) who think Atlantis was invented by Plato as fiction do not deny there is still real historical references in the dialogues, why not just extend this to Atlantis?

Edited February 6, 2014 by OliverDSmith

[cormac mac airt]

The setting of Critias is the panathenaea. The Atlantis myth itself focuses on the prehistoric Athenians. IMO this is why Solon's manuscript was a panegyric, written to record the deeds of Athenians. Of course there is fiction and exaggeration, but there is still a historical substratum. Even skeptic classical scholars (e.g. Naddaf, 1994) who think Atlantis was invented by Plato as fiction do not deny there is still real historical references in the dialogues, why not just extend this to Atlantis?

Why extend this to Atlantis? In over 2300 years has anyone ever shown evidence of the existance of a place, that predates Plato's story and as a minimum can be textually supported by Solon himself as having known about it, ever been shown to have existed by any name that has been translated by any peoples but more specifically the Athenians or Egyptians into "Atlantis"? I can answer that for you. No, definitely not. Could there be real historical references in Timaeus, absolutely, but this in itself does not make said references a factual place known as Atlantis. Your "extension" at this point goes to the point of being ridiculous if one is actually expecting to find a real place by that name.

cormac

Edited February 6, 2014 by cormac mac airt

[Atlantisresearch]

What a great thread to present my new articles, translated now into English - they fit very well!

Atlantis Newsletter 70: What is Atlantis / Labyrinth of Atlantis

Dear readers,

one article from 2013 is now available in English, another one is completely new and intended for newcomers to the Atlantis topic - but it may be inspiring even for "old hands":

New: What is Atlantis?

An academically reliable Introduction in intentionally short but very precise Words

Translated: The Labyrinth of Atlantis:

Meanderings and Dead Ends of Atlantis Research

Enjoy!

Subscribe newsletter here!

Interesting reading however I come to the opposite conclusion. You write:

We could see that the Atlantis account defines stubbornly all-too straightforward interpretations.

In contrast I argue for Occam's razor.

http://atlantisresearch.wordpress.com/atlantis/

[jaylemurph]

No, he was a polemist who knew you could use fiction as well as fact and a blend of fiction and fact to better make his points.

Perhaps more to your point, as I mentioned previously, /as a playwright/ Plato would have been able to do this particularly well.

--Jaylemurph

[kmt_sesh]

Yet no skeptic doubts Solon visited Cyprus. Why the double standard when it comes to Egypt?

Sorry for the delay in replying.

I couldn't tell you what percentage of skeptics deny Solon visited Egypt and how many agree with it. I guess I fit the category of skeptic but I have no problem believing Solon visited Egypt. My point was that one must take care with exaggerations—to wit, in what capacity was Solon in Egypt? I maintain that if he went to Egypt, it was as a tourist. The very portion of the dialogue in which the Egyptian priest is relating records to Solon underscores how unrealistic that portion of Plato's tale really is. That's another point I always try to make.

The focus of the Atlantis myth is actually prehistoric Athens. The Athenians forgot their history and the war they waged with the Atlanteans. You miss the point entirely if you are expecting "Egyptian traditional beliefs". Also we don't have Solon's manuscript, Critias is only summarizing what Solon heard and recorded.

I would alter your phrase "prehistoric Athens" to simply "Athens" (the Athens of Plato's time), which is the whole gist of the allegory. But you've again missed my point in what the priest was saying to Solon, which happens to be critical to the tale. And yet what the priest says to Plato is definitively not what an Egyptian priest would even say. I don't wish to put words in your mouth nor can I assess thus far what your background is in the studies of ancient Egypt, but if you were well acquainted with the subject, you would fully understand what I mean. And it is very important.

In point of fact we have absolutely nothing from the writings of Solon to verify his Egyptian encounters with the priest. In other words, there is no proof outside of Plato's tale that Solon ever visited an Egyptian temple and talked at length with a priest. We have only Plato saying that he did, for the sake of a tale. This is insufficient. Critical analysis does not allow us to accept it as is.

This is an old straw man from skeptics. No serious scholar who argues Atlantis was historically real takes everything in Plato literally.

Actually my point here is important. It goes to show the lengths to which Greek writers would embellish a story through the biased filter of Greek eyes. We see it prominently displayed in other Greek myths such as the Iliad. This doesn't make the Greek writers "dishonest," it merely demonstrates a form of literary license that was perfectly acceptable in its time. And, with respect, your point here is counter-productive. What are we supposed to take literally, and what should we avoid? How to walk through this minefield? On balance the details of Plato's story do not conform to orthodox history and extant evidence.

Actually as Luce (1978) notes: "the literary of the genre of the fictitious 'True History' had not yet appeared" (when Plato was writing). So now what?

I believe the "true history fiction" came a century or more after Plato. This fact alone makes the skeptic position untenable.

Luce would be demonstrably mistaken, as evidenced by the Iliad and The Histories and other important works. It has to be stated, the "believer's" position is self-defeating. An argument in favor of an historical Atlantis must by definition ignore the sum total of our historical knowledge base of the ancient Mediterranean region.

It doesn't make sense to use Solon as a literary device to give Atlantis credibility by saying Atlantis is "true", repeatedly call him trustworthy and wise, but then claim he never held such a position that Atlantis existed... This is essentially calling him a liar. Also this doesn't explain why. Why go through all that trouble if Atlantis is nothing more than from Plato's imagination? Again no skeptic can answer.

My apologies, but this is missing the obvious.

The historical Atlantis would have been nothing spectacular. Of course, if you think otherwise, no wonder you are a skeptic.

We're back to the quagmire of deciding what in the Atlantis story is acceptable and what is clear fiction. Cherry-pikcing is not a good approach to historical inquiry. Any of us can allow for historical events that might have influenced Plato when he wrote the allegory—such as the Thera eruption or, more likely, the destruction of Helike in Plato's own time—but in the end we can only speculate.

I'll confess I'm still not completely sure of your own position. You seem to be arguing for the historicity of Atlantis, but perhaps in a limited fashion. This brings me back to Thera or Helike as real events and sources of inspiration, but the wider story itself is unrealistic based on our extant knowledge of ancient Mediterranean cultures. Athens itself, for example, was a backwater village of little importance until the Peisistratid tyranny, and did not become a real player in ancient Greece until the onset of the Persian wars. Plato was inventing a history for his beloved city-state that simply does not survive scrutiny. That's only one point to make, so I'll leave it at that for now.

[kmt_sesh]

Been here before and we agreed as you say Solon most likely did visit. To what extent? More than just a tourist imo - but probably not as a dignitary - but privy to more than your regular Joe.

Herodotus: "Amasis was partial to the Greeks, and among other favors which he granted them, gave to such as liked to settle in Egypt the city of Naucratis for their residence."

The place he would have went was Naucratis. Going to Sais to visit 'Athena's' temple would have been a natural thing to do while there on "fair Canopus' shore". Any other time I'd say, probably didn't visit the temple, but in Amasis reign, it seems highly likely that he did.

Archaeological evidence suggests that the history of the ancient Greeks in Egypt dates back at least to Mycenaean times and more likely even further back into the proto-Greek Minoan age. This history is strictly one of commerce as no permanent Greek settlements have been found of these cultures to date.

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

I think it's very likely the priests of the Delta area were aware of the ancient Greeks history.

Hey, Puzzler. I have no doubt the Egyptians of the Late Period were well acquainted with the Greeks. It behooved them (the Egyptians) to be well aware of a people who could become (and would become) an important source for mercenaries. But I've always been a bit suspect of Herodotus' spin on Naucratis. He looks at it with rose-colored eyes and through the filter of Greek bias, which naturally dictated that the Greeks themselves were all important. Nothing unusual about that sentiment: the Egyptians thought they were all important.

Which brings me to my point. The Egyptians were highly xenophobic. In general they did not like or trust foreigners, although they would not hesitate to use foreigners if it benefited them. So I've always thought it equally possible that the Egyptian state allowed Naucratis as a settlement as a means to separate Greek migrants from the Egyptian populace. This has been observed in the archaeology of ancient Egyptian cities and villages, where material culture can reveal in which parts of the cities certain foreigners resided. And more's the case if those Greek settlers also happened to be armed.

Just to be clear, the temple in Sais was dedicated to Neith. The Egyptians themselves did not view it as a temple to Athena, who was part of a foreign pantheon of deities the Egyptians themselves did not venerate. That both Neith and Athena were goddesses of war was a connection attempted by the Greeks, not by the Egyptians. And the Egyptians were never fond of allowing foreigners into their primary state temples. For that matter, native Egyptian commoners were rarely allowed to.

[Van Gorp]

IMO: Plato must be a deceiver to insert the ancient Athens story if not an historical base.

When thinking it as only myth, no reason to admire the rest of his work.

There is no way if you want to use it as a mere tool to bring accross a point, that you should stress the fact that Solon confirmed it as a fact.

This is a bridge too far for a genuine philospher on truth.

No arguments seen to explain this fact.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Van Gorp

[jaylemurph]

IMO: Plato must be a deceiver to insert the ancient Athens story if not an historical base.

...and (perhaps ironically) Plato would certainly agree with you, since in the Republic, he banished all poets as liars.

[A fact I feel like most people who can talk about Plato intelligently would surely be aware, but maybe I over-estimate the amount of Plato one should read to be able to claim to be generally acquainted with his work...]

--Jaylemurph

[Frank Merton]

That the dialogs are highly contrived works of fiction reporting conversations that never took place was I thought well known. That he would invent stories about the ancient past (remember that to the Greeks of that day Atlantis was about the same as the Roman Empire is to us) for his purposes is perfectly understandable and fine with me.

Reading through all this it strikes me that people are not aware that Solon was to Plato something similar to George Washington to modern Americans. That Plato might make reference to a cherry tree that everyone knows is made up to make a rhetorical point seems reasonable.

[The Puzzler]

...and (perhaps ironically) Plato would certainly agree with you, since in the Republic, he banished all poets as liars.

[A fact I feel like most people who can talk about Plato intelligently would surely be aware, but maybe I over-estimate the amount of Plato one should read to be able to claim to be generally acquainted with his work...]

--Jaylemurph

You bought to light a good point.

If Plato disliked liars so much, why indeed does he himself lower himself to this unacceptable standard you do think?

I know Plato doesn't agree with the myths, which is why it really actually seems more of a reason to be real.

Edited February 6, 2014 by The Puzzler

[The Puzzler]

That the dialogs are highly contrived works of fiction reporting conversations that never took place was I thought well known. That he would invent stories about the ancient past (remember that to the Greeks of that day Atlantis was about the same as the Roman Empire is to us) for his purposes is perfectly understandable and fine with me.

Reading through all this it strikes me that people are not aware that Solon was to Plato something similar to George Washington to modern Americans. That Plato might make reference to a cherry tree that everyone knows is made up to make a rhetorical point seems reasonable.

Hello Frank,

Sure, it all sounds perfectly reasonable to think that on the surface, I totally get his philosophical message too, but when you start breaking it down, there is many reasons to think there's more to it as he starts his dialogue to explain to how a story that's a myth is actually a real event, whatever that may be, as Phaethon, that's just the first clue.

[jaylemurph]

You bought to light a good point.

If Plato disliked liars so much, why indeed does he himself lower himself to this unacceptable standard you do think?

I know Plato doesn't agree with the myths, which is why it really actually seems more of a reason to be real.

Well, the Republic wasn't a real place, nor were its laws real laws. But that's obvious. Whatever his ideals were, Plato was willing to be a little more practical in his pedagogy. The fact that he mixed fiction and reality isn't the question here, it's the degree to which he did so. As the recurrence of the topic within the forum proves, the arguments of one side or another are highly unlikely to sway the opposite side.

My own opinion (and that's all it is, after all, an opinion) is -- at least hopefully -- grounded in what I think is the larger context of Plato's work is. If there are contrary opinions that are as informed or more informed opinions than my own -- and there are lots of those here -- if they can show they informed and reasonable*, I'm willing to not belabor the point. Given my own humble profession, I think the most salient point of this discussion is that lots of people are looking at and thinking ciritically about Plato's work. That that thought may not exactly match my own is a secondary consideration.

--Jaylemurph

*And not all of them are.

[The Puzzler]

Hey, Puzzler. I have no doubt the Egyptians of the Late Period were well acquainted with the Greeks. It behooved them (the Egyptians) to be well aware of a people who could become (and would become) an important source for mercenaries. But I've always been a bit suspect of Herodotus' spin on Naucratis. He looks at it with rose-colored eyes and through the filter of Greek bias, which naturally dictated that the Greeks themselves were all important. Nothing unusual about that sentiment: the Egyptians thought they were all important.

Which brings me to my point. The Egyptians were highly xenophobic. In general they did not like or trust foreigners, although they would not hesitate to use foreigners if it benefited them. So I've always thought it equally possible that the Egyptian state allowed Naucratis as a settlement as a means to separate Greek migrants from the Egyptian populace. This has been observed in the archaeology of ancient Egyptian cities and villages, where material culture can reveal in which parts of the cities certain foreigners resided. And more's the case if those Greek settlers also happened to be armed.

Just to be clear, the temple in Sais was dedicated to Neith. The Egyptians themselves did not view it as a temple to Athena, who was part of a foreign pantheon of deities the Egyptians themselves did not venerate. That both Neith and Athena were goddesses of war was a connection attempted by the Greeks, not by the Egyptians. And the Egyptians were never fond of allowing foreigners into their primary state temples. For that matter, native Egyptian commoners were rarely allowed to.

For mercenaries....and trade goods.

It seems to me Naucratis was built for commerce and it probably is true that they (settlers there) moved around the rest of Egypt very little if at all. However, by your reasoning it seems no Greek would have ever set foot in a temple let alone spoken to or been able to learn anything from an Egyptian priest...

Plutarch gives a more detailed description on the Greek philosophers who visited Egypt and received advice by the Egyptian priests in his book On Isis and Osiris. Thus, Thales, Eudoxus, Solon, Pythagoras, (some say Lycurgus also) and Plato, traveled into Egypt and conversed with the priests. Eudoxus was instructed by Chonupheus of Memphis, Solon by Sonchis of Sais and Pythagoras by Oenuphis of Heliopolis

http://en.wikipedia....Sonchis_of_Sais

I'm not here to debate whether Solon spoke with Sonchis but rather to point out that it does not seem all that unusual for this kind of learning to have occurred in Egypt. Culture and mythology, a lot was bought into Greece from Egypt, by these men learned from Egyptian priests. This is repeated over and over in ancient texts, (I'd pull some quotes out but I'm really tired, big day, but I can and will if you want and you know I can and will, so I felt it a bit of a waste of time that I don't have) so I'm finding it a bit hard to grasp that this was such an unusual occurrence as you seem to be implying.

Edited February 6, 2014 by The Puzzler

[The Puzzler]

Well, the Republic wasn't a real place, nor were its laws real laws. But that's obvious. Whatever his ideals were, Plato was willing to be a little more practical in his pedagogy. The fact that he mixed fiction and reality isn't the question here, it's the degree to which he did so. As the recurrence of the topic within the forum proves, the arguments of one side or another are highly unlikely to sway the opposite side.

My own opinion (and that's all it is, after all, an opinion) is -- at least hopefully -- grounded in what I think is the larger context of Plato's work is. If there are contrary opinions that are as informed or more informed opinions than my own -- and there are lots of those here -- if they can show they informed and reasonable*, I'm willing to not belabor the point. Given my own humble profession, I think the most salient point of this discussion is that lots of people are looking at and thinking ciritically about Plato's work. That that thought may not exactly match my own is a secondary consideration.

--Jaylemurph

*And not all of them are.

'the degree to which he did so' - exactly.

[Harte]

Sorry granpa, but writings attributed to Critias within works written by Plato do not support the contention that Critias actually said them. So what actual evidence do you have that Critias said anything that's attributed to him in Plato's Timaeus? Can you provide any independent evidence that would support such a contention?

cormac

Don't hold your breath, considering exactly who Critias was is in question.

There were several.

Harte

[cormac mac airt]

Don't hold your breath, considering exactly who Critias was is in question.

There were several.

Harte

Not to worry, I won't be holding my breath any time soon. I do find it hilarious however that anyone would attempt to use a text to support its own claims.

cormac

[Atlantisresearch]

Dropides ---> Critias II ---> Leaides ---> Critias III (speaker of dialogues).

It's just that Critias III was once misidentified as Critias IV the "tyrant".

The reason for this is only in 1949 was inscriptional evidence mentioning Critias son of Leaides discovered.

All the Critias' are also related from the same family, so its not an inconsistency at all. Quite the opposite, the stress of Solon's manuscript being passed down to Dropides descendants argues it was a real historical source. Remember Plato is also related to Critias III (the latter his grandfather or great-grandfather).

Edited February 6, 2014 by OliverDSmith

[Atlantisresearch]

I would alter your phrase "prehistoric Athens" to simply "Athens" (the Athens of Plato's time), which is the whole gist of the allegory. But you've again missed my point in what the priest was saying to Solon, which happens to be critical to the tale. And yet what the priest says to Plato is definitively not what an Egyptian priest would even say. I don't wish to put words in your mouth nor can I assess thus far what your background is in the studies of ancient Egypt, but if you were well acquainted with the subject, you would fully understand what I mean. And it is very important.

The focus of the Atlantis story is prehistoric Athens. Lee (1977) in his translation actually adds [Prehistoric] in most places where Athens appears. The setting is 9000 years before Solon. Of course these dates are not literal (they are exact to decimal) but they stress the early Neolithic. I recommend the book Plato Prehistorian by Mary Settegast as an introduction, however I would argue for a localized setting (she goes off in places and starts writing about Catul Huyak etc).

In point of fact we have absolutely nothing from the writings of Solon to verify his Egyptian encounters with the priest. In other words, there is no proof outside of Plato's tale that Solon ever visited an Egyptian temple and talked at length with a priest. We have only Plato saying that he did, for the sake of a tale. This is insufficient. Critical analysis does not allow us to accept it as is.

There are several ancient sources outside Plato that actually discuss Solon having met Egyptian priests. But yes [before you point out skeptically] they do come after Plato by a few hundred years...

Actually my point here is important. It goes to show the lengths to which Greek writers would embellish a story through the biased filter of Greek eyes. We see it prominently displayed in other Greek myths such as the Iliad. This doesn't make the Greek writers "dishonest," it merely demonstrates a form of literary license that was perfectly acceptable in its time. And, with respect, your point here is counter-productive. What are we supposed to take literally, and what should we avoid? How to walk through this minefield? On balance the details of Plato's story do not conform to orthodox history and extant evidence.

Do you accept Troy as having been a real place? Schliemann had the Iliad in one hand and the spade in the other, I don't see why the same cannot be done for Atlantis. Why are skeptics anti-Atlantis but not anti-Troy?

We're back to the quagmire of deciding what in the Atlantis story is acceptable and what is clear fiction. Cherry-pikcing is not a good approach to historical inquiry. Any of us can allow for historical events that might have influenced Plato when he wrote the allegory—such as the Thera eruption or, more likely, the destruction of Helike in Plato's own time—but in the end we can only speculate.

I'll confess I'm still not completely sure of your own position. You seem to be arguing for the historicity of Atlantis, but perhaps in a limited fashion. This brings me back to Thera or Helike as real events and sources of inspiration, but the wider story itself is unrealistic based on our extant knowledge of ancient Mediterranean cultures. Athens itself, for example, was a backwater village of little importance until the Peisistratid tyranny, and did not become a real player in ancient Greece until the onset of the Persian wars. Plato was inventing a history for his beloved city-state that simply does not survive scrutiny. That's only one point to make, so I'll leave it at that for now.

My position is that Atlantis was a real place while denying anything spectacular about the island. Robert Scranton (whose theory is closest to mine) argued that Atlantis was a Neolithic drainage cove, my identification is with Sesklo. This is why our theories have academic credibility, but don't sell well. The only theories or books on Atlantis that make ££££ are the sensational or crazy ideas.

Edited February 6, 2014 by OliverDSmith

[cormac mac airt]

Do you accept Troy as having been a real place? Schliemann had the Iliad in one hand and the spade in the other, I don't see why the same cannot be done for Atlantis. Why are skeptics anti-Atlantis but not anti-Troy?

Troy was a legend always believed to have existed in Western Turkey and usually associated with either Ilion or Wilusa. Which can't be said for any claims for Atlantis as a place since no such extant claim pre-dates Plato. Also as opposed to the nice story of Schliemann having had the Iliad in one hand and a spade in the other Schliemann didn't actually discover Troy, Frank Calvert did. What Schliemann is responsible for is acquiring the equipment used in his "excavations" and ripping into the hill of Hisarlik indiscriminately. Often finding objects and making pronouncements as to whom they belonged in an effort to support his claim that he'd found objects from the time of the Trojan War and contemporary persons thereof. All the while effectively robbing Calvert of any recognition for his discovery or his efforts in excavating Hisarlik prior to Schliemann's takeover. Schliemann is not a man to be admired here. He was merely an opportunist with an agenda, namely fame and riches.

cormac

[Harte]

Dropides ---> Critias II ---> Leaides ---> Critias III (speaker of dialogues).

It's just that Critias III was once misidentified as Critias IV the "tyrant".

The reason for this is only in 1949 was inscriptional evidence mentioning Critias son of Leaides discovered.

All the Critias' are also related from the same family, so its not an inconsistency at all. Quite the opposite, the stress of Solon's manuscript being passed down to Dropides descendants argues it was a real historical source. Remember Plato is also related to Critias III (the latter his grandfather or great-grandfather).

Critias claimed that he had Solon's manuscript?

Harte