William Altman, Independent Scholar
traditional but possibly false assumption, my paper will consider the best reason, apart from
Socrates’ disinterest in natural science, for distinguishing the views of Plato from those
expressed in Timaeus: the contrasting views on women found in Republic and Timaeus, two
dialogues that Plato clearly linked. But despite the fact that the summary of the Republic at the
beginning of Timaeus leaves out a great deal of the former, it emphasizes the role of women as
guardians, and thus their equality with respect to courage and justice in particular. It is therefore
the claim of Timaeus that the first woman “in the second genesis” (90e8-91a1) had been
cowardly and unjust men—even going so far as to call this not even “a likely myth” but “a likely
λόγος” (90e6-91a1)—that constitutes the Achilles Heel of the assumption that Plato intended us
to regard Timaeus as expressing his own views. In order to justify their interest in Natural
Science, Neoplatonists needed to (1) uphold the assumption and (2) either ignore or palliate the
text that constituted that assumption’s Achilles Heel. In a recent paper, James Wilberding
grapples with this “regrettable reincarnation thesis,” and my paper’s third point concerns his
“Women in Plotinus,” the thesis of which is that—given the misogyny he inherited from
Plato—that Plotinus “is much more positive in his attitude toward women than Plato.”
Wilberding acknowledges that Plotinus inherited from Plato a mixed bag, specifically citing the
“philosopher-queens thesis” from Republic and the cowardly and unjust men thesis from
Timaeus. Although Wilberding’s apologetic purpose is evident throughout, (3) his paper makes
three valuable points: (a) Plotinus never mentions the “philosopher-queens thesis,” primary
evidence for the “positive side” of the Platonic inheritance, (b) both of “the negative side”
passages he discusses are from Timaeus, and (c) the only passage in the Enneads that mentions
women in the context of “the regrettable reincarnation thesis” describes two unjust men being
reincarnated as women (2.2.12.11-17), thereby affirming “Plato” in accordance with “(1)” but in
a manner that puts the best possible face on “(2).”