Olympiodorus: Commentary on Plato's Gorgias

apart from the Theaetetus on which Olympiodorus may also have commented,See Ibn al-Nadīm, Fihrist, Dodge (1970), p. 593; the title here is disputed. We know also of Olympiodorus’ lectures on the Sophist, In Alc. 110. would have been regarded as ‘expository’ (hyphegetic) by most ancient Platonists.Though Albinus in the second century seems to have regarded the logical works too (Crat., Sph., Plt., Prm.) as ‘zetetic’, anon. Prol. 6. A work regarded as other than a simple vehicle for doctrine imposes a greater need to consider its purpose and structure, and permits a wider range of possibilities for the interpreter.

Of Olympiodorus’ extant Plato commentaries, the Alcibiades and Phaedo were able to draw on a much richer interpretative history than the Gorgias.The Alcibiades had been the first work in the curriculum not only since Iamblichus but even in the second-century programme of Albinus (Prol. 5). The Phaedo and Alcibiades concerned the soul’s nature and immortality, themes of central concern to Neoplatonists. The Alcibiades was seen as something of a model of Socratic education, containing elenctic (cross-examining), protreptic (persuasive), and maieutic (midwifery-related) elements, as well as introducing the student to his inner self in the third part. In contrast to this work’s constructive image, the Gorgias had regularly been seen as a polemical work designed to overturn the views expounded by rival educators, and it featured prominently in the rivalry between orators and philosophers. The Gorgias also had much overtly political subject-matter, which was not a principal concern of Neoplatonists, and may have made it a more sensitive work for open discussion.Note that Olympiodorus, following a division which probably goes back to Iamblichus (Dillon, 1973, p. 231), regards only the first part of Alc. (to 119a) as being elenctic, In Alc. 11.

Despite its length, Olympiodorus’ discussion often seems cramped and arbitrary—an impression perhaps exaggerated by its being in the form of notes taken by a student—rarely grappling in depth with the problems that are familiar from modern discussion. Hence the quality of his work has often been questioned, but usually because he fails to supply what philosophers and scholars are themselves seeking. It is not entirely fair to judge the commentary by what it adds to our understanding of the Gorgias;As perhaps Dodds (1959), p. 59. it is much fairer to ask what he might be contributing towards his own students’ understanding and enjoyment of the work. It is also instructive for a modern reader of Plato to appreciate how a work like the Gorgias could be understood in a different age.