Mnemosyne (2021) 341-353 brill.com/mnem Review Article ∵ Theory and Didactic in Olympiodorus and the Alexandrian School A Discussion of Two New Translations Albert Joosse Dept. of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands [email protected] Received July 2020 | Accepted July 2020 Abstract This review article considers two recent Italian and English translations of works by Olympiodorus of Alexandria and his immediate successors (sixth century ce). These translations make accessible to a wider audience a number of works that help us un- derstand a transitional period in the history of thought. This review takes a closer look at some of the substantive views expressed by the translators and evaluates editorial and translation choices. We should beware of exaggerating the differences between these sixth-century philosophers, this review argues, while recognizing that there may be considerable distance between what they thought and what the surviving texts show. Keywords Olympiodorus – Elias – David – commentary – prolegomena © Albert Joosse, 2020 | doi:10.1163/1568525X-bja10065 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0Downloaded license. from Brill.com10/05/2021 12:21:50PM via free access 342 Joosse Francesca Filippi. Olimpiodoro d’Alessandria. Tutti i commentari a Platone. Introduzione, traduzione, testo greco a fronte e note. (2 vols). Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2017. lxxviii, 390; lxxvi, 504 pp. Pr. € 65,00. ISBN 9783896656841; 9783896656858. Sebastian Gertz. Elias and David. ‘Introductions to Philosophy’ with Olympiodorus: ‘Introduction to Logic’. London, Bloomsbury, 2018. viii, 257 pp. Pr. £ 85,00. ISBN 9781350051744. 1 Entering a Transitional Period Francesca Filippi’s two-volume Italian translation with notes of Olympiodorus’ Platonic works and Sebastian Gertz’ English translation of three introductory works from sixth-century Alexandria help make this transitory period in the history of philosophy more accessible. The transition is still insufficiently understood. It is a transition to philosophical traditions—Armenian, Syriac, Byzantine, Arabic—that require more investigation. And while the philosoph- ical era from which it derives has received intensifying scrutiny, the relations of sixth-century philosophy and earlier thinkers remain debated. This time of transition itself, however, also needs to be examined for its own character.1 Filippi’s and Gertz’ work helps this effort. Filippi (hereafter: F.) translates Olympiodorus’ commentaries on the Platonic dialogues First Alcibiades, Gorgias, and Phaedo, as well as the Prolegomena to Plato’s Philosophy, which she claims should be credited to Olympiodorus. Gertz (hereafter: G.) translates Elias’ and David’s respective Introductions to Philosophy (as he translates the Prolegomena) and Olympiodorus’ Introduction to Logic (Prolegomena logica). Both authors have contributed to the study of late ancient Neoplatonism in earlier work, F. with a monograph on Proclus’ commentary on the First Alcibiades (2012), G. with his book on Olympiodorus’ and Damascius’ commentaries on the Phaedo (2011). In addition to its value as a translation, F.’s work also develops a substantive view of Olympiodorus’ place in the history of philosophy that is a welcome contribution to the dis- cussion among Neoplatonic scholars. G.’s volume, an addition to the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, has no such aim but nevertheless gives us a good sense of the importance to the Alexandrians of the business of introduc- ing students to ancient thought. 1 For an argument that stresses the status aparte of the sixth century see Perkams 2017, 22-28. MnemosyneDownloaded from74 (2021)Brill.com10/05/2021 341-353 12:21:50PM via free access Olympiodorus and the Alexandrian School 343 2 Olympiodorus: The Last Neoplatonist? Introducing the œuvre of Olympiodorus, F. proposes to read it as testimony of a phase of consolidation and expansion in the Neoplatonic school. She surveys negative valuations of the philosophical quality of Olympiodorus’ œuvre and more recent insistence on the importance of the didactic reasons behind a less speculative and ontological orientation of his commentaries. According to F., recent studies share two features: a concern to defend Olympiodorus from the criticisms of previous generations and the tendency to measure Olympiodorus’ philosophical quality by the similarity between his works and those of his Athenian predecessors (vol. 1, xvii). However, she argues, this dou- ble agenda risks obscuring our view of Olympiodorus’ own contribution on his own terms. More specifically, she warns against the assumption to see a tight connection between theoretical similarity between Olympiodorus and Proclus and a similarity in their works, so that divergences from the Proclan model in the type of commentary Olympiodorus writes are signs of theoreti- cal divergence (vol. 1, xviii). But this, she argues, mistakes the logic of the de- velopment of the Neoplatonic school. In any school, we can discern a phase of theoretical innovation and one of consolidation and expansion. We should recognise Olympiodorus as a consolidator. In the phase of consolidation, the school seeks to fit the theoretical novelties into the cultural environment by in- tegrating what is compatible with them in other cultural traditions, by refuting what is incompatible with them, and by maximizing the explanatory power of the terms used in communicating these ideas. Had the socio-political circum- stances not been such as to put an end to pagan teaching in Alexandria, F. sub- mits, the sixth century would have constituted the high point of Neoplatonism in late antiquity (vol. 1, xix). In her discussion of the socio-political circumstances, which make them- selves felt particularly in the Gorgias commentary (vol. 2, xvi), F. weighs in on the debate on the event that we know as the closure of the Athenian Academy (vol. 1, xxiii-xxix) as well as on the conditions in Alexandria itself (vol. 1, xxix- xxxvi). On the Athenian side, F. considers to be mistaken the interpretation that ties the closure of the school mainly to the provincial authorities and that sees a pushback against magic and soothsaying behind the triad of ‘philoso- phy, astronomy and dice’ in the law, as reported by Malalas, that leads to the ban on philosophy in Athens (Chronicle 18.47).2 Banning dice would have been 2 The whole passage reads: Ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς ὑπατείας τοῦ αὐτοῦ Δεκίου ὁ αὐτὸς βασιλεὺς θεσπίσας πρόσ­ ταξιν ἔπεμψεν ἐν Ἀθήναις, κελεύσας μηδένα διδάσκειν φιλοσοφίαν μήτε ἀστρονομίαν [Thurn; νόμιμα Dindorf] ἐξηγεῖσθαι μήτε κόττον ἐν μιᾷ τῶν πόλεων γίνεσθαι (‘During the consulship of Mnemosyne 74 (2021) 341-353 Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 12:21:50PM via free access 344 Joosse motivated by anti-gambling convictions anyway (as happened elsewhere and later). Moreover, F. argues, we should resist the preference for ἀστρονομία over νόμιμα that is necessary for this interpretation (as accepted by Thurn, Malalas’ most recent editor). There is much to say in favour of νόμιμα: it was part of Justinian’s push to be the sole legal authority that independent exegeses of the law were prohibited (F. ties this to closures of legal schools in Alexandria, Rome, Caesarea etc.). So it makes sense to think the Athenian law included the prohibition of νόμιμα ἐξηγεῖσθαι. Finally, Thurn’s reading, which is based on a parallel from a very different context (vol. 1, xxvii), does not deliver what is needed, F. argues. In the sixth century, ἀστρονομία and ἀστρολογία were kept separate (F. adduces Ol. In Mete. 19.20-27 Stüve as—convincing—evidence).3 For F., then, philosophical teaching was indeed the target of imperial legisla- tion. F. develops a plausible case,4 although not one most at home in a book on Olympiodorus. F.’s treatment of the situation of the Alexandrian school goes back a long way to describe the setup of the Alexandrian school in previous centuries (vol. 1, xxix-xxx), and even to reference the statements and works about Christians of Aelius Aristides, Celsus and Porphyry (vol. 1, xxx-xxxii). She rightly concen- trates on an event or arrangement that is likely to have had major implications for philosophers in the following decades: with pagan philosophers caught in the spotlight of an imperial investigation in the late 480s, Olympiodorus’ teacher Ammonius and the bishop of Alexandria (Petrus Mongus, most likely) came to an agreement that allowed Ammonius to continue teaching. F. de- scribes two rival reconstructions of events: on the one hand, the theory that Ammonius adapted his teaching to make it unobjectionable to the Christians, and on the other hand the theory that Ammonius collaborated and to a degree betrayed his former colleagues. F. argues that in the absence of more evidence we should accept a synthesis of both interpretations. This is somewhat disap- pointing, since the evidence for such a middle position is not better than for either of the rival theories. Whatever the circumstances, it seems likely that Olympiodorus was the last major pagan philosopher of ancient Alexandria, as F. firmly insists. In his own lectures, Olympiodorus took the presence of Christian students into account. He goes out of his way in his Gorgias commentary, for instance, to reassure Decius, the emperor issued a decree and sent it to Athens ordering that no one should teach philosophy nor interpret astronomy [/the laws] nor in any city should there be lots cast using dice’, tr. Watts, mod.). Note that, contrary to what F. implies, both νόμιμα and ἀστρονομίαν have MS support. 3 A similar passage: Simpl. in Ph. 293.10-15. 4 For an alternative interpretation see e.g. Watts 2006, 128-138. MnemosyneDownloaded from74 (2021)Brill.com10/05/2021 341-353 12:21:50PM via free access Olympiodorus and the Alexandrian School 345 them that they should not be disturbed when they hear of pagan myths. At no time, F. argues, did this detract from his commitment to pagan philosophy. But the very next generation of teachers was no longer pagan.