INTRODUCTION

We believe both factors are relevant. The focus on Aristotle may have been encouraged by Christian hostility toward the Platonist theology presented by Proclus. It is significant that neither Ammonius nor Olympiodorus is known to have lectured on the four "theological" works in the Platonist curriculum: Phaedrus, Symposium, Philebus, and Parmenides.

We should not assume more than the evidence allows regarding Olympiodorus himself. He was formerly confused with a Christian writer of the same name, though it is clear that our author is not a Christian. He was likely born between 495 and 505 and was still lecturing in 565 or shortly thereafter. This implies a long career. Indeed, the Gorgias-commentary has been dated as early as 525, though this is mostly guesswork, especially given the likely lateness of the Alcibiades-commentary. There is no direct evidence that he was teaching that early. If we follow Verrycken and others in dating Philoponus’ rejection of key tenets of Ammonian Neoplatonism to 529, then it might be that Olympiodorus had only just succeeded Eutocius as leader of the Alexandrian school. Philoponus—who previously had a high profile and whose intellect must have outstripped his rival—might have viewed this as either a personal slight or a step back toward both overt paganism and the dominance of Plato.

In favor of an early date for our commentary, some have argued that it is less philosophically profound, which might be explained by immaturity. However, philosophical profundity has tended to be measured by the degree of abstract theorizing common in Proclus and Damascius. In our view, differences in this regard are better explained by the mode of engagement with the text or differences in the target audience. Olympiodorus comments on a text with ethical rather than metaphysical relevance before an audience.