Observations on CREUZER's edition of the Commentary of OLYMPIODORUS on the First Alcibiades of Plato. 8vo. Francof. 1821. THE learned Editor commences his preface to this work with an account of the celebrated men that have been called by the name of Olympiodorus, and satisfactorily shows that the author of this Commentary was not Olympiodorus the Peripatetic, whose school was frequented by Proclus, for the sake of imbibing the doctrine of Aristotle; and in short that he was not a Peripatetic, but a Platonist. He also asserts with the greatest probability, that he florished under the Emperor Justinian, when the schools of the philosophers were not yet closed, and the sacred and salutary light of wisdom was not entirely intercepted by unparalleled barbarism, and lost in its attendant gloom. It seems, however, to have escaped the notice of this very learned editor, that the Olympiodorus, whose Commentaries on the Meteors of Aristotle are extant, is the same with the Olympiodorus who wrote the Commentaries on the First Alcibiades, Phædo, Philebus, and Gorgias of Plato. For that the Commentator of this name on the Meteors of Aristotle was a Platonist, is evident in the first place from what he says in p. 32 of that work in defence of Democritus and Plato, against the opposition made by Aristotle to their opinion about the sea; for his words are : Φερε δε ημεις υπερ τουτου απολογησομεθα, δείξαντες οτι ου καλως Αριστοτελης καταδρομη κατα τουτων εχρησατο. μαλλον δου του τοις εναντιούται, αλλα τοις κακως τα παρ' αυτων λεγομενα διαλαμβανουσιν. ου γαρ ως συφης ω δαιμονιε φαμεν Αριστοτελης, ο Πλατων ολότητα του ύδατος ελεγεν οντα τον ταρταρον, αλλα τουτο ελεγε μυθικώς. ου χρη ουν τα μυθικώς λεγομενα, φυσικώς εκλαμβανειν. αλλα ταυτα ελεγεν ο Πλατων αλλα τινα αινιττομενος. Here he says that Aristotle does not rightly blame Plato for asserting in the Phædo "Hucusque pertinuit veteris elegantiorisque doctrinæ proventus, qui paullatim exaruit Justiniano imperio ac deinceps. Hic Atheniensem clausit scholam, in qua floruerant Plutarchus, Nestorii filius, Syrianus, Proclus, Marinus, Damascius, unde Simplicius, Olympiodorus, aliique prodierant: philosophi expulsi: vexati per orbem Romanum avitæ religionis cultores, ex quorum numero fere erant docti homines. Per trecentos annos stupor et barbaries omnia obtinuerunt. Ergo in hoc temporis spatio plurimorum veterum librorum, in his etiam Plutarchorum, ponendus est interitus." These are the words of Wyttenbach in Præfatione ad Plutarch. Moralia p. LV. that Tartarus is the oλorns or wholeness of water; because Plato said this mythologically, obscurely indicating something else; and that what is asserted mythologically, is not to be assumed physically. And in the second place, this is evident from his calling Proclus in p. 59. 010s, by which appellation, as also by Meyas, he is usually designated by the Platonists posterior to him. μέγας, That he was likewise the same with the author of this Commentary on the First Alcibiades, is I think evident from what Olympiodorus on the Meteors, and Olympiodorus on the Phædo assert about the perpetuity of the punishments in Tartarus. For souls that have committed the greatest and incurable offences are said by Plato to be hurled into Tartarus, and to be there punished eternally. In the former of these works therefore (p. 32) it is said, πλην ει και λεγω αιδίως κολασθησομεναι δια το ανιατα ημαρ σηκεναι εν τω Ταρταρῳ, μηδε νομισης, οτι εις απειρους αιώνας κολα ζεται η ψυχή εν τω Ταρταρῳ. ευγε ου δια μηνιν του θείου κολάζεται η ψυχή, αλλ' ιατρειας χαριν. αλλ' αιωνίως φαμεν κολάζεσθαι την ψυχην, αιώνα καλούντες τον αυτης βιον και την μερικην αυτης περιοδον. τῷ γαρ οντι τα μεγιστα πλημμελήσασαι ψυχαι ουκ αρκούνται μια περ ριοδῳ καθαρθήναι, αλλ' εισιν εν τῷ βίῳ διηνεκώς ωσπερ εν τω ταρταρώ, ην περιοδον, αιωνα εκαλεσεν ο Πλατων. In this very remarkable passage Olympiodorus observes, that the soul is not punished by divinity through anger, but medicinally; and that by eternity we must understand the soul's partial period, because, in reality, souls that have committed the greatest offences cannot be sufficiently purified in one period. If we compare this with what is said by Olympiodorus on the Phædo, we shall find the same thing asserted in a more summary way, ει δε και αλλαχου λέγει αιώνιον την κόλασιν, αλλ' ουν αιωνα καλει περιοδον τινα, και αποκαταστασιν. For here it is said that when Plato speaks of eternal punishment, he denominates a certain period and apocatastasis of the soul for ever. What this period is, Olympiodorus on the Gorgias admirably explains as follows: "There are seven spheres, the sphere of the moon, that of the sun, and those of the other planets; but the inerratic is the eighth sphere. The lunar sphere therefore, makes a complete revolution more swiftly for it is accomplished in thirty days. That of the sun 2 Oxorns in the philosophy both of Plato and Aristotle signifies a whole with a perpetual subsistence, and which comprehends in itself all the multitude of which it is the cause. 2 I quote this from a copy of the Harleian Ms. of this work which I have in my possession, not having the edition of these Scholia by Mustoxyd. and Schin. Venet. 1817. is more slow for it is accomplished in a year. That of Jupiter is still slower: for it is effected in twelve years. And much more that of Saturn: for it is completed in thirty years. The stars therefore are not conjoined with each other in their revolutions, except rarely. Thus, for instance, the sphere of Saturn and the sphere of Jupiter are conjoined with each other in their revolutions in sixty years. For if the sphere of Jupiter comes from the same to the same in twelve years, but that of Saturn in thirty years, it is evident that when Jupiter has made five, Saturn will have made two revolutions; for twice thirty is sixty, and so likewise is twelve times five; so that their revolutions will be conjoined in sixty years. Souls therefore are punished for such like periods. But the seven planetary spheres conjoin their revolutions with the inerratic sphere through many myriads of years; and this is the period which Plato calls τον αει χρονον, for ever!” See more on this most interesting subject from the same author in Vol. 4, p. 455, of my Plato. Nor is it at all wonderful that Olympiodorus, though a Platonist, should write a Commentary on the Meteors of Aristotle: for it was no unusual thing with the best of the disciples of Plato to publish elucidations of Aristotle's works, which they considered as introductory to the more sublime speculations of Plato. Hence the great Syrianus commented on his Metaphysics, treatise on the Heavens, and on Interpretation, and lamblichus on his Categories, and treatise on the Soul. In this Commentary therefore on the First Alcibiades, Olympiodorus conciliates, wherever he can, Aristotle with Plato, as knowing that the writings of the former are subservient to a developement of the mysteries of the latter. Hence in p. 39. και, ως Αριστοτελης φησι, καιρος εστι χρονος προσλαβών το δεον. In p. 40. φησι δε και εν τω περι Ερμηνείας ο Αριστοτελης και τοσαυτα μεν λέγεται προς τας σοφιστικας ενοχλήσεις αντι του απορίας, εκ μεταφοράς του οχλου, και αυτος οχλησιν είπε την απορίαν ενοχλεις ουν, απορείν ποιεις. Ρ. 71, ως Αριστοτελης ημας εν ρητορικαίς τεχ ναις εδίδαξε. Ρ. 118, εφ' οις δείκνυσι και δια τριτου συλλογισμού, οτι παν καλον αγαθόν, και το αναπαλιν, και κεχρηται δείξει, ην ωφεληθη Αριστοτέλης εν τη περι Ουρανου. Ρ. 122, διο και ο δαιμόνιος Αριστοτελης, αρχην υποθεμενος ου το πρωτον αιτιον, αλλα τον νουν, εν τη μετα τα φυσικα, περι αυτου διαλεγόμενος ελεγε διττον ειναι το ευ το μεν εν τω στρατηγῳ, το δε εν τω στρατοπεδῳ· και αιτιον ειναι το των στρατηγῳ του εν τω στρατοπεδῳ. This last passage is employed by Syrianus and Simplicius to show that Aristotle must necessarily admit with Plato the subsistence of ideas in the intellect of deity, which are the paradigms and producing causes of all material forms. And in the last place in p. 177, επι δε του καθα εν αρτικου μαλλον εμπόδιον γινεται το σωμα καλως ειρημένου του υπο Αριστοτελους, κ. τ. λ. Having, therefore, endeavoured to prove that the Olympiodorus who commented on the Meteors of Aristotle, is the same that wrote this Commentary on the First Alcibiades of Plato, I. shall make some remarks on certain passages in this work, which will be both philosophical and critical. In the first place, Olympiodorus having observed that Plato energises enthusiastically, or from divine inspiration, in four dialogues, and that one specimen of this energy is to be found in the Timæus, where he represents the Demiurgus addressing the celestial, whom he calls the junior Gods, concerning the administration of mortal concerns ;-adds, (p. 2,) Δευτερος ενθουσιασμος εστιν εν τη Πολιτεια, ενθα μουσοληπτος γεγονως υπεκρίθη τας Μουσας, ας εξίουσας την λυσιν της υπο αυτου συστασης πολιτειας ενθα φησιν, κ. τ. λ. The learned editor justly remarks in a note on the words Tas Mouras as ε&iovσas, x. т. λ. “ Proxima non sana videntur." But it appears to me that if for as ouσas we read douσas, the passage will be correct. For then what Olympiodorus says will be in English: "The second instance of enthusiastic energy in Plato is in [the 8th book of] the Republic, where being inspired by the Muses, he represents them narrating the dissolution of the polity constituted by him." The following are the words of Plato in that work, to which Olympiodorus alludes, and confirm the above emendation: BOUλEL, WOTTEP Ομηρος, ευχώμεθα ταις Μουσαις ειπειν ημιν όπως δη πρωτον στασις εμπεσε, και φωμεν αυτας τραγικως, ως προς παίδας ημας παίζουσας και ερεσχελουσας, ως δη σπουδή λεγουσας, υψηλολογουμενας λεγειν ; πως; ωδε πως. Χαλεπον μεν κινηθηναι πολιν, ουτώ ξυστασαν, αλλ' επει γενομένῳ παντι φθορα εστιν, ουδ' η τοιαυτη ξυστασις τον απαντα μενει χρονον, αλλα λυθησεται. Vol. II. p. 161. Edit. Mass. In p. 17, 18, Olympiodorus speaking of the differences of dæmons, and having observed that in the celestial orbs there are deity, intellect, a rational soul, an irrational soul, form, and matter, says, that such of them as conjoin us to the deity of the celestials, are called divine dæmons, and preside over enthusiastic energies; but those that unite us to the intellect of these orbs are called intellectual, and preside over those common conceptions [or axioms] through which we have a knowledge above demonstration, and indemonstrably. And those that conjoin us to the rational soul of these divinities, are denominated rational. After which he adds, Οι δε προς την των ουρανίων αλογον συνάπτοντες ημας αλογοι. The learned editor in a note at the word axoyov observes, "Aut excidit vocabulum, aut lectio mendosa est." A word is certainly wanting, and that word is so obviously oxy, that I wonder the necessity of inserting it in this place should have been unperceived by so learned a man. In the following passage, p. 21, Olympiodorus speaking of the dæmons that are allotted to mankind as their guardians, says, ̓Αλλ' επειδη δαιμονας ειλήχοτας ειρηκαμεν, δει γινωσκειν, οτι και παρα τῇ κοινῇ συνήθεια συνεγνωσται ταυτα, ει και μη τοις αυτοίς ονομασιν. Αντι γαρ του δαίμονος αλλον εκάστου φασιν αμέλει εστιν αυτών ακούειν τον αγγελον σου, κ. τ. λ. But in this passage, for δαίμονος αλλον, it is doubtless necessary to read δαιμονος αγγελον, κ. τ. λ. as is evident from what Olympiodorus adds immediately after these words. The following passage respecting our allotted dæmon, or in modern language, our guardian angel, is most remarkable, and contains an opinion concerning this presiding power, which is not to be found in any other of the Greek interpreters of Plato: Και ταυτα μεν οι εξηγηται περι τε δαιμονων και ειληχότων ημεις δε συμβιβαστικώς τοις παρουσι ταυτα πειρασόμεθα διεξελθειν και γαρ Σωκρατους κωνιον κατεψηφισθη, ως καινά δαιμονια τοις νέοις εισηγουμενού, και θεους νομίζοντος ους η πολις ουχ ηγείτο θεους. ρητέον ουν ειληχότα δαίμονα το συνειδος υπαρχειν, οπερ ακρον αωτον έστι της ψυχής, και αναμάρτητον εν ημιν, και ακλίνης δικαστης, και μαρτυς των ενταυθα γινομένων τῳ Μινωϊ και τῳ Ραδάμανθυϊ. τουτο δε και σωτηρίας ημιν αιτιον γίνεται, ως αναμάρτητον αει διαμένον εν ημιν, και μη συγκαταψηφιζομενον τοις υπο της ψυχης αμαρτάνομενοις, αλλά και ανιλλομενον επι τουτοις, και επιστρεφον αυτην προς το δεον. το συνειδος ουν ειληχοτα καλων δαιμονα ουκ αν αμαςτοις. ιστέον δε, οτι του συνειδότος, το μεν επι ταις γνωστικαίς ημων δυνάμεσι λεγεται συνείδος ομωνύμως τω γενει. (p. 23.) i. e. “ This is what is said by the interpreters [of Plato] concerning dæmons, and those which are allotted to us. We, however, shall endeavour to discuss these particulars in such a way as to reconcile them with what is at present said by Plato. For Socrates was condemned to take poison, in consequence of introducing to young men novel dæmoniacal powers, and for thinking those to be Gods which were not admitted to be so by the city. It must be said therefore, that the allotted dæmon is conscience, which is the supreme flower of the soul, is guiltless in us, is an inflexible judge, and a witness to Minos and Radamanthus of the transactions of the present life. This also becomes the cause to us of our salvation, as always remaining in us without guilt, and not assenting to the errors of the soul, but disdaining them, and converting the soul to what is proper. You will not err, therefore, in calling the allotted damon conscience. But it is requisite to know that of conscience one kind pertains to our gnostic powers, and which is denominated conscience [co-intel |