At a conference of academic Atlantis sceptics held in Turin in 2024, Heinz-Günther Nesselrath presented his current views on the ancient reception of Plato's account of Atlantis. The conference proceedings were published in 2026. Nesselrath's paper is a response to the theses put forward by Thorwald C. Franke, which appeared in 2010 and 2016 in the books "Aristotle and Atlantis" and "Kritische Geschichte der Meinungen und Hypothesen zu Platons Atlantis" (with later enhanced editions and – until now – one English translation; see the bibliography below).
This is the first time that Heinz-Günther Nesselrath has published his rethinking on Aristotle and Atlantis and his thesis on Eratosthenes as an alternative to Aristotle in an academic publication. In some instances, he argues explicitly with or against Thorwald C. Franke (who is described as an "important German Atlantologist"). In some instances, however, Franke is not mentioned at all, even though the entire article can be read as a response to Franke's theses.
Nesselrath correctly observes that the idea of primeval Athens and Atlantis is unlikely to have existed outside the circle of Plato's followers at first (p. 75).
Two points would be worth adding: Firstly, with Plato's dialogue Timaeus, the basic information about Plato's Atlantis was, of course, very much in the public domain. Anyone who wished to read it could do so. The dialogue Critias, however – one might assume – remained unpublished until Plato's death and was only published posthumously. Secondly, a belief in the truth of primeval Athens and Atlantis naturally also required a belief in Plato's cyclical view of history, which is unlikely to have been widely accepted outside Plato's circle of followers.
Nesselrath fails to mention that, in their works, Isocrates and Plato engaged in a silent dialogue on the question of whether Plato had modelled his ideas on the ideal state on the example of Egypt. This debate will play a role in the reception of his work.
Nesselrath still maintains that Theopompus's Meropis is a clearly recognisable allusion to Plato's story of Atlantis; Nesselrath even speaks of "proof" (p. 75; "prova"). Unfortunately, Nesselrath does not address the arguments put forward by Franke against this view. Franke's arguments are dismissed with the general remark that a parody would naturally contain deviations; otherwise, it would not be a parody (p. 77).
Yet Franke's arguments are too sound to be rejected in this manner. Some of these arguments can be summarised as follows:
Nesselrath claims that it would have been possible to know, even before Franke's study, that Aristotle had made no explicit statement about Atlantis (p. 77). Here, Nesselrath has made a logical error, for it was, of course, generally accepted "knowledge" prior to Franke's study that the invention statement in Strabo 2.3.6 is a word of Aristotle.
Franke's study of the "implicit argument" – that is, the question of what can be inferred indirectly from Aristotle's statements regarding the Atlantis question – is presented by Nesselrath in an overly simplified manner: Franke is said to infer agreement with the existence of Atlantis from Aristotle's silence (p. 78), and to jump to the conclusion that Aristotle's agreement with certain aspects of the Atlantis narrative implies agreement with the entire Atlantis narrative (p. 78, footnote 6: mud).
Yet Franke's argument is not quite so simple. Firstly, he does not proceed on the basis of attributing a clear "all-or-nothing" opinion, but rather attempts to capture Aristotle's view using concepts such as uncertainty, inclination, tendency and probability. Franke also puts forward a whole series of additional arguments, for example, that Aristotle, surprisingly, leaves the mud off Gibraltar without offering an alternative explanation to Atlantis – and this in a work whose central theme is precisely such geological phenomena. Or that Aristotle offers clear and direct criticism of Plato regarding other Platonic Myths. Or that Aristotle appears to share Plato's cyclical view of history, which is a prerequisite for accepting the reality of Atlantis. Or that several of Aristotle's followers and successors explicitly spoke out in favour of the existence of Atlantis, including Theophrastus and Posidonius.
Nesselrath acknowledges that Franke has successfully undermined the certainty with which Aristotle was regarded as the author of the passage on invention in Strabo 2.3.6 (p. 78). For Nesselrath, this does not mean that Aristotle can be ruled out as the author, but that his authorship has become highly uncertain.
It is incorrect, though, to suggest – as Nesselrath does – that it has hitherto been merely "hypothesised" that Aristotle was the author (p. 78; "ipotizzato"). No, these were not merely "hypotheses". It was presented as more or less certain and common "knowledge", as a settled matter.
Nesselrath refuses to accept that a statement by Theophrastus concerning Atlantis (as a real place), which has come down to us via Philo, is in fact a statement by Theophrastus. In this regard, he refers to Robert W. Sharples, who, in his commentary on Theophrastus, lists a whole series of authors who, over the last 150 years, have doubted that this or that passage in the longer section – which, according to Philo, is attributed to Theophrastus – actually originates from Theophrastus.
In response to this, it must be said that these doubts were never substantiated; indeed, they were even refuted, as in the case of the doubts regarding the account of Atlantis (Colson, Runia; see below). What remains is a general scepticism, a sort of "gut feeling". Sharples sums this up by saying, "It is not clear". However, this doubt must be regarded as weak, for it has no substance and stems solely from the impression created by a long series of historical doubts about this or that passage, all of which proved to be unfounded. Specifically regarding the passages that can be traced back to Plato's Timaeus – and this includes the statement on Atlantis – Sharples cites more recent authors who put forward strong arguments that they actually originate with Theophrastus. David N. Sedley is particularly worth mentioning here; by drawing a comparison with Lucretius, who also drew (indirectly) on Theophrastus, he is able to show that these passages derive directly from Plato's Timaeus: "I strongly suspect that the Timaean material was already included by Theophrastus". (Sharples (1998) p. 132 with footnote 365, 134 ff.; Sedley (1998) pp. 172, 177)
Nesselrath also objects that Theophrastus is named as the author only at the very beginning of this long passage, but not again for a long time afterwards (p. 79, footnote 13). In response to this, it can be argued that the passage is clearly structured – namely into four arguments and four counter-arguments – and is thus, despite its length, held together very cohesively in terms of content. Nor are any other authors mentioned in the middle of the passage to whom the statements about Atlantis might otherwise have been attributed. Although Pindar and Homer are mentioned, they lived well before Plato and can hardly be considered as authors of a statement about Atlantis.
Nesselrath also refers to Colson and Runia (p. 79), who have suggested that the passage on Atlantis was inserted at a later date. However, Nesselrath fails to mention that Colson gives no (!) reason for this, whilst the only (!) reason put forward by Runia is Aristotle's authorship of the statement regarding the invention in Strabo 2.3.6. Yet this argument is invalid. Runia openly admits that there is only "scanty evidence" for his thesis of a later insertion. The invalidity of Colson's and Runia's arguments can be read about in Franke's publication.
Nesselrath's arguments for removing Theophrastus from the list of authors of Plato's Atlantis are entirely insufficient. Incidentally, Pierre Vidal-Naquet had no difficulty whatsoever in acknowledging Theophrastus's authorship (though he had tucked it away in a footnote).
At the start of his discussion of Crantor, Nesselrath throws in a rhetorical stun grenade. He writes that Crantor was the first person of note of whom we know that he did not regard Atlantis as a mere invention (p. 80; original: "Questo fa di Crantore la prima persona di spicco a noi nota che non considerò Atlantide una mera invenzione di Platone, ma un dato di fatto").
This rhetoric sounds as though it had been common practice before Crantor to interpret Atlantis as a mere invention. But Nesselrath has no evidence whatsoever for this! He is merely insinuating it rhetorically here.
It also remains unsaid that the first wave of scepticism regarding the Atlantis narrative is likely to have originated with anti-Platonists. Here, it would have been helpful to mention the silent debate between Plato and Isocrates referred to above, to which Crantor presumably also alludes.
Nesselrath correctly (albeit somewhat curtly) refutes arguments that Crantor was not in fact the subject of the crucial sentence in Proclus's text, or that Crantor did not view Atlantis as a historical reality.
Nesselrath correctly refers to the debate at the time as to whether Athens or Sais was the older city, and that attitudes towards the question of Atlantis's reality may well have depended on this perspective (p. 81).
Nesselrath makes no mention whatsoever of the possibility that Crantor might actually have known of Egyptian stelae on which the story of Atlantis was inscribed. Admittedly, we do not know which stelae Crantor was actually referring to. But this possibility must not simply be ruled out entirely. In a forthcoming publication, Thorwald C. Franke will specifically identify several such stelae which could have formed the historical background to Crantor's account.
Elsewhere, Nesselrath had downplayed Crantor's significance as an important member of Plato's Academy in order to discredit his testimony. This has been omitted here, which is a good thing.
Here, Nesselrath presents his idea that the author of the invention statement in Strabo 2.3.6 is, with a fair degree of probability, Eratosthenes of Cyrene. This is certainly possible, but far from certain. It is, in principle, to be welcomed that a new line of thought regarding the true author of this statement on invention has begun.
Unfortunately, Nesselrath fails to refer to Franke's arguments for and against this thesis, which are contained in the second edition of the book "Kritische Geschichte" from 2021 (pp. 133–136).
It would also have been helpful if Nesselrath had mentioned that Professor James P. Romm, too, put forward the theory several years ago that the author of the invention statement in Strabo 2.3.6 might have come from the scholarly circles associated with Eratosthenes.
Posidonius's statement regarding the reality of Atlantis is misrepresented by Nesselrath: according to Nesselrath, Posidonius at least argued that the historicity of Atlantis should "not be ruled out from the outset" (p. 82; original: "si schierò almeno a favore del non rifiuto della storicità di Atlantide fin dall'inizio").
This is incorrect. Posidonius is uncertain as to whether Atlantis actually existed, but, in response to sceptics, Posidonius explains that it is better to speak in favour of Atlantis's existence rather than to harbour such scepticism. Posidonius's statement is therefore far more clearly in favour of existence than Nesselrath admits.
Incidentally, Posidonius based his geological considerations closely on Aristotle. Nesselrath fails to mention this either.
It is thoroughly frustrating that, in Strabo 2.3.6, Nesselrath claims to have identified a word by Plato that no one has previously recognised there, and which allegedly makes a quite astonishing statement about the reality of Atlantis. Nesselrath had already put forward this thesis in March 2021 in a non-academic article. The thesis appears here for the first time in an academic publication.
Plato's alleged words are given here in italics: "And on this point he does well to cite the statement of Plato that it is possible that the story about the island of Atlantis is not a fiction. Concerning Atlantis Plato relates that Solon, after having made inquiry of the Egyptian priests, reported ..."(Strabo 2.3.6; translation by Horace Leonard Jones)
Even in the first (German) edition of Franke's book on Aristotle in 2010, it was made clear that this is not a statement by Plato, but a reference to Plato's Timaeus (p. 58; English edition 2012 on p. 50), the content of which is rendered by Strabo (not by Plato) with the word "it is possible". In the enhanced second (German) edition of 2016, Franke added (in the Addenda section in the appendix) that the original Greek text by no means speaks of Plato's "opinion", but rather employs a typically elliptical turn of phrase ("that of Plato"), which most likely refers to Plato's dialogue Timaeus, not to some unknown opinion of Plato that no one has ever heard of, and which, in 2000 years, no one has ever interpreted as being present in this sentence ("Aristoteles und Atlantis", second German edition 2016, p. 164).
Finally, in 2021, in the second edition of his book "Kritische Geschichte", Franke devoted more than four pages to a detailed argument as to why the idea that this represents an unknown word of Plato is simply nonsense ("Kritische Geschichte", 2nd edition, pp. 99-104). It is not only the grammar, but also the illogicality of the statement contained in this alleged word of Plato's that quickly leads to the realisation that this cannot be the case. Franke also presented a better translation of the passage. It reads:
Strabo says:
"And on this point he [Posidonius] does well to cite Plato,
– that it is (indeed) possible
that that (what is said) about the island of Atlantis is likewise not an invention –
about which he [Plato] said (namely the following), ..."
"πρὸς ὃ καὶ τὸ τοῦ
Πλάτωνος εὖ
παρατίθησιν,
– ὅτι
ἐνδέχεται
καὶ
μὴ πλάσμα εἶναι
τὸ περὶ τῆς νήσου
τῆς Ἀτλαντίδος –
περὶ
ἧς ἐκεῖνος
ἱστορῆσαι ..."
The passage between the dashes is not a statement by Plato, but a statement by Strabo about Posidonius about Plato. It is Strabo respectively Posidonius who considers this possible, not Plato. Only then does what Plato says follow, as is explicitly stated. Please note that the ancient Greek original knows no modern commas or dashes.
As early as March 2021, Franke raised the question in an online article: what is the purpose of this strange manoeuvre by Nesselrath? Is this intended to throw another smoke candle and stun grenade into the world regarding Atlantis? "What are Nesselrath's plans with this alleged Plato quote? Is it intended to linger in "scientific" Atlantis literature for the next 100 years, but without ever being discussed when the topic is not Atlantis, just as the alleged Aristotle quote lingered in scientific Atlantis literature for 150 years, whilst it was never taken into account by Aristotle researchers, or Plato researchers not dealing with Atlantis?"
It is regrettable that Nesselrath does not address any of these arguments and objections; indeed, he does not even mention their existence. Furthermore, Nesselrath fails to mention that John V. Luce had already harboured the erroneous idea that this was an unknown word of Plato's. John V. Luce remained alone in this view. And rightly so. The whole business is unnecessary and simply annoying.
Nesselrath believes that it was only now, after and because of Posidonius, that a further debate about Atlantis as a real place began (p. 83). But this is incorrect. For there were several authoritative and clear-cut authors in favour of its existence even before Posidonius, whilst we do not know of a single sceptic from that period who opposed its existence by name.
Nesselrath himself names at least two prominent authors! One is Crantor. The other is, of course, Plato himself, from whom Nesselrath claims to have identified an unknown statement regarding the reality of Atlantis in Strabo 2.3.6! Why did this alleged statement by Plato not have an impact earlier? Perhaps because it is not a statement by Plato?
But there are even more authors predating Posidonius: naturally, Theophrastus, whom Nesselrath refuses to acknowledge. And then there is the testimony of Apollodorus of Athens (ca. 180-120 BC). A passage has been handed down from Apollodorus in which a long list of fantastical tales known at the time is enumerated: Theopompus" Meropis, the island of Panchaia, and so on and so forth – yet one story is missing: Atlantis. Ironically, the alleged origin story of all later fantastical tales is absent. From this, one can conclude with a good, albeit not certain, degree of probability ex negativo that Apollodorus probably did not regard the Atlantis story as an invention. And incidentally, one can conclude that, for Apollodorus, all these fantastical tales did not trace their origins back to the story of Atlantis. Nesselrath could at least have mentioned Apollodorus.
After Posidonius, Nesselrath cites Strabo and Philo, as well as Tertullian, Arnobius and Ammianus Marcellinus (p. 83 ff.). He also cites Pliny the Elder, although the correct interpretation – that Pliny's doubts relate not to the existence but to the size of Atlantis – has been tucked away in a footnote, in which Pliny is moreover described as "credulous" (p. 84, footnote 38: "credulone").
In his book "Kritische Geschichte", Thorwald C. Franke devotes a long chapter to listing many ancient authors who, whilst not mentioning Atlantis directly, make statements that make it highly probable that they believed in Atlantis as a reality. These include, amongst others, Lucius Calvenus Taurus, Atticus Platonicus, Celsus, Theophilus of Antioch, Galen, Hippolytus of Rome, Longinus, Calcidius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Macrobius, Hermias, Damascius and John Philoponus. Nesselrath says nothing about any of these authors.
Plutarch is mentioned, yet Nesselrath passes over his description of the Atlantis story as "logos or mythos" without comment (p. 84 ff.). This is a pity, for Plutarch held a nuanced view.
Then there is Proclus. Here, Nesselrath discusses the various names that later authors claim to have identified for the Egyptian priest who recounted the story of Atlantis to Solon (p. 85). Nesselrath could have mentioned here that the names of the Egyptian priest discovered later are also discussed in Franke's book "Kritische Geschichte", and that – according to Franke – the fact that Plato does not name the priest is a further indication of the story's authenticity (subchapter Exkurs: Der Name des ägyptischen Priesters). Franke also cites another passage by Clement of Alexandria containing names of priests, which Nesselrath overlooks.
Nesselrath wishes to call these name-seekers the first "atlantologists". However, this conflicts with Nesselrath's own findings that these names could well be intended to be historical (p. 85, specifically footnote 41). If one were to ask about the first "atlantologists" (this term is, of course, derogatory), then Solon and the Egyptian priest in Sais would have been the first "atlantologists": For they interpreted the Egyptian original text of the Atlantis story in such a way that they situated Atlantis at the "Pillars of Heracles" – a term which, of course, did not appear in the Egyptian original text, a fact of which Plato was also well aware (Timaeus 24e).
Nesselrath claims that the Platonists of the Roman Imperial period took everything Plato had written seriously (p. 86). However, this conflicts with Nesselrath's own account of the Neoplatonists, some of whom wished to see only fiction and allegory in Plato's story of Atlantis. It should also be borne in mind that Atlantis sceptics have frequently portrayed the Platonist Longinus – regarded as particularly sober and objective – as an Atlantis sceptic himself, which he, however – as is so often the case – probably was not at all (see Franke's review of Männlein-Robert: Longinus).
With regard to Dionysius Scytobrachion and his Atlantioi, Nesselrath reiterates his thesis that older myths were interpreted here in a (simplistic) rationalistic and euhemeristic manner (p. 87), only to claim at the same time that Dionysius Scytobrachion undertook reinterpretations and collages that contradict this principle and are more commonly associated with novelists (pp. 88 ff.). A few pages later, Nesselrath does indeed compare Dionysius Scytobrachion with the putative novelist Marcellus: an invalid comparison (p. 93).
According to Franke, the Atlantioi of Dionysius Scytobrachion have absolutely nothing to do with Plato's Atlantis, just as Herodotus's Atlantes likewise have nothing to do with Plato's Atlantis. A reverse-engineering of the euhemeristic interpretation leads to entirely different sources, but not to Atlantis, as Franke demonstrates (in his book "Kritische Geschichte"). Unfortunately, Nesselrath makes no mention whatsoever of this interpretation. Nor does he argue against it.
Nesselrath and Franke are in agreement regarding the interpretation of Aelianus and Marcellus. Nesselrath points out that Franke considers Nesselrath's conjecture regarding the nature and origin of these texts to be "plausible" (p. 90, footnote 54).
The debate about the history of reception in antiquity has changed significantly as a result of Thorwald C. Franke's work. Theophrastus is no longer relegated to a footnote. Crantor is no longer confined to Proclus in late antiquity. Posidonius is no longer classified as a "sceptic". Nor is Strabo. Nor is Pliny. Nor is Plutarch. Nor is Proclus. And the mistaken belief that Aristotle was the author of the invention statement in Strabo 2.3.6 has been shattered. The supporters of the invention thesis are fighting their last battle.
Unfortunately, Nesselrath very often avoids addressing Franke's arguments. In some cases, he merely summarises Franke's theses superficially. In others, Franke is not mentioned at all. Unfortunately, this approach is insufficient to convince on a rational level. Nesselrath's attempt to construct a history of reception in which the invention thesis still holds sway can be regarded as having failed.
It should also be noted that in the first 500 years after Plato, there was practically no (!) Atlantis sceptic known by name. Even Nesselrath cannot name one, however much he tries to rhetorically insinuate that the thesis of Atlantis being an invention was an allegedly early and initial view. Numenios of Apamea (ca. 150 AD) is the first Atlantis sceptic known by name. The Atlantis sceptics prior to him were nameless anti-Platonists and other nameless doubters, whose nameless existence is known to us only through the statements of Atlantis supporters.
Nesselrath (2026): Heinz-Günther Nesselrath, Atlantide nella letteratura antica dopo Platone, in: Valentina Monateri / Rebecca Penna (eds.), Atlantide, Atlantidi: Dal mito platonico all' invenzione di mondi fantastici, proceedings of the International Conference "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. 75-96.
Franke (2010/2016): Thorwald C. Franke, Aristoteles und Atlantis – Was dachte der Philosoph wirklich über das Inselreich des Platon?, zweite erweiterte Auflage 2016, Verlag Books on Demand, Norderstedt 2016. First edition was 2010. With the enhancements of the English edition and with Addenda in the appendix.
Franke (2012): Thorwald C. Franke, Aristotle and Atlantis – What did the philosopher really think about Plato's island empire?, published by Books on Demand, Norderstedt 2016. German first edition from 2010. Enhancements to the German edition in an appendix.
Franke (2016/2021): Thorwald C. Franke, Kritische Geschichte der Meinungen und Hypothesen zu Platons Atlantis – von der Antike über das Mittelalter bis zur Moderne, 2. edition, 2 volumes, published by Books on Demand, Norderstedt 2021. First edition was 2016. (Currently available only in German)
Sedley (1998): David N. Sedley, Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1998.
Sharples (1998): Robert W. Sharples, Theophrastus of Eresus – Sources for his life, writings, thought, and influence – Commentary Vol. 3.1: Sources on Physics (Texts 137-223) with Contributions on the Arabic Material by Dimitri Gutas, published by Brill, Leiden / Boston / Cologne 1998.