Platonis Humanistica Digitalia

A digital scholarly edition of the Platonic corpus

The complete set of twenty-seven Platonic dialogues, presented in parallel Greek and English and aligned by Stephanus sections, together with a prosopographical dictionary of c. 80 historical figures, drawing primarily on Debra Nails' The People of Plato (2002). Both the Greek text and the English translation reproduced here are in the public domain: the Greek follows John Burnet's Oxford Classical Text (Oxford, 1900–1907), and the English translation is from the Loeb Classical Library editions of Harold North Fowler, W. R. M. Lamb, R. G. Bury and Paul Shorey (1914–1935), both redistributed by the Perseus Digital Library under CC BY-SA 4.0.

Browse

By period

early

middle

late

Dialogues

Persons (80)

Timeline & chronology

Two distinct chronologies bear on the Platonic corpus: the dramatic date (when each conversation is depicted as taking place) and the compositional date (when the dialogue itself was written). The first is recoverable from internal evidence and prosopography; the second is the subject of two centuries of scholarly debate. Both are presented below as data, not assertion.

Timeline

20 of the 27 dialogues carry an internally datable setting, ranging from 433 BCE to 382 BCE. The remainder are marked “indeterminate”.

433 BCE420 BCE407 BCE395 BCE382 BCE
Protagoras 433 BCE
Charmides 432 BCE
Cratylus 422 BCE
Laches 420 BCE
Symposium 416 BCE
Phaedrus 416 BCE
Republic 411 BCE
Lysis 410 BCE
Gorgias 405 BCE
Euthydemus 404 BCE
Meno 402 BCE
Euthyphro 399 BCE
Apology 399 BCE
Crito 399 BCE
Phaedo 399 BCE
Theaetetus 399 BCE
Sophist 399 BCE
Statesman 399 BCE
Menexenus 386 BCE
Parmenides 382 BCE

Compositional chronology: eleven scholarly opinions

Period assignments by eleven representative scholars across two centuries of Platonic chronology, from Schleiermacher's 1817 edition to the Oxford Handbook of 2008. Each row shows where every scholar placed the dialogue. Where the initials cluster in one column, scholarly consensus is strong; where they spread across columns, the dating is genuinely contested. The four-period mapping is itself a normalization — Schleiermacher and Thesleff did not use the early/middle/late scheme, and Kahn rejects it as developmental — so the columns translate each scholar's substantive position into a comparable grid rather than reproducing their own vocabulary.

ScSchleiermacher (1817–28)CaCampbell (1867)LuLutosławski (1897)GuGuthrie (1975–78)ThThesleff (1982)LeLedger (1989)BrBrandwood (1990)VlVlastos (1991)KaKahn (1996)CoCooper (1997)FiFine (ed.) (2008)
Dialogue Early / SocraticTransitionalMiddleLate Note
Euthyphro ScCaLuGuThLeBrVlCoFiKa
Apology ScCaLuGuThLeBrVlKaCoFi
Crito ScCaLuGuThLeBrVlKaCoFi
Phaedo ScCaLuGuThLeBrVlKaCoFi
Symposium ScCaLuGuThLeBrVlKaCoFi
Meno ScCaLuGuThLeBrVlKaCoFi
Charmides ScCaLuGuThLeBrVlCoFiKa
Ion ScCaLuGuThLeBrVlKaCoFi
Cratylus ThVlScCaLuGuLeBrKaCoFi Vlastos placed the Cratylus among the transitional dialogues; the stylometric tradition (Campbell through Brandwood) places it in the middle group.
Theaetetus ScKaCaLuGuThLeBrVlCoFi
Sophist ScCaLuGuThLeBrVlKaCoFi
Statesman ScCaLuGuThLeBrVlKaCoFi
Parmenides ScCaLuThKaGuLeBrVlCoFi Stylometry places the Parmenides in the middle period, but its self-criticism of the Theory of Forms aligns it philosophically with the late dialogues. The compositional date is therefore disputed.
Philebus ScCaLuGuThLeBrVlKaCoFi
Phaedrus ScCaLuGuThLeBrVlKaCoFi
Laches ScCaLuGuThLeBrVlCoFiKa
Lysis ScCaLuGuThLeBrVlCoFiKa
Euthydemus ScCaCoFiLuGuThLeBrVlKa
Protagoras ScCaLuGuThLeBrVlCoFiKa
Gorgias ScCaKaLuGuThLeBrVlCoFi The Gorgias straddles the Socratic/Platonic divide; Vlastos read it as the last of the elenctic dialogues.
Hippias Major ScCaLuGuThLeBrVlCoFiKa Authenticity is disputed (notably by Smith 1985); when accepted, it is grouped with the early dialogues.
Hippias Minor ScCaLuGuThLeBrVlKaCoFi
Menexenus ScCaThKaLuGuLeBrVlCoFi
Republic ScCaLuGuThLeBrVlKaCoFi
Timaeus ScCaLuGuThLeBrVlKaCoFi G. E. L. Owen (1953) famously argued the Timaeus belongs to the middle period, on the basis of metaphysical doctrine; H. F. Cherniss (1957) decisively defended the late dating. Cooper, Brandwood, Vlastos and almost all subsequent commentators follow Cherniss.
Critias ScCaLuGuThLeBrVlKaCoFi
Laws ScCaLuGuThLeBrVlKaCoFi

marks dialogues where scholars place the work in two or more different periods.

References

  1. Brandwood, L. (1990). The chronology of Plato's dialogues. Cambridge University Press.
  2. Campbell, L. (1867). The Sophistes and Politicus of Plato. Clarendon Press.
  3. Cherniss, H. F. (1957). The relation of the Timaeus to Plato's later dialogues. American Journal of Philology, 78(3), 225–266.
  4. Cooper, J. M. (Ed.). (1997). Plato: Complete works (D. S. Hutchinson, Assoc. Ed.). Hackett Publishing.
  5. Fine, G. (Ed.). (2008). The Oxford handbook of Plato. Oxford University Press.
  6. Guthrie, W. K. C. (1975–1978). A history of Greek philosophy (Vols. IV–V). Cambridge University Press.
  7. Kahn, C. H. (1996). Plato and the Socratic dialogue: The philosophical use of a literary form. Cambridge University Press.
  8. Ledger, G. R. (1989). Re-counting Plato: A computer analysis of Plato's style. Oxford University Press.
  9. Lutosławski, W. (1897). The origin and growth of Plato's logic: With an account of Plato's style and of the chronology of his writings. Longmans, Green & Co.
  10. Owen, G. E. L. (1953). The place of the Timaeus in Plato's dialogues. Classical Quarterly, 3(1–2), 79–95.
  11. Schleiermacher, F. D. E. (1817–1828). Platons Werke (Vols. 1–6). G. Reimer.
  12. Thesleff, H. (1982). Studies in Platonic chronology (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 70). Societas Scientiarum Fennica.
  13. Vlastos, G. (1991). Socrates: Ironist and moral philosopher. Cornell University Press.

Methodological note

No serial ordering of the dialogues commands universal assent. The early/middle/late grouping itself is a 19th-century construct, refined by the stylometric tradition (Campbell, Lutosławski, Brandwood), challenged by unitarian readings (Shorey, Kahn), and complicated by the proleptic and dramatic features of Plato's writing. The compositional dates of the Cratylus, Gorgias, Meno, Parmenides and Timaeus are particularly contested. We present the consensus assignments above without endorsing any single chronology; the underlying period field in our database follows Cooper (1997).

Knowledge graph

A directed network of 107 named nodes and 197 edges. Dark nodes are dialogues; olive nodes are persons. Edges from dialogues to persons are hasSpeaker relations; edges between persons carry the prosopographic relation type (father, teacher, friend, etc.). Hover a node to highlight its incident edges; click to open its page.

hover to highlight a dialogue's persons · click to open
dialogue well-connected person (≥5 links) person node size reflects connection count · arrows go from subject → object

Data downloads

Every piece of data in this edition is published as machine-readable RDF, in both Turtle (text/turtle) and RDF/XML (application/rdf+xml) serializations. The dump includes 80 persons · 27 dialogues · 7763 sections · 113 speaker assignments · 84 prosopographic relations.

Full dataset

platonis.ttl (9.47 MB)