The primary source of the legend of Atlantis is The Timaeus and Critias written by the Greek philosopher, Plato. This is, as far as we know, the only primary source for the legend. All others come later as commentaries, mentions of commentaries, or interpretations of the original text. While there are mentions of Egyptian sources in the Timaeus and Critias no such sources have been found.

That being said, notable Atlantis researchers including Graham Hancock have made reference to two Egyptian sources. One is the hieroglyphs at Edfu and the other is the so-called tale of the shipwrecked mariner. There are overlaps in terms of distant islands and great floods, but there is no real overlap with the Atlantis tale itself.

What type of historical source is the Critias?

Historical resources can broadly be divided into three types:

1. Primary – a source written by someone who participated in the event or someone who was witness to it.
2. Secondary – Accounts, summaries, and analyses based on primary sources be they written or oral tradition. The retelling of an eye witness report would be a secondary source.
3. Tertiary – An account, summary or analysis based upon secondary sources.

Now, it is worth noting that Plato does not make an analysis of the Atlantis story, but just lets Critias tell it. We can perhaps infer that Critias is making an analysis. Furthermore, we must note that Plato is retelling an oral tradition from his family via Critias. 

I would say that Critias is at best, a tertiary account. Let me explain the chain of transmission for the tale, so you can see how complicated and reliable it is:

What is the chain of transmission for Timaeus and Critias?

Critias claims he heard the story from Critias’ grandfather, Dropides, when he had been 10 and the elderly, Dropides, 90. This would have been some time prior to whenever the dialogue is set. Critias does not take credit for provoking his grandfather into telling the story. That action goes to Amynander and relates to a glorious moment in Athenian history.

Now, it is worth noting that Plato gives us a huge clue as to the veracity of the tale in its very setting. Not the dialogue setting, but when Critias heard it. The tale was spun to him on Children’s Day which is part of the festival of Apatouria. Apaturia is the festival of common relationships where children come of age. They are also given prizes by their fathers if they are able to recite stories. It is said that Solon’s poetry was quite popular that year. However, Apaturia is associated with deceit in folk etymologies.

Dropides, himself, got the story from Solon himself, who travelled to Egypt in around 600 BC. While in Egypt, Solon visits a temple in Sais, set within the vast delta of the Nile river. He met the Pharaoh Amasis II, who was born there, and met the head priest. This temple was the centre of worship for the Goddess Neith.

There Solon tells the story of Deucalion and Pyrrha, and how they survived a great flood. In return, the Egyptian priest tells him that the Greeks are mere children by comparison to the Egyptians, and he goes on to tell the tale of Athens and Atlantis – noting that he has changed the names to be more Egyptian, and Solon notes he has changed them further to be more Greek. He talks of these cities and a great  disaster which occurred 9,000 years earlier. This story was eventually written down by the Egyptians.

Is Critias’ Account of Atlantis Reliable?

So, in short, according to Plato, the story of Atlantis was relayed by an older man as remembered from a tale he heard when he was 10, told by a 90 year old man who had heard it himself when he had been but a child. That story, already third hand, was told to Solon by people who had written it down thousands of years earlier. No. The Critias is not a reliable account at all.

When did Plato write Timaeus and Critias?

Plato wrote Timaeus and Critias some time around 360 BC though the book itself would seem to have been set far earlier (Socrates, the main host of the dialogue, was executed in 399 BC). This would have Plato in his mid-to-late 60s, and deep into his philosophical and life journeys. Here’s a timeline of some relevant events:

1. Socrates executed 399
2. First trip to Sicily 390-388
3. The Republic 380-370s
4. Second trip to Sicily 366-365
5. The Statesman (Politics) 360s
6. Third trip to Sicily 361-360
7. Timaeus and Critias c.360
8. The Laws 350s-340s

Now, the book itself comes after Socrates is executed and after he wrote The Republic. This is important because (as noted below) Atlantis is set up as an ideal opponent to his ideal state, which he has set in Athens. It is also written after his three trips to Sicily where short-lived experiments in his idealism led to him being enslaved and led to him modifying his philosophy. We first see this in The Statesman (Politics).

However, Timaeus and Critias was started and presumably abandoned prior to him composing The Laws. In his laws, Plato modifies his ideal state once again, where he turns against a benevolent tyrant and towards cast iron laws which can be used to keep the ideal state in stasis. The Laws also mention a past apocalypse but make no mention of Atlantis. Finally, he sets his ideal state not as an old version of Athens which can be again, but as a new foundation – the city-state of Magnesia.

What is the oldest copy of the Timeaus and Critias?

Ancient Greek manuscripts, much like early Chritian and Roman ones, do not survive for long – they are written on wax tablets or stone tiles, or if lucky, on papyrus paper. The latter of these is not long lasting, so we often rely on paper made from animal skins – vellum and parchment. Furthermore, until Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press in 1440, copies were made by hand and were therefore subject to scribal error.

The Timaeus and the Critias were preserved as separate texts even though we now know them to be linked. Our earliest copies of Critias date back to the 9th century AD. There are many Greek manuscripts for Timaeus and Critias. 55 of them were studied by Gijsbert Jonkers. Within these a great many variations and discrepancies were found. This means, when translators such as Sir Desmond Lee (who translated my Penguin Classics edition) discovered such variations, they had to discern which were more likely to have been originals and which were scribal errors or additions.

Furthermore, the text was known in Plato’s day and afterwards. We know, for example, that some of it (27d-47b) was translated into Latin by Marcus Tullius Cicero in around 45 BC. Later on, Calcidius translated up to section 53C in the 4th century AD. Monastic scholars preserved his Latin translation where it influenced neoplatonism. It is worth noting, however, these Latin translations only cover the cosmological elements of the work and not the Atlantean ones.

What does the primary source say about Atlantis?

Both the Critias and the Timaeus mention Atlantis, though it is the former which covers it in most depth. Of course, there is too much information contained within for me to cover in this article, but here are some quick summaries:

1. The Timaeus

In the Timaeus, Critias offers Atlantis as a worthy opponent to Socrates’ ideal state. He mentions the tale of the tale as outlined above, how it had a great lineage of kings, and gives some information on its location. The location was said to be beyond the Pillars of Hercules where the Atlantic was then still navigable but before one reached the true ocean. He finishes by noting that the sea swallowed the city and it now sat just below the surface.

2. The Critias

Here Critias goes into great detail. So he covers the mythical founding of Atlantis, the founding kings, its precise geography, how they shaped the island and laid out the city, its full nature, some notes on its empire, and then how it came to fall, but this tale remains unfinished.

Is The Critias a historical tale or an example of literary depth?

What do I mean by literary depth? Take a look at the works of J.R.R. Tolkien. There are several reasons why his work stands out above all others and one of the most important ones is depth. Tolkien built up layers and layers of depth in his stories be they linguistic, historical, ecological or cultural. All this makes the world feel more real and therefore believable. This is something most fantasy writers and those trying to adapt him fail to realise (hello Rings of Power).

Was Plato attempting the same? As part of his creation of the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien included notes on how the text had been translated into modern English and the names with it. He had worked out the real in-world names of characters and places as well as their names translated for an English speaking audience. That’s some depth.

I would argue that Plato may have been attempting the same with his Atlantis tale. If, and it is a big if, he did invent the whole tale rather than say taking an existing tale and adapting it to his need for a worthy opponent to his ideal state, then providing a narrative backstory to the story itself adds a layer of depth. 

He would be able to say, here is a tale of a place which had its own names, but which were changed for an Egyptian audience long before anyone breathing in that day had been born. That tale was then translated for a Greek audience by the Egyptians and Solon, so the older versions were lost, but the Greeks had their tale. Furthermore, he created a chain of transmission from Solon to Critias via Critias’ grandfather.

Was this story believed in Plato’s own day?

Plato’s most notable student, Aristotle, came to the conclusion that his teacher invented the island of Atlantis to make a philosophical point. However, Crantor – the student of another student of Plato’s, Xnocrates, believed in the tale. Crantor is quoted by a much later neoplatonist called Proclus, as having said there were hieroglyphs telling the tale of Atlantis in Sais. These have never been found. Naturally, more believers found the need to write about it than those who did not.