Olympiodorus: Commentary on Plato's Gorgias

9

lectures on the Categories, had made Heraclitus (flourished c. 500 BC) the student of the fourth-century skeptic Pyrrho, so even scholars could go well astray on chronology.In Cat. p. 2.8-17 Busse. One must allow for the possibility that the lecturer had been trying to make a valid point about the philosophical heritage. This error seems to have been the fault of the recorder—often, one may suppose, a senior student—as perhaps when Olympiodorus appears to see Aristotle as a student of Socrates (41.3). We should bear in mind that problems and obscurities in texts such as Olympiodorus’ Commentaries can result from a variety of causes: the lecturer’s own imprecision, the recorder’s error, transmission error, or combinations of the above.Westerink has much to say about note-takers’ incompetence (1962), xxxvii-xl. Another example of a chronology problem in this commentary concerns the relative dates of Plato and Gorgias (0.9).See Tarrant (1997a). Olympiodorus’ history is possibly much less sloppy than it appears at first sight, in spite of problems associated with the use of lectures somewhat inaccurately recorded by students.

Olympiodorus sees it as his duty to defend the reputation of famous historical characters by making their conduct conform as closely as possible to the standards of his own day. Hence the moral portraits that the Platonist biographer Plutarch sketches of figures such as Theseus and Lycurgus suit Olympiodorus better than conventional history, although we should also note his rejection of the historical accuracy of Greek legends. Well-known figures of fifth-century Greek history had to be defended in similar terms, even where Plato had criticized them. Similarly, rhetoric and its practitioners cannot be condemned outright.On Demosthenes, Lycurgus, and Isocrates see 1.13, 41.10, etc. Olympiodorus’ defense of the four democratic leaders and of rhetoric in general is strikingly reminiscent of Proclus’ defense of Homer against Socrates’ criticisms in his extended discussion in In Remp. Drama fared less well.See Tarrant (1997b), 182-3.

Olympiodorus’ mission to promote and defend ancient Greek culture in general, and particularly its philosophical and scientific achievements, is not intended as a threat in any way to other cultures and philosophies; in particular, it is presented in such a way as to avoid giving offense to the Christian religion. Cultural coexistence in Alexandria had a long history,Even in the time of Hypatia, over a century before Olympiodorus’ career as a lecturer, suppression of pagan philosophic and scientific studies had been less part of any Christian agenda than the suppression of its influence upon high-ranking Alexandrian life. Moreover, it is clear that considerable numbers of Christians were interested in and supportive of the Platonic school’s activities. Hypatia was a victim of struggles within the Christian community rather than of a struggle of Christians against others. See Dzielska (1995), 27-100. and this was no