Review of: Emilia Di Rocco, Atlantide nel Medioevo: una storia interrotta?, 2026.
Reviewed by: Thorwald C. Franke 27 August 2026.
When I started reading Emilia di Rocco's article from the Atlantis conference in Turin, I was surprised: She was asking the exact same question which I had asked in my book "Kritische Geschichte" about Plato's Atlantis in the Middle Ages: Whether it is really true that the Middle Ages were silent about Plato's Atlantis. And the Medieval authors who wrote about Atlantis presented by her were more or less the same authors I had found. This is strange, for I am not an expert for the Middle Ages and therefore I found these authors over several years in a random process. It is not very likely that someone else will find a list of Medieval authors so similar to mine.
But there is an explanation: Emilia di Rocco mentions the 2nd edition of my book in footnote 5! So, she knows my book. This explains a lot. And she mentions the book openly in this footnote, which is good. So, all good, all fine? Unfortunately, not.
Because Emilia di Rocco has forgotten to mention, that the basic research question of her article (whether it is really true that the Middle Ages were silent about Plato's Atlantis) is exactly my research question. And she has forgotten to mention, that she has based her article more or less on Medieval authors I had found.
Instead, the reader gets only a very general information about my book in footnote 5 which simply says:
"For the evolution of the myth from antiquity to the modern era, see Franke 2021."
(Original: "Per le ramificazioni del mito dall'Antichita all'epoca moderna, si veda Franke 2021.")
Thus, the reader cannot avoid to think that Franke's book is following the old paradigm which is questioned in this article, i.e., that it is a description of Atlantis authors in antiquity and in modern times, with a huge gap in the Middle Ages.
It will not come to the mind of the reader, on the basis of footnote 5, that my book already had asked and answered, what Emilia di Rocco is asking and answering in her article.
Now, not to have mentioned my book in an appropriate way is a dangerous forgetfulness. Someone could have the idea that this is a subtle form of plagiarism. There is nothing wrong with taking over the research from others, and it is even meritorious to bring the research of others into another language (here: From German to Italian). But only when paying appropriate tribute to the original researcher.
This is the list of Medieval authors presented by Emilia di Rocco, which I had presented, too (among others). These authors make 85% of her article. Not only the authors, partly also the discussion of the authors and the sources given about these authors show striking similarities. Some of the authors are known to everybody, e.g. Calcidius. But Theodoric the Monk and Vincentius Kadlubek? As authors about Atlantis?! These are very rare random findings. Also Coluccio Salutati is such a rare random finding. It cannot be avoided to say that the similarities are obvious.
Now, you would think that Emilia di Rocco has produced an article of similar quality to Thorwald C. Franke's chapter on Plato's Atlantis in the Middle Ages. But this is not the case. Emilia di Rocco managed to wreck the topic entirely.
The first problem is that Emilia di Rocco is not capable of handling the Atlantis topic properly. She constantly speaks of the "myth" of Atlantis, even if it is about authors who think Atlantis is real. Or she translates "Atlantic sea" with "Atlantic Ocean" (p. 120) which is a very bad idea in the context of Atlantis. In the section about Gautier de Metz, Emilia di Rocco writes that not an earth quake, as in Plato, but god is punishing the Atlanteans (p. 118). But also in Plato, the gods are, of course, punishing the Atlanteans! She has really no deep insight into the topic.
Another problem is that Emilia di Rocco has no expertise in judging the literature on Plato's Atlantis. For example, she cites Pierre Vidal-Naquet as a source for an occurance of Atlantis in a Medieval legend. But everybody who has read Pierre Vidal-Naquet carefully knows that Vidal-Naquet is not reliable, that he often wanted to see Atlantis in authors and texts, where there was simply no talk of Atlantis! This has even been pointed out in academic reviews, e.g. by Heinz-Günther Nesselrath (BMCR 2008.08.22).
Even worse, Emilia di Rocco attempts to give evidence for some of her theses by pointing to pseudo-scientific authors! Among them is Emmet John Sweeney, an ardent believer in the ideas of – horribile est dictu – Immanuel Velikovsky (foonote 18). Or she points to Ignatius Donnelly. Yes, the godfather of atlantology is given as evidence in a footnote by Emilia di Rocco (footnote 18).
Really annoying is that Emilia di Rocco has no clear criteria when to speak of a mentioning of Plato's Atlantis story. She repeatedly confuses the mentioning of the dialogue Timaeus with a mentioning of the Atlantis story. But this is not the same. Or, she follows the idea that the Timaeus-Critias was used as a role model for narrating and transmitting stories, and therefore she wants to see Atlantis whereever a story is narrated, no matter which story! With this method, she sees Atlantis in the "Historia Regum Britanniae" of Geoffrey of Monmouth, in the "Roman de Rou" of Wace, in the "Book of Lismore", in the "Song of Roland", and in the legend of Saint Brendan. Though the basic idea of a role model for narration is valid, this is simply "too much". It is very "Vidal-Naquet-esque".
But also concerning the literature about the Middle Ages, Emilia di Rocco shows severe mistakes. She claims that traditional Celtic myths and the Atlantis story merged and coalesced. But as evidence for this extraordinary claim she is pointing to a book about Thomas More (footnote 20), written by an author (Paolo Giulisano) who is a surgeon and a fan of Chesterton and Tolkien, who has written at least 45 books (!) about the most diverse topics. This author may have his merits (who does not like Chesterton and Tolkien?), but he is certainly not an authority for the fate of Plato's Atlantis in the Middle Ages!
About the commentary on the Timaeus by Calcidius Emilia di Rocco writes: "This commentary omits entirely the story told by Critias", i.e. the Atlantis story (p. 113; original: "il commento omette del tutto la storia raccontata da Crizia."). – It is sad to say, but this is just wrong. Of course does the commentary of Calcidius make a statement about the Atlantis story, though short it is! This is important, and Emilia di Rocco has overlooked it.
In her list of late ancient works which unfolded great influence in the Middle Ages, at least the following authors are missing: Augustine, Dionysius Areopagita, and Isidore of Seville.
An important passage in Martianus Capella is given by her with "consumptae telluris". But the manuscript I had seen had no "p" in "consumptae".
Emilia di Rocco speaks of the Middle Ages in general, but she has completely forgotten that the Middle Ages did not only take place in Western Europe. In fact, she is talking only about the Latin world, while the Byzantine world and the Islamic world are entirely neglected by her. But also there, Plato's Atlantis story was read and transmitted.
Emilia di Rocco shows severe flaws concerning her basic academic skills. The problems are manifold. There is, e.g., no chronological overview in her article. Neither are the authors presented in a chronological order (it is a mess), nor is there a table providing overview. No date is given, when an author lived.
Absolutely not helpful is that Emilia di Rocco repeatedly says that Atlantis allegedly "submerged" again "in discourse", somewhere in the middle of the Middle Ages, only to add that Atlantis yet was still alive e.g. among Medieval philosophers (especially p. 116). This is just contradictory.
The given bibliographical data is often flawed. E.g., the name of Ignatius Donnelly is written with one "l" only: "Donnely" (footnote 18). Time and again sources are given without a page or paragraph number (e.g. footnote 20, footnote 26). For Sweeneys book, a chapter title is given which does not exist in this book (footnote 18).
Concerning the "lost" island of Gaunilo, Emilia di Rocco gives a source I had given on Gaunilo, too, which says that Gaunilo's island is Atlantis. But she just omitted my criticism of this thesis, and prefers to turn to one of her favorite statements: The memory of Atlantis is "submerged" (again "in discourse"?) but allegedly not yet completely absent in Gaunilo's island (p. 117). It is, and it is not.
This principle of contradictory statements has its climax in the discussion of Honorius Augustodunensis. Here, not only the quote about the island of Atlantis is given from the work of Honorius Augustodunensis, but also a quote about a "lost" island, which is just not the same island. The two quotes are separated in the original text by several lines, and in between, there is talk of an entirely different island, i.e., the island of Meroe in the river Nile. What does Emilia di Rocco make of it?
First, she says that these two quotes refer to two islands which are not the same. So far so good. – But then she says: "It almost seems as if the Augustodunense, in the myth of Atlantis, reconciles both the image of the lost land and the Celtic tradition of the hero from the Navigatio Sancti Brendani." (p. 118; original: "Sembra quasi che l'Augustodunense nel mito di Atlantide riconcilii sia l'immagine della terra perduta sia la tradizione celtica dell'eroe della Navigatio Sancti Brendani.")
This is not a rational argument, this is a suggestive insinuation against the facts. Academic publications should be free of such talk.
Emilia di Rocco has inserted a few helpful additions in her article which are not in my book. Among them is (potentially) everything which can be derived (with care and caution) from the works of Sarah-Jane Murray, Tullio Gregory, and Anna Somfai.
This is a bad article. Do not rely on it. Do not cite it without a caveat statement. When using it, be prepared to encounter mistakes, contradictory ideas, missing information, and pseudo-science. Check all the sources provided. Compare with Thorwald C. Franke's chapters about Atlantis in Late Antiquity and in the Middle Ages in his book "Kritische Geschichte".
From a more general perspective, academia has to be careful not to lose its credibility. Without the spirit of humanism, there is no academia anymore, but only a barbaric betrayal business and a petty power play. Classical virtues like truthfulness and rationality are not only good for ancient philosophers, they are a survival condition of our modern Western world.
Emilia Di Rocco, Atlantide nel Medioevo: una storia interrotta?, in: Valentina Monateri / Rebecca Penna (eds.), Atlantide, Atlantidi: Dal mito platonico all’ invenzione di mondi fantastici, proceedings of the Convegno Internazionale "Atlantide, Atlantidi. Dal mito platonico all'invenzione di mondi fantastici", 20./21.11.2024 Turin Aula Magna Liceo Gioberti, Vol. 120 of the series: Hellenica, Edizioni dell' Orso, Novi Ligure (Alessandria, Piemont) 2026; pp. 113-126.
Thorwald C. Franke, Kritische Geschichte der Meinungen und Hypothesen zu Platons Atlantis – von der Antike über das Mittelalter bis zur Moderne, 2nd enhanced edition in 2 volumes, published by Books on Demand, Norderstedt 2021. First edition was 2016 in one volume. (Chapters about Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Volume I, pp. 166-198, 241-297)