Abstract

What are to be discussed in this article include two main points: i) some kind of a fixed structure can be found in all the chronologies that have been proposed from the last quarter of 19th century onward; a structure that is called here “standard” chronology, and ii) in spite of the fact that the appearance of this structure owes too much to the stylistic evidences, these evidences themselves do not confirm anything in the structure but the place of the so-called late dialogues. The standard chronology of Plato’s dialogues is inclined to consider Meno and Republic as dialogues that have been composed after so-called Socratic dialogues and before Parmenides and Theaetetus. This chronology also insists that the latter two dialogues must be dated after so-called middle dialogues and before dialogues like Sophist, Timaeus, Philebus and Laws. This papper is to illuminate the fact that except the similarities between the late dialogues and their probable lateness, the place of other dialogues, more importantly among them the so-called middle period dialogues, Theaetetus and Parmenides, cannot be approved by stylistic evidences.