The article discusses the thesis of Rashed and Auffret, who believe that the Critias, which has until now been considered Platonic by almost all scholars, is spurious, due to some inconsistencies that seem to emerge from a comparison between the prologues of the Critias and the 77-maeus. These contradictions do not seem decisive and can be explained through a different interpretation of the two texts. In addition to the arguments concerning the contents of the work, some linguistic and lexical observations can be added that also confirm the authenticity of the dialogue.
|Numero di pagine||20|
|Rivista||RIVISTA DI FILOLOGIA E DI ISTRUZIONE CLASSICA|
|Stato di pubblicazione||Published - 2020|
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes