Sanmartin ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 182–202 Article copyright held by the author(s) and made available under the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ The Dramatic Date of Plato’s Timaeus-Critias Nerea Terceiro Sanmartín N THIS PAPER, I will argue that the dramatic date of Plato’s Timaeus-Critias1 might correspond to the festival of Kallynteria in the year 429 B.C. To defend this proposal, I address the following issues: (i) The refutation of the dramatic chronologies provided so far for the series Timaeus-Critias. (ii) The dramatic relationship between the Republic and the Timaeus, which I elaborate by resolving two objections raised against this interpretation. I argue that: (a) the restriction of Socrates’ summary of Timaeus 17B–19B to the contents of Books 2–5 of the Republic can be explained by the thesis of the proto-Republic. (b) the alleged temporal inconsistency between the dramatic cir- cumstances of the Republic and the Timaeus vanishes when the festival of the Timaeus is identified as the Kallynteria. By disposing of these objections and building on Lampert’s thesis about the dramatic chronology of the Republic, one may establish the Kallynteria of 429 as the dramatic date of the Timaeus-Critias. 1. A brief status quaestionis: dramatic dates for the Timaeus-Critias Proposals for a dramatic date for the Timaeus-Critias can be divided into two main groups: those that consider providing a specific year unnecessary, and those that define the internal chronology of the dialogues precisely. 1 The dramatic continuity between the two dialogues, evident from the discursive plan advanced in Pl. Ti. 27A–B, justifies referring to the two as a whole. See S. Broadie, Nature and Divinity in Plato’s Timaeus (Cambridge 2012) 115; C. Gill, Plato’s Atlantis Story (Liverpool 2017) 4. I NEREA TERCEIRO SANMARTÍN 183 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 182–202 Among the former proposals is Cornford’s, whose attitude is striking. He notes that Plato chooses the Greater Panathenaia as the dramatic setting for the Timaeus, but with regard to the chronol- ogy of the dramatic setting he adds that “the date is of no im- portance.”2 In the same group, Rosenmeyer dates the work from “any time in the late fifth century prior to the return and death of Hermocrates.”3 More recently, Broadie has insisted on the fictitious nature of the dialogue’s dramatic context.4 Scholars in the latter group are few. This reflects the difficulty of establishing a clear dramatic date for the Timaeus-Critias. Brisson, for instance, suggests a time range, the period between 430 and 425.5 More specific proposals default mainly to one of two dates: the Panathenaia of 421 or that of 429. Either choice presents problems. Taylor, a twentieth-century proponent of 421 for the Timaeus, argues that the date follows from the apparent youth of Her- mocrates in Ti. 20A–B. From the presence of Timaeus of Locri in Athens he also infers that relations between the two cities were cordial at the time. Thus, he establishes a dramatic date “not later than about the time of the peace of Nicias (421 B.C.),” a choice consistent with the year he proposes for the conversation in the Republic.6 One should note that Taylor, following Burnet, presupposes a state of peace for both the Republic and the Timaeus; so do Lampert and Planeaux for the latter.7 However, as I observe below, their interpretation has shortcomings. 2 F. M. Cornford, Plato’s Cosmology. The Timaeus of Plato (Indianapolis 1997 [1935]) 5. 3 T. H. Rosenmeyer, “The Family of Critias,” AJP 70 (1949) 404–410, at 409. 4 Broadie, Nature 133. 5 L. Brisson, Platon. Timée. Critias (Paris 2001 [1992]) 71–72. 6 A. E. Taylor, A Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus (London 1928) 14–17. He argues for dramatic continuity from the Republic to the Timaeus. 7 Taylor, Commentary 16; L. Lampert and C. Planeaux, “Who’s Who in Plato’s Timaeus-Critias and Why,” RMeta 52 (1998) 87–125. 184 THE DRAMATIC DATE OF TIMAEUS-CRITIAS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 182–202 Lampert and Planeaux think that the presence in Athens of Timaeus of Locri and Hermocrates of Syracuse proves their thesis. They claim that only the truce established after the Peace of Nicias could have allowed them to travel to Athens; from this, the Panathenaia of 421 follows as the dramatic date of the Timaeus.8 However, even if we overlook that no other source reports the presence of Timaeus (a figure of dubious historicity) and Hermocrates, several reasons invite us to re-evaluate this proposal: (i) The truce after the Peace of Nicias was rather a covert war which soon led to open hostilities (Thuc. 5.25.3). Therefore, the “state of peace” assumed by Burnet, Taylor, and Lam- pert and Planeaux could not guarantee the safe visit to Athens of a Syracusan and a Locrian. (ii) For this reason, it makes better sense for Hermocrates and Timaeus to have visited Athens at the beginning of the Pelo- ponnesian War, before their homelands got involved in the conflict. Hermocrates would not have been well received in Athens at the date proposed by Lampert and Planeaux, since by then the Athenians had already intervened in Sicily (427, Thuc. 3.86)9 and the Syracusan general had already warned about the danger of Athenian foreign policy (Congress of Gela in 424, Thuc. 4.59–64). Moreover, at the end of 422 the Athenians were trying to undermine the growing power of Syracuse (Thuc. 5.4.5–6). As for Timaeus, Lampert and Planeaux speculate that the reason for his visit was to accompany Phaeax on his return to Athens, after the statesman’s diplomatic trip to Italy.10 However, since the agreement between the Athenians and the Locrians pre- dated 422 (Thuc. 5.4–5), the need for a Locrian ambassador 8 Lampert and Planeaux, RMeta 52 (1998) 93–95. 9 Cf. W. Welliver, Character, Plot and Thought in Plato’s Timaeus-Critias (Leiden 1977) 54. 10 Lampert and Planeaux, RMeta 52 (1998) 94 n.22. NEREA TERCEIRO SANMARTÍN 185 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 182–202 to travel to Athens with Phaeax sometime after the negotia- tions seems unlikely. Even with these shortcomings, Lampert and Planeaux’s argu- ments might be acceptable if Plato had not provided other clues to ascertain the dramatic date of the Timaeus. I believe he did: the reference to the Republic offers important guidance that makes it unnecessary to depend on characters who in 421 are completely absent from the sources. But before presenting my own proposal, I must review those by Welliver and Nails, for whom the Panathenaia of 429 is the dramatic setting of the Timaeus-Critias. A genealogical reconstruction of Plato’s lineage, which includes the ancestry of Critias, provides the grounds for their conclusion. If, as they claim, this interlocutor is Critias III (in Davies’s APF),11 the dramatic date could not be much later than 430, when he would have been about ninety years old.12 Welliver and Nails agree, therefore, that the presence of Critias III requires a date for the Timaeus-Critias of around 430. But they differ in their reasons for choosing 429: Welliver suggests that Pericles is the fourth absent guest, and that the date for his fatal illness would correspond to the setting of the Timaeus.13 Nails 11 Already in J. Burnet, Greek Philosophy I (London 1914) 338 and Appendix, followed by Taylor, Commentary 23, and Cornford, Plato’s Cosmology 1–2. More recently, Welliver, Character 50–57; Lampert and Planeaux, RMeta 52 (1998) 96–97; D. Nails, The People of Plato. A Prosopography of Plato and Other Socratics (Indianapolis 2002) 106–108. 12 I agree with those who think it more likely that Plato chose Critias IV as the narrator of the struggle between Atlantis and primordial Athens: Rosen- meyer, AJP 70 (1949) 404–410; J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families (Oxford 1971) 325–326; S. Dušanić, “Critias in the Charmides,” Aevum 74 (2000) 53–63, at 57 n.23; and H.-G. Nesselrath, Platon: Kritias. Platon Werke VIII.4 (Göttingen 2006) 43–50. Cf. Procl. In Ti. I 70.20–25. Nevertheless, I believe that both Critias III and Critias IV fit a dramatic date of 429: if we follow Nails (People 106–108), the former would have been ninety-one years old, and latter thirty-one. 13 Thuc. 2.65; Plut. Per. 38.1; Welliver, Character 44 n.11. 186 THE DRAMATIC DATE OF TIMAEUS-CRITIAS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 182–202 observes that Socrates would have been away from Athens between 432 and 429, when he returned from Potidea.14 Although I agree with these scholars that the dramatic date of the Timaeus-Critias is the year 429, my reasons for this are different. I do not believe, moreover, that the festival mentioned in these dialogues was the Panathenaia. I propose instead that “the feast of the goddess” (Ti. 21A, 26E) was the Kallynteria (also dedicated to Athena), because this identification preserves the dramatic continuity between the Republic and the Timaeus-Critias. The choice of the Kallynteria makes it easy to determine the dramatic chronology of the Timaeus-Critias on the basis of the Republic. 2. The dramatic relationship between the Republic and Timaeus-Critias As noted above, the key to the dramatic date of the Timaeus- Critias is its relationship to the Republic. Already in antiquity the link between these works was often affirmed (Procl. In Ti. I 8.30– 9.12; Chalcid. In Ti. 1.5; Aristotle the Grammarian ap. Diog. Laert. 3.61–62). Because this is currently a controverted point, I will address the two objections raised: first, the apparent re- striction of Socrates’ summary of the Republic to Books 2–5; and second, the alleged temporal inconsistency between the festival in the Republic and the festival in the Timaeus-Critias. 2.1 The restriction of Socrates’ summary and the proto-Republic In Timaeus 17B–19B Socrates recapitulates for his hosts the conversation about the ideal constitution they had had the day before (when they had been his guests),15 and he asks them to describe how a city thus arranged acts in practice, specifically in war (19C, 20B–C). The dialogue is portrayed in continuity with the previous discussion. Socrates’ summary shows that the con- 14 Nails, People 107. 15 As mentioned above, in the Timaeus a fourth guest from the previous day is missing. On his identity see e.g. Welliver, Character 44, and Lampert and Planeaux, RMeta 52 (1998) 107–119. NEREA TERCEIRO SANMARTÍN 187 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 182–202 tent of conversation of the previous day is consistent, albeit with notable omissions,16 with Books 2–5 of the Republic. The restriction of his summary to these books has been one of the fundamental objections to the dramatic relationship between the Republic and the Timaeus-Critias.17 I believe, however, that this restriction is adequately explained by the thesis of the proto- Republic, i.e. the assumption of an earlier version of the Republic that circulated in the 390s roughly identifiable with Books 2–5.18 16 H. Thesleff, “The Early Version of Plato’s Republic,” Arctos 31 (1997) 149–174, at 151–152. 17 In support of the dramatic relationship between the Republic and the Timaeus-Critias: Procl. In Ti. I 8.30–1.9.12; Chalcid. In Ti. 1.5; T. H. Martin, Études sur le Timée de Platon (Paris 1981 [1841]) 1; B. Jowett, The Dialogues of Plato II (New York 1871) 147; E. Rohde, Psyche (London 1925 [1894]) 477– 478; G. Fraccaroli, Platone. Il Timeo (Turin 1906) 135–136 n.1; Burnet, Greek Philosophy I 339; Taylor, Commentary 12, 33–34, 52; R. G. Bury, Timaeus, Critias, Cleitophon, Menexenus, Epistles / Plato (Cambridge 2005 [1929]) 3; P. Shorey, What Plato Said (Chicago 1934) 330; A.-J. Festugière, Commentaire sur le Timée (Paris 1966) 34 n.1; S. Bernadete, “On Plato’s Timaeus and Timaeus’ Science Fiction,” Interpretation 2 (1971) 21–63; Nails, People 326 (only the proto- Republic constitutes the conversation on the evening before the Timaeus- Critias). In opposition: Cornford, Plato’s Cosmology 4–5; G. Ryle, Plato’s Progress (Cambridge 1966) 230–231; D. Clay, “Gaps in the Universe of the Platonic Dialogues,” Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 3 (1987) 131–157, at 143–146; P. Friedlander, The Dialogues: Second and Third Periods (New York 1969) 357; Lampert and Planeaux, RMeta 52 (1998) 88–90 n.10; G. Nagy, Plato’s Rhapsody and Homer’s Music: The Poetics of the Panathenaic Festival (Washington 2002) 56–59; Gill, Plato’s Atlantis Story 11–12 n.28. 18 The original form of the proto-Republic is disputed. Thesleff favors a non- dialogical form, perhaps a speech whose copies could have been distributed within a short period of time (Arctos 31 [1997] 153, 157). Although this hypothesis fits the notion of an early dissemination of the content of the work, I think it is more likely that the proto-Republic was a dialogue, for three reasons: the readier reception of this mode of presentation, Plato’s preference for it in his surviving works, and the greater ease with which the proto-Republic could have been integrated into the final version of the Republic. This particular point does not affect my argument: even if Thesleff were right, Plato could eventually give the proto-Republic the form of a dialogue and provide it with a dramatic setting. 188 THE DRAMATIC DATE OF TIMAEUS-CRITIAS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 182–202 This is not the place to list the arguments, recently reinforced by Thesleff and Nails,19 in favor of the proto-Republic, but instead to review its implications for the Timaeus: Socrates’ summary cor- responds to the key propositions of Books 2–3 and 5, and, for this reason, the conversation of the evening before can be iden- tified with the proto-Republic.20 Is there then a connection between the Republic and the Timaeus-Critias implicit in Socrates’ summary of the proto- Republic? I believe the answer is yes for the following reasons: (i) The repeated insistence of ancient sources on the connection favors it, even if their formulations are not always entirely accurate.21 (ii) Plato clearly wants his readers to construe a chronological relationship in their minds conceived as a succession of conversations. Otherwise, he could have dispensed with the temporal markers in the prologue to the Timaeus. (iii) Plato could have refrained from listing explicitly the points the interlocutors had discussed the previous day. Far from doing so, and far even from alluding to them, Socrates provides a detailed list of the points agreed. By having his 19 K. F. Hermann, Geschichte und System der platonischen Philosophie (New York 1976 [1839]) 536–537; J. Hirmer, “Entstehung und Komposition der Pla- tonischen Politeia,” Jahrb. f. cl. Phil. Suppl. 23 (1897) 579–678, at 592–598. More recently, Ryle, Plato’s Progress 55–64; H. Thesleff, Studies in Platonic Chronology (Helsinki 1982), “Platonic Chronology,” Phronesis 34 (1989) 1–26, at 10–15, and Arctos 31 (1997) 149–174, followed by D. Nails, Agora, Academy, and the Conduct of Philosophy (Boston 1995) 116–122, “The Dramatic Date of Plato’s Republic,” CJ 93 (1998) 383–396, at 394–395, and People 324–326. Contra: C. Kahn, “Proleptic Composition in the Republic, or Why Book I Was Never a Separate Dialogue,” CQ 43 (1993) 131–42, at 131. 20 Thesleff, Arctos 31 (1997) 151–153; Nails, People 325–326. 21 Procl. In Ti. I 8.30–9.12; Chalcid. In Ti. 1.5. The division of Plato’s works adopted by Thrasyllus and other ancient commentators places the Republic, Timaeus, and Critias in that order in the tetralogy headed by the Clitophon. Other ancient scholars like Aristophanes the Grammarian grouped the Republic, Timaeus, and Critias into a trilogy (Diog. Laert. 3.61–62). NEREA TERCEIRO SANMARTÍN 189 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 182–202 characters recapitulate the previous dialogue, Plato intends his audience to do so too. (iv) The points listed correspond to the content of the proto- Republic, which, some ancient testimonies make clear, was already known in the 390s.22 Although it is not possible to date the composition of the Timaeus with precision, no scholar gives it a date earlier than this decade.23 Thus, while writing the prologue to the Timaeus, Plato is aware that his audience will identify the Socratic summary with the Republic in its then-current form.24 If he had not intended the identi- fication, he could have started the dialogue in medias res or chosen a different content for the summary.25 In sum, I believe that one should ignore neither the temporal markers Plato takes pains to specify nor the link he encourages the reader to make between the summary in the Timaeus and the ideal city of the Republic. Although sharing a similar conviction and affirming that the proto-Republic was the prequel to the 22 The parallels with Aristophanes’ Assemblywomen, dated to ca. 392, are eloquent in this respect. Cf. Thesleff, Arctos 31 (1997) 173; Nails, Agora 122, 124. 23 Even though their methodologies vary, most authorities ascribe the Timaeus to the last stage of Plato’s writings (see the tables in Nails, Agora 58– 61). A rare exception is Owen, for whom this dialogue belongs to the “middle group”: G. E. L. Owen, “The Place of the Timaeus in Plato’s Dialogues,” CQ 3 (1953) 79–95. 24 Even if (as is widely assumed) Plato had written the Timaeus after the final version of Republic, he could have had reasons of his own for circumscribing the summary of Republic to Books 2–5. Perhaps the later ones were not rel- evant to his argument in the Timaeus-Critias: Books 6–10 already speak of the city in motion and of its deterioration (the Timaeus-Critias speak of the same subject but explain it differently). Although this suggestion agrees with the most common view on the Timaeus’ chronology, I will propose an alternative below. 25 As Thesleff observes, Arctos 31 (1997) 152, “if Plato had wanted to operate with pure fiction, it would have been easy for him to create a summary of a previous discussion which would have fitted his present theme much better than the summary given in the Timaeus actually does.” 190 THE DRAMATIC DATE OF TIMAEUS-CRITIAS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 182–202 Timaeus-Critias,26 Nails’s approach entails the rejection of their dramatic continuity. To see why, it is helpful to review her assumptions about the dramatic dating of the Republic. (i) Nails claims that the existence of a proto-Republic makes it impossible for us to establish a “single firm dramatic date” for the surviving version. Although her 1998 article does not explain why, it suggests that one must reject the fictive unity of this dialogue in its final form because the Republic was made public in parts.27 She also states, again without ex- planation, that “Plato never ‘edited’ the dialogue from the standpoint of dramatic date at all.” I do not see a reason to follow this view: even if Plato had published (or written) different parts at different times, he could still have done so with an overall plan in mind that included their temporal coherence.28 Even Thesleff, who believes in the proto- Republic and the independent existence of an early version of Book 1, has argued for the structural unity of the work as a whole, which he calls a “pedimental composition.”29 Therefore, a proto-Republic (or an earlier version of Book 1) need not exclude the possibility that Plato designed a unitary dialogue with full internal coherence. Nothing requires that the work as a whole (which includes the proto- Republic) exhibit inconsistent dramatic dates. As Nails ob- 26 Nails, People 326. 27 Nails, CJ 93 (1998) 394–395. 28 Although with a different purpose, we find a similar idea in Kahn, CQ 43 (1993) 139, when he says that Plato was able to compose Book 1 “with the plan of the whole Republic in view.” 29 Thesleff, Arctos 31 (1997) 149–150. In favor of the prior composition of book 1 as a literary unit: Hermann, Geschichte 538–540; Rohde, Psyche 477; J. Annas, An Introduction to Plato’s Republic (Oxford 1981) 17; Thesleff, Studies 107– 110, 137–138, Phronesis 34 (1989) 11 n.36, 14–15, Arctos 31 (1997) 161 n.26; G. Vlastos, Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher (Cambridge 1991) 46–47; Nails, People 324. Against this idea: C. D. C. Reeve, Philosopher-kings. The Argu- ment of Plato’s Republic (Princeton 1988) 22–23; Kahn, CQ 43 (1993) 131–142. NEREA TERCEIRO SANMARTÍN 191 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 182–202 serves, temporal inconsistencies are what give rise to more than one possible dating. (ii) In her 2002 book, Nails ascribes different dramatic dates to Book 1, the proto-Republic, and the rest of the dialogue. In this way she allegedly avoids the problems posed by reconciling the biographies of the characters to their joint appearance in Plato’s work.30 But Lampert has already discussed the controverted historical points and shown that it is possible to set the entire Republic in the context of the Bendideia of 429.31 This implies that the proto-Republic too can be set in 429.32 In view of this, I suggest that Plato composed the Timaeus- Critias in thematic continuity with the proto-Republic, and with the intent to make the dramatic date of the latter extensive to the Republic as a whole, so as to create a connected sequence for the 30 Nails, People 324–325. 31 L. Lampert, How Philosophy Became Socratic. A Study of Plato’s Protagoras, Charmides, and Republic (Chicago 2010) 405–411. See also C. Planeaux, “The Date of Bendis’ Entry into Attica,” CJ 96 (2000/1) 165–192, at 179–181. Many ascribe the conversation in the Republic to a date between 421 and 411: L. Campbell, Plato’s Republic (Oxford 1894) III 2; Taylor, Commentary 16; K. J. Dover, Lysias and the Corpus Lysiacum (Berkeley 1968) 53; A. Bloom, The Republic of Plato (New York 1968) 440 n.3; M. C. Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness (Cambridge 1986) 136; J. Howland, The Republic: The Odyssey of Philosophy (New York 1993) xii; R. Waterfield, Plato. Republic (Oxford 1993) 327. I can- not discuss here the problems with these views. Suffice it to say that Lampert’s interpretation is the only one that combines the prosopography of the char- acters with the epigraphic testimonies and the historical circumstances that favour 429 as the year when the Bendideia entered the Attic calendar (note the precise wording of Resp. 327A). 32 Thesleff, Arctos 31 (1997) 152, argues that the reference in the Timaeus to the conversation of the previous day may imply that, in contrast to other dia- logues, the proto-Republic in its original form lacked a “fixed literary setting.” I, on the other hand, believe that the inclusion of the proto-Republic in the Republic and the temporal markers in the Timaeus in the context of Socrates’ summary confirm the Plato’s desire to offer a specific setting for the proto- Republic. This setting in turn is linked both to the final Republic and to the Timaeus-Critias. 192 THE DRAMATIC DATE OF TIMAEUS-CRITIAS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 182–202 settings of these dialogues. If 429 is indeed the dramatic date of the proto-Republic, and if its content is identified with Socrates’ summary in the Timaeus, then 429 must also be the year of the Timaeus-Critias. Why, then, restrict the summary to the points in Books 2–5 of the Republic? First, because those are the ones most in line with the aims of the Timaeus-Critias:33 the emphasis on the manner of life of the guardians,34 reiterated in Ti. 17C–18B, perfectly matches the task of establishing how the ideal city acts in matters of war. Second, because this would have been the content readily identifiable by Plato’s readers if the proto-Republic had already been in circulation for some time. And third, because it is quite possible that Plato wrote the Timaeus when the Republic as we know it today did not yet exist. We do not have any strong evidence of its existence before the 350s B.C.35 In fact, Ryle has argued that Plato revised the Republic after he wrote the Timaeus, and that its final form was made public towards the end of the 360s.36 This chronology would explain the Timaeus’ resort to the proto-Republic. Under this scenario Plato would have expected his audience to place the (proto-)Republic in the Bendideia of 429, on the eve of the Timaeus. This authorial clue would fix the setting of the Timaeus and, by extension, of the Critias in a manner readily recognisable by his contemporaries. 33 On the appropriateness of the proto-Republic as an introduction to the story of the conflict between Atlantis and early Athens see Ryle, Plato’s Progress 231–232, and Thesleff, Arctos 31 (1997) 152. 34 Resp. 369B–374D, 374D–376C, 376C–412B, 416D–417B, 461E–466D. 35 Cf. Ryle, Plato’s Progress 245; Thesleff, Arctos 31 (1997) 165. The most explicit witness to the existence of the Republic is Arist. Pol. 1261a6. 36 Ryle, Plato’s Progress 240, 249. Ryle’s timetable for the composition of Plato’s dialogues is very complex and not all of his theories are convincing. But the revision of the Republic after the Timaeus had been composed implies its late distribution in its current form and is consistent with the lack of evi- dence for it before the 350’s. NEREA TERCEIRO SANMARTÍN 193 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 182–202 2.2 In support of temporal consistency The festival of the Timaeus is referred to in conversation as “the feast of the goddess” without further details. Traditionally, it has been identified as the Panathenaia, celebrated in the month of Hecatombaion.37 So well established is this identification that Nagy does not hesitate to use it to strengthen his argument about the Homeric echoes of the Timaeus-Critias. The links he estab- lishes between this festival and the speeches of the characters,38 although attractive, presume a dramatic context built on vague references in the Timaeus (21A τὴν θεὸν ἅµα ἐν τῇ πανηγύρει, 26E τῆς θεοῦ θυσίᾳ). Contrast this with the clarity with which Plato specifies the Panathenaia in the Ion and the Parmenides (Ion 530B τὰ Παναθήναια, Parm. 127A–B εἰς Παναθήναια). This suggests that, if Plato had wanted to allude to the Panathenaia in the Timaeus, he would have made it clear too. Furthermore, a Panathenaic setting would obstruct the dramatic continuity between the Republic and 37 Cornford, Plato’s Cosmology 1, 5; Welliver, Character 12 n.10; K. A. Mor- gan, “Designer History: Plato’s Atlantis Story and Fourth-Century Ideology,” JHS 118 (1998) 101–118, at 104, 106; Lampert and Planeaux, RMeta 52 (1998) 90 n.10; Nails, People 326; Nagy, Plato’s Rhapsody 56–59; M.-L. Desclos, “Les Prologues du Timée et du Critias,” EPlaton 2 (2006) 175–202, at 178– 179; T. K. Johansen, Plato’s Natural Philosophy. A Study of the Timaeus-Critias (Cambridge 2008 [2004]) 38; T. Garvey, “Plato’s Atlantis Story: A Prose Hymn to Athena,” GRBS 48 (2008) 381–392, at 381; R. Waterfield, Plato. Timaeus and Critias (Oxford 2008) xii; Lampert, How Philosophy Became Socratic 407 n.182; D. J. O’Meara, Cosmology and Politics in Plato’s Later Works (Cam- bridge 2017) 13. 38 Nagy, Plato’s Rhapsody 53. Socrates’ comparison of his interlocutors’ speeches with hymns to the goddess is suitable for the Panathenaia, but also for other festivals in honor of Athena. Regarding the Apatouria (Ti. 21B) as an evocation of the Panathenaia (Nagy 54), one should note that these festivals do not have much in common beyond the rhapsodic competition. The par- ticipants in the Panathenaia were diverse and embraced the entire community (cf. S. M. Wijma, Embracing the Immigrant. The Participation of Metics in Athenian Polis Religion [Stuttgart 2014] 37–64). In the Apatouria only male citizens and their children participated in their various phratries (cf. R. Parker, Polytheism and Society at Athens [Oxford 2005] 458–459). 194 THE DRAMATIC DATE OF TIMAEUS-CRITIAS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 182–202 the Timaeus-Critias, since the inauguration of the Bendideia took place on the 19th of Thargelion of 429.39 As noted above, the setting of the Republic was already tied in antiquity to that of the Timaeus-Critias. Proclus thought that in the Timaeus Socrates narrated to Timaeus, Critias, Hermocrates (and a fourth anonymous guest) the events of the previous day in the house of Polemarchus (In Ti. I 8.30–9.12).40 Therefore, he asserts that the feast in the Timaeus cannot be the Greater Pan- athenaia, which was too distant from the Bendideia, but the Lesser Panathenaia (I 26.10–20, 84.25–28). Although I think it is im- portant that he emphasized the link with the Republic, clearly he had a deficient knowledge of the Athenian sacred calendar. As Fraccaroli (followed by Taylor and Festugière) has pointed out, he may have confused it with the Plynteria, which, like the Ben- dideia, was celebrated at the end of Thargelion, and, like the Panathenaia, was dedicated to Athena.41 Not enough attention has been paid to this alternative. Granted, as all assume, that the goddess must be Athena, why assume that the festival must be the Panathenaia, especially when, in keeping with the dramatic relationship explored here, there are other festivals to Athena much closer in time to the Bendideia? 39 Nagy accepts that the Timaeus makes reference to the Republic but relies on the presence of different interlocutors to understand the summary in Ti. 17B–19B as a fiction (Plato’s Rhapsody 56–57). In so doing, he overlooks that the Republic is narrated to an audience that could well have included Timaeus, Critias, and Hermocrates. He also refers to the interval between the Bendideia and the Panathenaia, but without discussing the identification of the latter. It is striking that, while rejecting the chronological sequence, he insists on the intertextuality between the Republic and the Timaeus by relying on the term χθές (“yesterday”) (Plato’s Rhapsody 57–59). 40 Chalcid. In Ti. 1.5 reports that Socrates was said to have recounted the ten books of the Republic the day before the Timaeus. 41 Fraccaroli, Platone 135–136 n.1; Taylor, Commentary 45; Festugière, Com- mentaire 121 n.2 on In Ti. I 84.28. See also P. Hadot, “Physique et poésie dans le Timée de Platon,” RevTheolPhil 115 (1983) 113–133, at 117 n.20. NEREA TERCEIRO SANMARTÍN 195 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 182–202 According to Proclus, the first-century grammarian Aristokles of Rhodes said that the Bendideia was celebrated on the 20th of Thargelion42 and it was followed by “the festivals relating to Athena” (In Ti. I 85.26–31). What were these festivals that Proclus confused with the Lesser Panathenaia? For an answer I suggest that we consider the Kallynteria and the Plynteria, both linked to Athena and closely connected to each other. As already advanced, identifying the feast in the Timaeus with the Kallynteria dissolves the alleged chronological inconsistency between the settings of the Republic and the Timaeus-Critias. Now, the exact dates for these festivals are controverted: (i) Xenophon records that Alcibiades returned to Athens on the day of the Plynteria when Athena’s statue was covered. For this reason, the Athenians regarded the day as apophras and avoided embarking on any serious business. That Alcibiades arrived on this very day was perceived as a bad omen (Hell. 1.4.12). (ii) Plutarch reports that Alcibiades returned to Athens on the very day of the Plynteria, a day considered nefastus because of the removal of the kosmos of the goddess and the concealment of her image. He adds that these rituals were performed in secret by the Praxiergidai (Alc. 34.1). Plutarch’s date, the 25th of Thargelion, is generally accepted.43 42 Because the Bendideia included an evening festival (IG I3 136.26, 27; Resp. 328A8), Aristokles’ statement does not contradict that Bendis’ festival started on the 19th of Thargelion (cf. Procl. In Ti. I 26.13–15). 43 Plutarch’s dating is accepted by L. Deubner, Attische Feste (Berlin 1932) 18; D. M. Lewis, “Notes on Attic Inscriptions,” BSA 49 (1954) 17–50, at 20; J. D. Mikalson, The Sacred and Civil Calendar of the Athenian Year (Princeton 1975) 160–161; H. W. Parke, Festivals of the Athenians (London 1986 [1977]) 152; J. M. Mansfield, The Robe of Athena and the Panathenaic Peplos (Berkeley 1985) 371; M. Christopoulos, “Ὄργια ἀπόρρητα. Quelques remarques sur les rites des Plyntéries,” Kernos 5 (1992) 27–39, at 27; N. Robertson, “The Praxiergidae Decree (IG I3 7) and the Dressing of Athena’s Statue with the Peplos,” GRBS 44 (2004) 111–161, at 128; Parker, Polytheism 478; C. Sourvinou-Inwood, 196 THE DRAMATIC DATE OF TIMAEUS-CRITIAS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 182–202 (iii) Hesychius says that Kallynteria derives from kallynein kai kosmein kai lamprynein and links this ritual to Aglauros, who “adorned” (ekosmese) the gods (s.v. Plynteria; Anecd.Bekk. I 270.1–3).44 (iv) Photius adds information about the dates for these festivals. He speaks of Kallynteria kai Plynteria, setting down their order in the calendar. However, he likely errs in placing the Kal- lynteria on the day for Bendideia and assigning the Plynteria to a day on which assembly meetings are attested (Lex. κ 124 s.v. Kallynteria kai Plynteria).45 These sources agree only on the dating of the Plynteria. For the Kallynteria no primary source offers a feasible date.46 Therefore some scholars place it before, some after, the Plynteria. The establishment of the sequence is complicated by the rituals that took place during the festivals, which some use to infer the order. There is a consensus that the Plynteria involved washing rites.47 The same cannot be said, however, for the Kallynteria: some interpret it as adorning rites, others give priority to the cleansing Athenian Myths and Festivals. Aglauros, Erechtheus, Plynteria, Panathenaia, Dionysia (Oxford 2011) 136, 194. 44 Both the Kallynteria and the Plynteria were dedicated to Athena; Aglauros was a “secondary cult recipient” (Sourvinou-Inwood, Athenian Myths and Festivals 154–155; cf. Parker, Polytheism 474). 45 For assemblies on the 29th of Thargelion see Mikalson, Sacred and Civil Calendar 161–162. Mommsen had already pointed out Photius’ error (A. Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen im Altertum [Leipzig 1898] 493), followed by Lewis, BSA 49 (1954) 20. On the overlap of the Bendideia and the Kallynteria see Deubner, Attische Feste 17–18; Mikalson 160–161; Parke, Festivals 152; and Sourvinou-Inwood, Athenian Myths and Festivals 194. Christopoulos, Kernos 5 (1992) 27, notices Photius’ error but says nothing about the overlap. Sourvinou-Inwood (194) cites Parker in opposition to Photius’ dates, but his position on the Kallynteria is not clear to me; after stating the objections to Photius, he declares them “not quite conclusive” (Polytheism 475). 46 Cf. Mikalson, Sacred and Civil Calendar 158. 47 It also included a procession (Hesych. and Phot. s.v. hegeteria) whose details are controversial. For a recent proposal see Sourvinou-Inwood, Sacred and Civil Festivals 158–165. NEREA TERCEIRO SANMARTÍN 197 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 182–202 rites, while a third group allows for both activities.48 Some scholars infer the sequence by assuming a logical order: either that the cleansing of the Plynteria naturally precedes the adorning rites of the Kallynteria; or, conversely, that the cleansing of the temple of Athena Polias during the Kallynteria naturally preceded the bathing of the cult statue in the Plynteria. Other proposals rely less on common sense and more on the ritual complexity of Greek religion. I urge instead that we consider the order transmitted by the sources. Several authorities rely on Plutarch for the dating of the Plynteria but follow Photius for the Kallynteria-Plynteria sequence. Of these, some understand the Kallynteria as a ritual cleansing of the temple of Athena Polias,49 but not all who hold this view resort to the festival’s nature to reinforce the order: the sources suffice to support the precedence of the Kallynteria. Lexical analysis of the verb kallynein, in particular, plays an important role in the argument.50 Thus, for example, against the apparent incongruity of adorning before cleansing, Harrison remarks that this verb not only means “to beautify, but to brush out, to sweep, to give a shine to”; and she compares the corresponding ritual with the Roman everruncatio.51 Parker notes that “καλλύνω and 48 Kallynteria as cleansing rites: Mommsen, Feste 487; J. E. Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (Cambridge 1903) 115; Deubner, Attische Feste 20; Parke, Festivals 152. Kallynteria as an adorning festival: Mansfield, Robe 370; Robertson, GRBS 44 (2004) 129. Kallynteria as a combination of orna- mental and cleansing rites: Lewis, BSA 49 (1954) 20; Sourvinou-Inwood, Sacred and Civil Festivals 155–156. 49 Mommsen, Feste 486–488; Harrison, Prolegomena 115; Deubner, Attische Feste 18, 20; Parke, Festivals 152. Lewis, who links the closure of the temple of Athena Polias during Thargelion with the Kallynteria, thinks that this festival also included adornment rituals (BSA 49 [1954] 20); but the Kallynteria- Plynteria sequence still made sense: the statue of the goddess would have been stripped of the kosmos in the Plynteria. 50 Note the use of kallynein to explain the term Kallynteria in Hesych. s.v. Plynteria; Anecd.Bekk. I 270.1–3; and Phot. κ 124 s.v. Kallynteria kai Plynteria. 51 Harrison, Prolegomena 115. 198 THE DRAMATIC DATE OF TIMAEUS-CRITIAS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 182–202 associated words typically refer to cleaning rather than decora- tion.”52 Even some who consider the Kallynteria strictly an adornment festival still place it before the Plynteria. So, e.g., Mansfield, who in view of the days without assembly meetings before the Plynteria argues that the Kallynteria could have taken place on the 20th, 21st, 22nd, or 24th of Thargelion.53 He adds that Philochoros’ state- ment that the 20th, 21st, and 22nd were consecrated to Athena could refer to the Kallynteria (FGrHist 328 FF 189–190). Thus he favors a date between the 20th and 22nd, with a preference for the latter.54 Other authors defend the Plynteria-Kallynteria sequence. So does Robertson, who understands the Kallynteria as adorning rites. For him, the implications of kallynein tied to cleansing are “obviously secondary, and no doubt colloquial to begin with and quite unsuited to a festival name.” If so, the Kallynteria must precede the Plynteria: “Adorning will naturally follow washing.” Thus, he affirms that the Kallynteria would have been held after the Plynteria, probably on the 28th of Thargelion.55 But this ar- gument faces two objections: first, his judgment about propriety is wholly subjective; second, it simply does not follow that ritual washing must precede adorning rites. Quite apart from the ritual complexity of Greek religion, one need only read Photius to find evidence in favor precisely of the disputed sequence. 52 Parker, Polytheism 475. 53 For days without assemblies see Mikalson, Sacred and Civil Calendar 159– 160, 202. Regarding the sequence of the festivals, Mikalson does not take a definite position. He places the Kallynteria between the 24th and 28th, the 25th excluded (the day of the Plynteria). His lower boundary of the 24th is inexplicably high. 54 Mansfield, Robe 370 and 384 n.16. In line with Mansfield, Ridgway situates the Kallynteria between the 20th and 23rd, reserving the 25th and 26th for the Plynteria: B. S. Ridgway, in J. Neils (ed.), Goddess and Polis (Princeton 1992) 124. 55 Robertson, GRBS 44 (2004) 129–130. NEREA TERCEIRO SANMARTÍN 199 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 182–202 Sourvinou-Inwood has recently argued that the Kallynteria fol- lowed the Plynteria (namely on the 27th and 28th of Thargelion).56 Unlike Robertson, she claims that its rituals combined the cleansing of the temple of Athena Polias with the adornment of her statue. To justify the sequence “first cleansing, then adornment,” she suggests that after the washing of Athena’s peplos on the Acropolis on the 25th of Thargelion and the bathing of her statue in Phaleron on the 26th (the Plynteria), her image returned to the Acropolis in the morning of the 27th, the first day of the Kallynteria. To evade the incongruity of placing a recently bathed statue into a temple yet unclean, she proposes that the image remained near the altar outside until the 28th. Meanwhile the temple would have been cleansed as part of the Kallynteria.57 This intricate process seems inherently implausible. If housing a clean statue in a temple in need of cleansing seems unusual, so it is to leave the image outside for a day. The inverse order seems more natural. Sourvinou-Inwood’s logic here is inconsistent with her criticism of Photius, whom she reproaches with “rationalizing” for assuming that the cleansing of the temple must precede the bathing of the statue and that the order of the feasts in the calendar must correspond to the mythological sequence associated with them.58 No ancient source supports this element of Sourvinou-Inwood’s reconstruction. In fact, she rejects Photius, the only surviving testimony on the order of these festivities. From his erroneous placement of the Kallynteria when the Bendideia was celebrated, and of the Plynteria on a day when the assembly could meet, she infers that “there is no reason 56 Relying only on secondary literature, Hollinshead also places the Kal- lynteria after the Plynteria. She assumes that the former consisted merely of adorning rituals, which followed logically the cleansing of the statue: M. B. Hollinshead, “The North Court of the Erechtheion and the Ritual of the Plynteria,” AJA 119 (2015) 177–190, at 184. 57 Sourvinou-Inwood, Sacred and Civil Festivals 155–156, 195, 215–216. 58 Alluding to the complexity of ritual logic, she rejects that the sequence might be reflected in the calendar. 200 THE DRAMATIC DATE OF TIMAEUS-CRITIAS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 182–202 to consider trustworthy the order he ascribes to the two festi- vals.”59 But this conclusion is hardly necessary and one should independently assess the plausibility of the rest of Photius’ report. The arguments reviewed here suggest that it is highly plausible. To reiterate: because the recipients of kallynein are associated more with cleanliness than with adornment, the Kallynteria might well have included cleansing rituals. This would be consistent with the logic of cleansing the temple of Athena Polias before bathing the statue and dressing it in a peplos washed during the Plynteria.60 There is no need to convolute the process. Even if the Kallynteria were merely an adorning festival or it combined cleansing and adornment, it would still be legitimate to assert the sequence Kallynteria-Plynteria.61 Indeed, this order reflects their aition: the Kallynteria is associated with the priestess Aglauros as the first one to have “adorned” (ekosmese) the gods; the Plynteria commemorates the first time the peplos was washed after her death (Phot. κ 124 s.v. Kallynteria; Hesych. s.v. Plynteria; Anecd.Bekk. I 270.1–5).62 Moreover, as we saw before, Aristokles of Rhodes noted that the Bendideia was celebrated on the 20th of Thargelion and was followed by “the festivals relating to Athena” (Procl. In Ti. I 85.26–31). If the Plynteria was held on the 25th of Thargelion, as Plutarch claims, and Aristokles’ chrono- logical succession is strict, then the Kallynteria must have inter- vened between the Bendideia and the Plynteria. This precedence would explain Philochoros’ observation that the 20th, 21st, and 22nd were devoted to Athena (FGrHist 328 FF 189–190). We should add to this that it is the order transmitted by Photius and that no testimony explicitly supports the reversal Plynteria- Kallynteria. 59 Sourvinou-Inwood, Sacred and Civil Festivals 194. 60 That the Plynteria included the dressing of the statue with the clean peplos (IG I3 7.10–11; Sourvinou-Inwood, Sacred and Civil Festivals 150) reinforces the view that the Kallynteria, understood as temple cleansing rites, was held first. 61 So Lewis, BSA 49 (1954) 20, and Mansfield, Robe 370 and 384 n.16. 62 Cf. Sourvinou-Inwood, Sacred and Civil Festivals 144, 154–155. NEREA TERCEIRO SANMARTÍN 201 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 182–202 It seems best, then, to assume that the Kallynteria preceded the Plynteria. To ascribe it a specific date we would need to know what days between the Bendideia and the Plynteria lacked assembly meetings. The Bendideia spanned two days. While its rites began on the 19th of Thargelion, the all-night festival or pannychis extended the festivities into the 20th (IG I3 136.26, 27; Resp. 328A8).63 With the Plynteria on the 25th, we are left with the 21st, 22nd, or 24th, when the assembly did not meet.64 Philochoros rules out the 24th and leaves only the 21st or 22nd (or both). 3. Conclusion We now return to the dramatic sequence envisioned by Plato. By identifying the Kallynteria as the feast of the goddess in the Timaeus-Critias, one can reconstruct a calendar consistent with the continuity between the setting of the Republic and the setting of the two dialogues: on the 20th of Thargelion of 429 Socrates hosts Timaeus, Critias, Hermocrates, and an unnamed fourth guest (Ti. 17A–B). To them he relates how the previous day (the 19th of Thargelion) he went down to the Piraeus to witness the inauguration of the Bendideia and spent the night there, at the home of Polemarchus. Socrates’ account thus includes the discussion contained in the Republic. The next day, the 21st of Thargelion, his hearers meet again during the “feast of the goddess,” the Kallynteria of 429, this time at Critias’ home and without the anonymous fourth guest. It is there that Socrates summarizes the main traits of the ideal city, which his interlocutors had heard the previous day in Socrates’ report of his night at Polemarchus’. With this preamble, Plato suitably introduces a discussion of the ideal city in action in the 63 This leads to variations in the dates given by the sources (Procl. In Ti. I 26.13–15); cf. Mikalson, Sacred and Civil Calendar 158. 64 Cf. Mikalson, Sacred and Civil Calendar 159–160, 202. 202 THE DRAMATIC DATE OF TIMAEUS-CRITIAS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 62 (2022) 182–202 practical world. The Republic and the Timaeus-Critias would thus be thematically and dramatically linked.65 February, 2022 Faculty of Geography and History Universidade de Santiago de Compostela Praza da Universidade Santiago de Compostela 15703 nerea.terceiro.sanmartin@usc.es ORCID 0000-0002-6037-0084 65 I am grateful to the external reviewer and the editorial board of GRBS for all their comments and suggestions. Any error contained herein is my responsibility. I also thank Prof. Etienne Helmer and Prof. Arnaud Macé for their reading of the manuscript and their encouragement to publish this paper. This work has been funded by the projects Toposofía (Spanish State Research Agency, PID2019-106782GB-I00), and The places of knowledge in democratic Athens (Logos Program, BBVA Foundation and Spanish Society of Classical Studies).