Olympiodorus #1: A Pagan Master under Christian Rule

The intellectual history of late antiquity is often discussed under headings like “the decline of polytheism” which suggest a slow but steady descent into obscurity. But a decline in numbers should not be confused with a decline in importance: both for their contemporaries and (much more, even) for posterity, the pagan philosophers of the 5^th and 6^th centuries were some of the most influential intellectuals. Among their number, Olympiodorus of Alexandria (ca. 500 until after 565 CE) may not rank as one of the greatest, at least by any modern standard. But it is remarkable that, less than a century before Alexandria was conquered by the early Muslims (around year 640 of the Christian Era/year 18 after the Hijra), Christian families still were still sending their children to learn from a pagan master, and that he neither had to dissemble nor to stay silent about his beliefs.

In fact, Olympiodorus is arguably representative of an increasing influence of pagan learning on Christian thought. This is indisputable when it comes to the role of Aristotelian logic, which later generations of Byzantine and Armenian intellectuals learned from the commentaries of Olympiodorus and his successors Elias, David, and Pseudo-Elias/Pseudo-David (Ps-ED for short), who did not deviate much from him, as much as they learned it from from Aristotle’s own works.

Extant works

From Olympiodorus himself, we have not only lectures on Aristotle’s Categories, the first piece in the Aristotelian curriculum, which is preceded by a remarkably clear Introduction to philosophy as a whole (the so-called Prolegomena), but also a commentary on Plato’s Alcibiades, the first work of the Platonic curriculum, which begins with a short Life of Plato. Similar basic introductions to (Neoplatonic) philosophy from earlier Neoplatonism do not really exist, and in my opinion would provide a very useful resource in modern teaching about ancient philosophy, but one that has so far been inaccessible because of a lack of translations. (Of course, now that we have a translation, it is unfortunately so expensive that it is only slightly less inaccessible.)

Beside these two elementary commentaries, records of his lectures on Aristotle’s Meteorology, as well as on Plato’s Phaedo and Gorgias are also extant. Of two more Aristotelian commentaries (on De interpretatione and on De anima), only slight remains exist.

Finally, an astrological work, lectures on the Isagogica by Paul of Alexandria, has been convincingly ascribed to Olympiodorus “or one of his co-workers” (Westerink, Ein astrologisches Kolleg aus dem Jahre 564, p. 6) in recent decades (the manuscripts name the author as Heliodorus).

His works are the first to employ a format that was popular among commentators on philosophical and medical works for the next century or so, and which also used by the alchemist (pseudo-)Stephanus and the Syrian theologian Theodore of Raithu. Each lecture – as these commentaries all directly or indirectly reflect oral exegesis of source texts – is given the heading Praxis 1, 2, etc., and each praxis is divided into theoria (the lecturer’s own remarks about the subject of the lesson) and the lexis (a close commentary on the primary text, often involving points of grammar, vocabulary, etc.).

Spurious works

Apart from the influence on logic, commentary format, and astrology (the latter rather minor, I think), the commentary on the Meteorology also shows the philosopher's own knowledge of alchemy – a subject that seems to have been entirely dominated by Christians in earlier centuries and was never mentioned by Early and Middle Neoplatonists –, and there are two alchemical works spuriously ascribed to Olympiodorus. This seems to represent a broadening of subjects pagan philosophers interested themselves in, as well as a new peak of their prestige, which led an anonymous Christian writer in a predominantly Christian genre to borrow the name of a pagan master to gain authority.

Another pseudo-Olympiodorus is the author of a work which the great Syrian philosopher-translator Ḥunayn bin Isḥāq (808–873 CE) translated into Arabic and his son Isḥāq bin Ḥunayn (ca. 830–910) revised. It is a reworking of Olympiodorus’ commentary on the Meteorology. It was edited by Α. Badawī (ed.), Commentaires sur Aristote perdus en grec et autres èpîtres, Beyrouth 1971, and discussed in P. Lettinck, Aristotle’s Meteorology and its Reception in the Arab World, 1999. As far as I know, there are no translations, but I do not expect that it contains anything of relevance for this post anyway. Beside pseudo-Olympiodorus, a direct translation of Olympiodorus’ commentary into Arabic also existed, but is now lost.

What these posts are about

Rather than make a reply to previous discussions of Olympiodorus’ religious ideas, which would honestly just be too frustrating because of how many bad takes exist in the secondary literature, I will present here all the passages of relevance to the topic that I have found in his works, with minimal commentary. I may well have overlooked a couple of minor things, but hopefully nothing of real importance. This post will contain only the first few excerpts, the mass of the other works will be contained in further posts; and the alchemical pseudo-Olympiodoran works I will translate at some point in the future, diis volentibus.

Excerpts from the Prolegomena to On Categories (transl. Gertz 2018)

The Division of (Aristotelian) Philosophy. From Lecture 2:

We employ a division of philosophy <into> both theoretical and practical sciences and maintain that natural science, theology*, and mathematics belong to the theoretical sciences. The lecture courses called Physics, On Generation and Corruption, On the Heavens, Meteorology, and On the Soul treat natural science. The Mechanical and Optical Problems are examples of mathematical writings. The Metaphysics is an example of theological writings. Ethics, household management, and politics belong to the practical sciences. The ethical works include e.g. the so-called Eudemian and Nicomachean Ethics; the ones concerning household management, e.g. Aristotle’s Household Manager (he himself gave it that title); the political, e.g. his Statesman, which is a different work from the 250 constitutions we mentioned before – for these are not universal. In this way one can make a division between theoretical and practical sciences. Some logical treatises teach the method itself, while others contribute to the method, and others again purify it. This method is the so-called ‘method of proof’, the so-called Posterior Analytics, but the Categories, On Interpretation, and Prior Analytics contribute to it. The Sophistical Refutations, Topics, and the arts of Rhetoric and the book called On Poetry purify the method.

*Theologia is simply metaphysics in this context.

On Pseudepigraphy. From Lecture 2:

Sometimes books are falsely attributed because of the loyalty of students towards their teacher, as with all the writings that are ascribed to Pythagoras. For Pythagoras did not leave behind any writings of his own: he would say that one should not leave behind soulless writings, since they cannot stand up for themselves, but ensouled writings instead (i.e. students), which are able to fight for themselves and their teachers. So his students composed writings and ascribed them to the name of Pythagoras out of loyalty. And for this reason all the writings that circulate under the name of Pythagoras are misattributions.

The Kinds of Real Beings. From Lecture 4:

[T]here are as many opinions [about what the Categories is about] as there are real beings. But these are three in kind, either things (pragmata) or thoughts (noêmata) or words (phônai): things are created by god*, thoughts by intellect, and words by the soul.

*Literally, ‘the god’. Olympiodorus means gods collectively, as when we say, archaically, “the inventions of man” for the inventions of humankind. Almost everywhere that the translators put “god” or “God”, this has to be understood.

From On Categories (my translations, as no published translation exists)

Here it may be mentioned that Olympiodorus regularly uses the expression σύν θεῷ sun theôi, ‘with god’, like his Christian contemporaries teaching in Alexandria. It is particularly used at the start and close of sections, in the sense of “I will explain this topic today, if the god helps me”, and “I have brought the lecture to an end, thanks to the god.” The missing article (one would expect sun tôi theôi usually) may be explained as being originally from Jewish/Christian usage (the article of theos is often omitted in the New Testament, for example, after a preposition), but it was hardly perceived as such by Olympiodorus.

What Aristotle, Rituals and Mythical Poetry Have in Common. From Lecture 10:

"Of things themselves some are predicable of a subject" (1a20) [...] he stirred up a puzzle for the exegetes, why in the world he used unclear words, when he was able to name these things (clearly) as substance, accident, universal, particular. And of this certain people say that one reason is this: that he spoke unclearly on account of this, to not make his own philosophy accessible to all, and as in the sacred rites, there are curtains*, and in poems, the myths, so also was the unclearness contrived by him here.

But a second reason, [...]

*Parapetasmata; this is conceptually as well as terminologically close (and I expect related) to the Latin use of integumentum, 'cover', for the external form of a myth as opposed to its underlying real meaning, which allowed medieval theologians to make use of overtly pagan sources with great freedom and creativity (but little fidelity). The idea that Aristotle wrote in an obscure fashion deliberately and with good reason was commonly accepted among the Neoplatonists.

Nature the Craftsperson. From Lecture 18:

... nature fabricated (dêmiourgêsan) the eye...

Thales the Astronomer. From Lecture 25:

...the astronomy of Thales*...

*Along with an anecdote told in the commentary on Gorgias, this seems to show that for Olympiodorus, Thales was primarily an astronomer/astrologer. There was a pseudonymous treatise on the subject current in antiquity, but even so, the mention of him as the prototypical astronomer (alongside Hippocrates as the prototypical physician, in this case) is quite unusual.

Finally, it is interesting (and probably a conscious choice in light of his Christian audience) that Olympiodorus never uses the definition of gods as immortal rational animals, which was a staple of introductory logical texts. (Unless I just missed it?)