Life of Plato — Olympiodorus
============================
ΒΙΟΣ ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ
Translation/edition: Michael Griffin
Language: English
Read in Plato Scroll: https://plato-scroll.com/s/olymp-life-plato/
This file: https://plato-scroll.com/text/olymp-life-plato.txt
Other editions of this work:
  - Thomas Taylor (1804): https://plato-scroll.com/text/olymp-life-plato-g.txt
Sources and licences: https://plato-scroll.com/attribution.html
Numbers in [brackets] are the edition's reference loci (Stephanus, Bekker, book.line, page...). Superscript numerals refer to the Notes at the end.


### On beginning Platonic philosophy

[1] Aristotle begins his own Theology¹ with the statement that ‘all human beings naturally reach out for knowledge; and a sign of this is their love of the senses’. [1,5] But in beginning Plato’s philosophy, I would go a step further and say that all human beings reach out for Plato’s philosophy, because all people wish to draw benefit from it; they are eager to be enchanted by its fountain, and to quench their thirst with Plato’s inspirations.²

### Platonic inspirations

[1] There are four of these in [Plato], in four of his dialogues. One, in the Timaeus,³ he delivers with inspiration after he has become divinely possessed, and portrays the Demiurge addressing the heavenly [bodies], whom he calls the ‘young gods’, about the administration of affairs here [on Earth]. (That is also why Iamblichus entitled his commentary on this dialogue On the Speech of Zeus.)⁴
[2] The second inspiration occurs in the Republic,⁵ where he became possessed by the Muses and portrayed them recounting in detail the dissolution of the constitution that he had constructed, when he says: ‘everything that has come to be must necessarily pass away’.
[2] The third inspiration occurs in the Phaedrus,⁶ where Socrates was possessed [10] by the nymphs as he philosophised under the plane tree about love (erôs).
[2] The fourth occurs in the Theaetetus,⁷ where he became philosophically inspired in his portrayal of the leader of the philosophical chorus (koruphaios), that is, the contemplative philosopher.⁸
[2] It is, then, for the sake of these inspirations that everyone comes to the philosophy of Plato.⁹
[2] [Life of Plato]¹⁰ But come, let us also describe the parentage and life (genos)¹¹ of the philosopher, not for the sake of ‘much-learning’,¹² but rather to help and prepare those who approach him: for this is no ‘Nobody’,¹³ but rather the ‘one who reverts human beings’.¹⁴ For the story goes that Plato was born the son of Ariston, son of Aristocles, from whom he traced his family to Solon the lawgiver (which is also why, in emulation of his ancestor, he wrote the Laws and the Composition of the Republic, in 12 and 10¹⁵ books respectively): and he was born from his [20] mother Perictione, who was descended from Neleus, son of Codrus. Now they say that a vision (phasma) of Apollo coupled with his mother Perictione, and appeared to Ariston in the night, instructing him not to have intercourse with Perictione until she gave birth, and he acted accordingly.¹⁶ And when Plato was [25] born, his parents took the newborn and placed him on Mount Hymettus, wishing to make sacrifices on his behalf to the gods there, Pan, the Nymphs, and Shepherd Apollo. And as he lay there, the bees approached and filled his mouth with honey from their honeycombs,¹⁷ so that the saying came true of him,
[2] from whose tongue flows speech sweeter than honey.¹⁸
[2] And he also calls himself in every way ‘the fellow-servant of the swans’,¹⁹ since he came forth from Apollo; for the swan is Apollo’s bird.

### The education of Plato

[2] When Plato reached the appropriate age, in order to pursue the usual course in reading and writing (koina grammata) he initially studied under Dionysius the grammarian, whom he actually mentions in the Lovers,²⁰ in order that his teacher Dionysius would not lack a share in the enduring memory attached to [35] Plato. Then, after him, he availed himself of a teacher of gymnastics, Ariston of Argos,²¹ by whom he was reportedly given the name ‘Plato’ (he was previously called Aristocles after his grandfather).²² He was given this name because of two parts of his body that were particularly ‘broad’ (platus), his chest and his brow, as the images of him set up everywhere tell us, since this is how they appear. But others say that he was not renamed for that reason, but rather on [40] account of the ‘breadth’ (to platu), the flow, and the open expanse of his unconstrained style, just as they say that Theophrastus was renamed on account of the divine (theios) quality of his expression (phrasis), having been called Tyrtamon before.²³ And Plato had as his music teacher Draco, the pupil of Damon, whom he mentions in the Republic.²⁴
[2] [45] Athenian youths were taught these three subjects – I mean reading and writing, music, and wrestling – not just for the subjects’ own sake,²⁵ but in the case of reading and writing to structure the reason (logos) within them; in the case of music, to master their spirited emotion (thumos); and in the case of wrestling and gymnastics, to rekindle their appetite (epithumia) when it waned.²⁶ ([Plato’s] Alcibiades was evidently taught these three subjects as [50] well, which is why Socrates says to him, ‘but you refused to learn the pipe’, and so on.)²⁷
[2] And he also studied under painters, from whom he had help in the mixing of colours, and he refers to these in the Timaeus.²⁸ After this he was taught by the tragic poets, who were called ‘the teachers of Greece’; he went to these for the gnomic and solemn qualities to be found in (apo) tragedy and for the heroic nature of its subjects.²⁹ And he participated in the dithyrambs that were performed in honour of Dionysus (who is called the ‘overseer of becoming’).³⁰ For the dithyramb was dedicated to Dionysus, from whom it also took its name: Dionysus was the ‘Dithyramb’ because he came forth from two (duo) portals (thurai), from Semele and from the thigh of Zeus. As a matter of fact, the ancients were accustomed to call effects by the names of their causes, just as they also call wine ‘Dionysus’. That is why Proclus³¹ says on this subject,
[2] All that they prophesied to the parents, I beheld in the children.³²
[2] That Plato had also practised the dithyramb [at this time] is clear from the Phaedrus,³³ a dialogue that abounds in dithyrambic style,³⁴ when we consider that this was reportedly the first dialogue that Plato wrote.³⁵
[2] He especially enjoyed both the comic poet Aristophanes and Sophron, from whom he had some help in the representation of the characters of his dialogues. He reportedly enjoyed them so much that when he died, [the works of] Aristophanes and Sophron were even found on his couch. And he personally [70] composed the following epigram for Aristophanes:
[2] The Graces, when they sought to take up a sacred space (temenos) that would
never fall, found the soul of Aristophanes.³⁶
[2] And he put [Aristophanes] in a comic situation in the Symposium, reflecting the fact that he had help from him in comedy: for when he made him sing a [75] hymn to Love (Erôs), he portrayed him falling into hiccoughs in the middle, so that he was unable to complete the hymn.³⁷
[2] And he composed tragic and dithyrambic poems, as well as some others. He burned them all after he had experienced the lifestyle of Socrates, with words like these:
[2] Hephaestus, come forth as thou art: Plato now has need of you.³⁸
[2] [80] And a certain Anatolius, a grammarian, once won considerable success here [in Alexandria] by quoting this line to Hephaestus, who had been appointed governor of the city, giving it the following form:
[2] Hephaestus, come forth as thou art: Pharos now has need of you.³⁹
[2] They say that when Socrates was about to receive [Plato], he dreamed that a wingless swan was seated on his knees, and straightaway it grew wings and [85] flew up into the air, and let out a sweet-voiced cry, so as to enchant everyone who heard it: and this showed the future glory of the man.⁴⁰
[2] After the death of Socrates, [Plato] resorted next to Cratylus the Heraclitean as his teacher, for whom he also composed a dialogue of the same name, entitling it Cratylus, or On the Correctness of Names.⁴¹ After [his time with] this [90] man, he went to Italy. Upon finding there a school that had been established by the Pythagoreans,⁴² he had Archytas the Pythagorean as his next teacher: and his dialogue the Philebus is reportedly also named after a certain Pythagorean, and he also refers to Archytas in that dialogue.⁴³

### Plato in Sicily

[2] And since the philosopher should be a ‘sight-lover’⁴⁵ of the works of nature, he [95] also went to Sicily, in order to behold the craters of the fire in Mount Aetna – it was not for the sake of the ‘Sicilian table’, O noble Aristides, as you claim.⁴⁶ And in Syracuse he visited Dionysius the Great, who was the tyrant of that city, and he attempted to transform his tyranny into an aristocracy;⁴⁷ in fact, that is the reason why he went to him. And when Dionysius asked him, ‘Whom among [100] human beings do you regard as happy (eudaimôn)?’ (since he thought that the philosopher would refer to him out of flattery), Plato answered ‘Socrates’.⁴⁸ And he asked him again: ‘What do you consider to be the work of the statesman (politikos)?’; and he answered, ‘To make his citizens better’.⁴⁹ And he added a third question: ‘What then? Do you suppose it is trivial to dispense justice [105] correctly?’ (For Dionysius had a reputation for dispensing justice correctly.) But Plato answered, not shrinking back in the least: ‘A small thing, yes, and the least part [of the statesman’s work]: for those who hand down the right verdicts are like menders, who repair torn clothes’.⁵⁰ And he added a fourth question: ‘Do you not consider the tyrant courageous?’ ‘He is the most cowardly of all,’ [110] Plato replied; ‘for he fears losing his life even to his barber’s shears.’ And so Dionysius, enraged by these answers, proclaimed to Plato that he must escape Syracuse before sunset. And that was the ignominious fashion in which Plato was ejected from Syracuse.
[2] [115] The cause of his second journey to Sicily was that, after the death of Dionysius the Great, his son Dionysius succeeded to the tyranny, and his uncle on his mother’s side was Dion, who had become Plato’s associate (homilêtês) on his first journey. So Dion wrote to him, ‘if you join us now, there is hope of transforming the tyranny into an aristocracy’. Then, after Plato had undertaken his second [120] journey for this reason, he was accused to Dionysius by his bodyguards of plotting to transfer rule to Dion and depose Dionysius, and then arrested by [Dionysius] and handed over to Pollis of Aegina, who was on a trading voyage to Sicily, for sale [as a slave].⁵¹ And he, after bringing [Plato] to Aegina,⁵² found Anniceris the Libyan, who was about to sail to Elis in order to compete in the [125] four-horse [chariot race]. So when [Anniceris] chanced upon Pollis there, he purchased Plato from him, winning greater glory in this act than any victory in a chariot race [could bring]. Aristides also remarks about this [episode] that no one would have heard of Anniceris, had he not ransomed Plato.⁵³
[2] The reason for his third trip to Sicily was that Dion had been arrested by [130] Dionysius, deprived of his property, and cast into prison. He therefore wrote to Plato that Dionysius had promised to release him, if Plato came back to him. He readily undertook this third journey as well to help his friend. And that covers the philosopher’s time abroad in Sicily.

### Plato in Egypt and Phoenicia

[2] One should be aware that he also journeyed to Egypt, to the priests there,⁵⁴ and learned the priestly skill⁵⁵ from them. And this is why in the Gorgias⁵⁶ he says, ‘No, by the Dog, god of the Egyptians’: for the power that the sacred images (agalmata) [of the gods] have among the Greeks, animals have among the Egyptians, by representing each of the gods to whom they are dedicated.
[2] Since he wished to encounter the Magi as well, but was unable to reach [140] them because of the war being joined in Persia at that juncture, he arrived in Phoenicia, and upon encountering the local Magi, acquired the skill of the Magi.⁵⁷ And this is why in the Timaeus⁵⁸ he is plainly experienced in the skill of sacrifice, discussing the [prognostic] signs of the liver and [other] entrails and other matters like this. But these events should have been recounted before explaining his [second and third] voyages to Sicily.⁵⁹

### The foundation of the Academy

[2] [145] When he reached Athens he established a school in the Garden of Academus, marking off a certain portion of this gymnasium as a sanctuary for the Muses.⁶⁰ And the misanthrope Timon would keep company only with Plato there.⁶¹ And Plato attracted very many to learning, both men and women, preparing [the latter] to attend his lectures looking like men (andreiôi skhêmati),⁶² and demonstrating that his love of wisdom was superior to any love of work.⁶³ For he dissociated himself from Socratic irony, from frequenting the Agora and the workshops and from pursuing the young to engage them in conversation: and he also dissociated himself from the solemn dignity of the Pythagoreans – keeping the doors closed, and ‘Himself said so’⁶⁴ – by conducting himself more sociably (politikôteron) towards everyone.

### The exegesis of Plato

[2] [155] Now when he had made many into his lovers (erastai) and had benefited large numbers of them, he dreamed as he was on the point of death that, having turned into a swan, he was moving from tree to tree, and in this way was causing extreme toil for the hunters. Simmias the Socratic interpreted this dream as follows: that Plato would be diffi cult to grasp for those succeeding him who wished to explain him (exêgeomai): for the commentators (exêgêtai) [160] who attempt to pursue the concepts (ennoiai) of the ancients are like birdcatchers, and Plato is diffi cult to grasp since it is possible to interpret his words on the level of natural philosophy (phusikôs), ethics (êthikôs), or theology (theologikôs) – in short, in many different senses⁶⁵ – as is also the case with the [words] of Homer. For these two souls are said to have embraced every mode,⁶⁶ which is why it is possible to take the words of both of them in all manner of ways.
[2] When he died, the Athenians buried him lavishly, and inscribed upon his [165] tomb:
[2] Two did Apollo bring forth, Asclepius and Plato,
The one to keep our soul healthy, the other our body.⁶⁷
[3] [3,1] And that covers the parentage and life (genos) of the philosopher; next we must proceed to the subject before us.

## Notes

[1] Arist. Metaph. 1.1, 980a21–2. This preliminary reference may be viewed as a transition from the earlier, Aristotelian section of the Alexandrian curriculum, which probably ended with the Metaphysics (cf. Mansfeld 1994, 92) to the introductory work of Platonism (tês tou Platônos philosophias arkhomenos, 6). On the ancient titles of the Metaphysics, see Ross 1924, xxxii, and on the possibility of a ‘Roman edition’ by Andronicus of Rhodes, who may or may not have influenced the structure of the compilation that became our Metaphysics, compare Barnes 1997 and Primavesi 2007, with an excellent recent overview in Hatzimichali 2013. The modern nomenclature, Meta ta phusika, may date to Andronicus (first century BC). The earliest title, On First Philosophy, is probably reflected in Olympiodorus’ title Theology. Olympiodorus offers a similar remark at the outset of his Prolegomena to the Categories. There, he explains that the value of studying Aristotelian philosophy, particularly at the outset of the philosophical curriculum, lies in its ability to foster precision (akribeia) in defining the goals of human life.
[2] For the (Platonic) language and imagery, compare Phaedrus 235C–D, where Socrates, feeling the onset of the ‘possession’ remarked upon at 2,9 below, says that ‘The only other possibility, I think, is that I was filled, like an empty jar, by the words of other people streaming in through my ears’ (leipetai dê oimai ex allotriôn pothen namatôn dia tês akoês peplêrôsthai me dikên angeiou, tr. Nehamas and Woodruff in Cooper and Hutchinson 1997); see also Phaedrus 278B, for the ‘fountain’ (nama) of the Nymphs where the dialogue has taken place. Olympiodorus’ emphasis on the ‘Platonic inspirations’ is significant, since ‘inspiration’ (enthousiamos) is the word that Olympiodorus uses to refer to the achievement of theurgic excellence, the peak of human accomplishment (see Introduction §2.1).
[3] Timaeus 41A–D; cf. 42D6 on the ‘young gods’.
[4] Dillon 1973, 417 n. 1 suggests that Olympiodorus here refers not to Iamblichus’ well-known Timaeus commentary, but to a lesser treatise On the Speech of Zeus in the ‘Timaeus ’, whose scheme Proclus would then be setting forth at in Tim.
[5] Republic 8, 546A–547C.
[6] Phaedrus 238D–241D.
[7] Theaetetus 173C–177B.
[8] The ‘coryphaeus’ led the chorus in Athenian drama, and the contemplative philosopher represents the peak of philosophical excellence (see Introduction §2.1).
[9] The modern reader may be surprised to learn that the value of Plato’s dialogues lies in these passages of ‘divine inspiration’! This claim targets Olympiodorus’ (mostly Christian) audience: he suggests that Plato, like Christ, offers a kind of revelation. This is clearer in the imagery that pervades the life (bios) of Plato that follows, both explicit (Plato’s divine conception, 2,21–4) and indirect (2,26: Apollôni nomiôi). In general, Olympiodorus distinguishes Platonism from Christianity even as he invests it with an equal (or greater) authority. On his attitude towards his contemporaries’ religious and intellectual background, see Introduction §1, Tarrant 1997, Westerink 1990, 331–3, and on the atmosphere of the late antique Neoplatonist school, see Hoffmann 2012, 597–601.
[10] Olympiodorus’ Life of Plato provides an excellent example of late antique pagan hagiography. For Neoplatonic hagiography in general, see Edwards 2001, who discusses the biographies of Plotinus by Porphyry and of Proclus by Marinus.
[11] Olympiodorus seems to use genos here to mean something loosely like ‘ancestry and biography’. He repeats the word at 3,1 to summarise the Life as a whole, so it is not meant to refer only to the brief discussion of Plato’s ancestry from 2,17–20.
[12] ‘Hearing many things’ or ‘much-learning’ (poluêkoïa) is contrasted with proper teaching that leads to knowledge at Plat. Phaedr. 275A (poluêkooi), and its potential dangers to children who may listen indiscriminately to the poets are noted at Lg. 810E–811B. In a predominately literate society like ours, calling someone ‘widely read’ or ‘erudite’ would convey the same sense as poluêkoïa in Plato’s time.
[13] Odysseus at Hom. Od. 9.366.
[14] This phrase belongs to Od. 1.177, where Odysseus is the one who ‘has gone to and fro among human beings’ (epistrophos ên anthrôpôn). But while Olympiodorus’ Plato is widely travelled, his service to the human soul (1,156; 166–7) is more relevant and epistrophê should probably be taken in its Plotinian sense: compare, for example, Plotinus Enn. 6.5.7 [23], 11–13, ‘If a person could but be reverted [epistraphênai, ‘turned about’] – by his own motion, or by the happy pull of Athena [cf. Il. 1.177] – he would see at once God and himself and the All’ (tr. MacKenna 1957, lightly adapted); see also LSJ II 3b, 8. The crucial idea of ‘turning back upon oneself’, or ‘reversion’, recurs again at 9,7, etc. as the special province of the rational soul and superior levels of being, and at 10,4 as the means of self-knowledge. Plato strives to ‘turn’ the eye of the soul from the body to the mind (contrast Porph. Sent. 7, ed. Smith), and therefore he, like Athena in the Plotinian passage, is the ‘turner’ or ‘reverter’ of many human beings. (The Odyssey reference may be intentionally conflated, via Plotinus, with Il. 1.177; see Westerink 1982, ix on blended citations of Homer in this commentary.) Epistrophos as an agent noun might be influenced by the Christian usage of epistrophê to mean ‘conversion’ (e.g. Act. Ap. 15.3), and might also provide an example of Olympiodorus’ effort to engage Christian students in the Life.
[15] The manuscript ascribes ‘11’ (en ia') books to the Republic, but this can be explained by dittography (en [hen] deka), and I read ‘10’ following Dodds 1957, 357. It is a challenge for the editor and the translator to decide which slips of the pen (or ear) need correcting and which should be left alone (see Westerink 1982, VIII–IX). In general I agree with Dodds that obvious errors of fact should not be attributed to the lecturer, and I have erred on the side of correction, particularly where there are palaeographical grounds (cf. Westerink 1982, IX).
[16] A.S. Riginos examines the sources of this and similar anecdotes in Platonica: The Anecdotes Concerning the Life and Writings of Plato. The story of Plato’s Apollonian conception (Riginos 1976, Anecdote 1, 9–14) first appears in Plutarch, Quaest. Conv. 717D–E, but according to Diogenes Laertius 3.2 and others it originates with Plato’s nephew and successor Speusippus, in his ‘Funeral Banquet of Plato’. Speusippus, according to Diogenes Laertius, described the story as hôs Athênêsin ên logos, i.e. current in the Athens of his day. The narrative, especially as Olympiodorus relates it, could be profitably compared with Matthew 1:25.
[17] Cicero (De Div. 1.36.78, 2.31.66) furnishes our earliest testimony to this episode, which does not occur in the proper biographies of Plato until Olympiodorus: previously it appears in catalogues of portents, such as Pliny’s discussion of portents involving bees at Nat. Hist. 11.17.55. Cicero may draw on the Stoic philosopher Posidonius (135–51 BC) for this book; at any rate, he is probably indebted to an earlier source (Riginos 1976, 17–21, Anecdote 3; see esp. n. 33).
[18] Of Nestor at Hom. Il. 1.249.
[19] Cf. Phaedo 85B, Proclus in Alc. 5–6. Riginos 1976, 25 (Anecdote 6) points that that this adoption of Socrates’ expression homodoulos tois kuknois, ‘fellow-slave of the swans’, and its attribution to Plato himself appears only in Olympiodorus and in the Anonymous Prolegomena. It clearly belongs to the tradition of later Neoplatonism.
[20] Socrates recounts his visit to the school of Dionysius at ps-Plat. Lovers 132a. Plato’s education by Dionysius the grammatistês is common to all the preserved biographical traditions (Riginos 1976, 39); however, the name may be suspect for the very reason that it appears in the Amatores, if we follow Riginos in reasoning that some early biographer inferred the name from the dialogue, rather than the other way round (40 n. 10). This is the first of several references (cf. 2,44; 52; 63–4) which indicate the indebtedness of Olympiodorus’ biography to the text of the Dialogues.
[21] Like the name of Dionysius, the name of Ariston for Plato’s teacher of gymnastics recurs in all the biographical traditions. The coincidence of his name with that of Plato’s father may cast suspicion on his historicity (Riginos 1976, 40), although this argument could work both ways.
[22] The story of Plato’s derivative ‘nickname’ (Riginos 1976, 35–8: Anecdote 11), and these three alternative explanations of its significance – breadth of forehead, breadth of chest, and breadth of style – first appear in the Index Herc. Col. II 36–42, then in Seneca (Ep. 58.30); for the first few lines, Olympiodorus is paraphrasing Diogenes Laertius 3.4, whose attribution of the third alternative, breadth of style, to unnamed enioi suggests that this was the general tradition. Some (e.g. Notopoulos 1939) have suspected the tradition. After all Plato himself refers to himself as ‘Plato’ (Ap. 34A and Phaed. 59B), and the notion that this name is derivative may be ascribed to the taste of the Alexandrians, who liked to see a close relationship between physical appearance and onomastic etymology. This argument certainly offers a persuasive explanation for why the commentators explained Plato’s name as they did, although it does not seem to explain the introduction of a second name. Why would these etymologists demote Platôn to a nickname, unless that tradition preceded them?
[23] Cf. DL 5.38.
[24] Damon is mentioned at Republic 3, 400B–C and 4, 424C and elsewhere, including the Alcibiades (Alc. 118C, Lach. 180D, 200A, [Axiochus] 364A); the Anonymous Prolegomena adds, apparently in error, that he is found in the Theaetetus. Plutarch gives Dracon as Plato’s teacher of music at De Mus. 1136f.
[25] The following summarises Proclus in Alc. 193–5 on the value of ‘reading and writing, lyre-playing, and wrestling’.
[26] These three parts or aspects of the soul are taken from Plato’s account in Republic 4: reason (logos), spirit or pride (thumos), and appetitive desire (epithumia). All three are beneficial when their relationship to one another is ‘just’, that is, when appetites are served only in accordance with reason, using spirit or pride to enforce its instructions.
[27] Alc. 106E: ‘You have learned, as far as I remember, reading and writing, and how to play the lyre and wrestle: but you refused to learn the pipe.’
[28] Tim. 67C–68D. The idea that Plato studied painting occurs first in Apuleius De Platone 1.2. The Timaeus passage may be responsible for it, but the educational doctrine of the Republic is asserted as the more likely source (Riginos 1976, 43); it may also be connected to the story that Socrates was a sculptor. The anecdote is not elaborated in detail in the surviving biographies. (This is Anecdote 13 in Riginos 1976, 42–3.)
[29] Riginos 1976 (Anecdote 14, pp. 43–8) observes that this motivation is certainly not taken from Plato’s own straightforward criticism of tragedy (cf. Resp. 10. 605D–607A). But Olympiodorus’ account is coloured with the language of Neoplatonic educational theory, and this episode should be interpreted within that framework. The Neoplatonic education set out to scale the hierarchy of being and knowledge, ascending from the lower levels of the student’s soul to the highest (see Introduction §2.1–2). Plato asserts that tragedy works on the lower part of the soul, which is freed to express the emotions of pity and fear that it has been barred from expressing in life; the best part of the soul must then undergo paideusis to learn the proper moderation of its inferior (Republic 10, 606A). For the Neoplatonist, therefore, it is natural to begin with the subject of study that concerns the lowest part of the soul (here, tragedy), and then to proceed to the subject of study which concerns the higher level of the soul (here, the Socratic education); it is not a question of right and wrong, but of progressive grades of being and knowledge. Proclus elucidates this episode as follows: ‘And in these words Plato seems to maintain this above all, that Socrates, meeting Plato for the first time (who was then giving serious attention to tragedy) and having demonstrated to him that tragedy offers no good to men, turned him away from imitations of this sort (tês toiautês mimêseôs) and, in some way, turned him to the composition of those Socratic writings in which he proved tragedy to be neither educative nor beneficial but to be at a third remove from truth, with no share of knowledge or of correct opinion about the things which it imitates and aiming not at our intelligence but at the irrational part of our soul’ (in Remp. 1.205.4–13, tr. Riginos 1976, 222). Key words such as ‘turning,’ ‘imitation,’ and ‘truth’ make it clear that Proclus interprets this episode in the framework of the Neoplatonic philosopher’s ascent; in other words, Socrates, as Plato’s teacher, has turned his student’s attention from a lower (and imitative) rung of the Neoplatonic hierarchy to a higher (and more real) one, and Plato has thereby progressed in the curriculum from tragedy to philosophy. Thus Olympiodorus would see no contradiction in asserting that Plato drew ‘the gnomic and solemn and heroic quality’ from the subjects (hupotheseis) of tragedy before he advanced to the higher hypotheseis of philosophy.
[30] That is, the overseer of the world of coming-to-be and passing-away, as compared with the eternal, intelligible world of the Forms. See Proclus in Tim. 1.53d. Aristotle had suggested (Poetics 1449a10–15) that Athenian tragedy developed from the dithyramb.
[31] Proclus of Athens (412–485 AD) was a prolifically productive teacher, writer, and thinker in later Neoplatonism; for a short introduction to his thought, see Helmig and Steel 2012, and for book-length surveys, Chlup 2012 and Siorvanes 1996. Proclus adopted and developed a systematic philosophy that derived from Iamblichus (c. 245–325 AD), Plutarch of Athens (c. 350–430 AD, not to be confused with the earlier Platonist and biographer), and Syrianus (born in the later fourth century, died 437 AD), with modifications at each point of the way.
[32] Proclus Hymns, p. 156 Ludwich (1895); see van den Berg 2001, 5. Evidently ‘children’ are effects, and ‘parents’ their causes. I translate here the correct Greek from Olymp. in Phaed. 1.5,16 (hoss’ idon en tekeessin ephêmixanto tokeusin); the text here at in Alc. 2,62 is somewhat garbled (hoss’ eidon tekeessin ephêmixanto tokeusin). I prefer to suppose that en dropped out of our text in transmission or copying, and idon was perhaps changed to eidon to mend the metre, although Westerink follows Vogt in retaining the misquotation on the grounds that it may be Olympiodorus’ or his redactor’s.
[33] Alluding to 238D, where Socrates claims to ‘speak in dithyrambs’ (dithyrambôn phthengomai), and 241E. Dicaearchus, cited in Diogenes Laertius 3.5, appears to have introduced a tradition that Plato studied the dithyramb first of all poetry (Riginos, Anecdote 14, pp. 43–8).
[34] Reading pneontos with Casaubon for the manuscripts’ pneiôn; more literally, the dialogue has the scent of the dithyrambic style or is ‘redolent’ with it. I am grateful to an anonymous reader for encouraging me to consider this reading.
[35] Olympiodorus suggests that Plato composed the Phaedrus at this early stage of his life, when he was influenced by dithyrambic poetry. In the standard modern developmental chronology of Plato’s dialogues, the Phaedrus is treated as a later ‘middle period’ or transitional dialogue.
[36] This couplet is also quoted by Thomas Magister in his Life of Aristophanes. It is not in the Palatine and Planudean Anthologies, which preserve the other ‘Epigrams of Plato’.
[37] This would certainly make for an amusing situation, but it is not quite true to the story of the Symposium: when Aristophanes’ turn comes to praise Love, he falls victim to hiccoughs and passes his turn to Eryximachus. But Aristophanes delivers a complete speech immediately after Eryximachus (189C–193E).
[38] Plato adapts Hom. Il. 18.392. Hephaestus is the god of fire as well as craft smen. Diogenes Laertius, Olympiodorus, the Anonymous Prolegomena, Eustathius, and the scholiast to Proclus all agree that Plato played on this line of Homer as he set fire to his old poetry (Riginos 1976, 47).
[39] The ‘Pharos’ was the celebrated lighthouse that became emblematic of Alexandria, as well as the island on which it was built. Olympiodorus may have been personally present when Alexandria welcomed its new governor, Hephaestus, to the city in 546 AD; if so, as Watts 2006: 254 suggests, this line may be evidence for Olympiodorus’ prominent role in the city. Hephaestus was known to Procopius (Anecdota 26, 35–44) as a hateful representative of Justinian, responsible for injustices as augustalis of Egypt, and to John Lydus (de Magistr. III, 30) as praefectus praetorii in Constantinople, a man born of a noble Egyptian family that traced its descent to the first of the Pharaohs (cf. Diodorus 1,13,3). On the chronological significance of this passage for dating Olympiodorus’ lectures on the Alcibiades, see Westerink 1990, 329–30. On the episode between Anatolius and Hephaestus, see for example Cameron 1969: 11–12.
[40] Riginos 1976, 21–4 (Anecdote 4).
[41] According to Aristotle (Metaph. 987a32–b7) Plato followed Cratylus in his youth, and then turned from the world without to Socrates’ philosophy and the world within. But this account would contradict the story that Socrates drew Plato from poetry to philosophy, a problem which Olympiodorus solves by placing Plato’s association with Cratylus after his association with Socrates. On Aristotle’s testimony, see Riginos 48 n. 36 and H. Cherniss, ‘Aristotle, Metaphysics 987a32–b7’, AJP 76 (1955): 184–6). For the development of the later Neoplatonic reading of the Cratylus, see also van den Berg 2008.
[42] Plato’s association with Pythagoreans, in his doctrine and his life, is universally attested in the ancient sources, including Aristotle Metaphysics 987b (cf. Riginos 62–3 n. 6). His journey to Magna Graecia occurs in all of the biographies.
[43] There is no mention of Archytas in Philebus, though he appears in the seventh, ninth, twelft h and thirteenth Letters as an associate of Plato in Tarentum (e.g. 338C, 350A). It is possible that entha kai Arkhutou memnêtai is corrupt or intrusive; memnêtai is missing in the manuscript M. According to a different tradition, it was Archytas who later bought the enslaved Plato from Pollis (see below) and gave him a lesson in Pythagoran philosophy; this story is found only in Tzetzes (Chil. 10.995–9 [p. 403 Kiessling]), and is patterned on the stories about the conversion of Phaedon of Elis to philosophy (Riginos 1976, 90–1, Anecdote 35).
[44] For the following, see Riginos 1976, 70–85. It seems very likely that the reports of Plato’s visits to Sicily and the Syracusan court are essentially historical. Indeed, the seventh Letter among others seems designed to defend Plato against accusations and slanders concerning this journey.
[45] The ‘sight-lover’ (philotheamôn) is devoted to objects that participate in beauty, but he does not believe in the Beautiful itself (Republic 5, 475D–476B). The true philosopher, on the other hand, as one who believes in the Beautiful itself, ‘can see both it and the things that participate in it’ (476C–D). Hence the philosopher is free to take pleasure in beautiful sights, but he is also able to recognise their source and higher origin.
[46] Aristides Or. 46.229 does not in fact accuse Plato of venturing to Sicily purely for the cuisine, but he does make the charge that Plato had leisure to acquaint himself with Sicilian food and manners, suggesting a gluttonous nature; the charge may be inspired by the Gorgias (463B, 465D, 518B), where Plato’s Socrates claims that certain Sicilian cooks are masters of their art. The favourable biographical tradition is careful to state the real reasons (aitiai) why the philosopher went to Syracuse on each occasion. It was not for the ‘Sicilian table’, proverbial of luxury (a point elaborated in the Platonic SeventhLetter, 326B–D, and Plato himself scorns the Syrakosian trapezan at Republic 3, 404D). The first journey was motivated by curiosity, to see the volcano on Mount Aetna (which Plato mentions at Phaedo 111E). The second was motivated by a desire to be influential in practical politics and to see his theories in application (cf. the Seventh Letter, 328B–C). The third journey was undertaken for the sake of Plato’s friend Dion.
[47] Tyranny occupies the lowest rank in the hierarchy of constitutions of soul and state set out in the Republic; the life of the tyrannical person is described in detail in Republic 9. By contrast, ‘aristocracy’, more literally the ‘rule (kratos) of the best (aristoi)’ or meritocracy, occupies the highest rank.
[48] This series of questions and answers was a popular element in the biographical tradition concerning Plato’s stay in Sicily, and its key idea is parrhêsia, the freedom of speech displayed by the philosopher in the face of the tyrant. Riginos discusses this episode as her Anecdote 25 (1976, 74–9). She points out that Olympiodorus reports different questions here and in his commentary on the Gorgias (in Gorg. 41.7; here and following, in keeping with Jackson et al. 1998, I cite Olympiodorus in Gorg. by chapter heading. The first question in both works is ‘Who is happy among men’; and the reply is ‘Socrates’. In Olymp. in Gorg., the second question is simpler than here. There, Dionysius simply asserts that the greatest good is judgement, and Plato replies with this same comparison of judges and weavers; the introductory question about the work of the statesman is absent. The final question differs markedly between the two commentaries. In the in Gorg., Dionysius asks whether Heracles was happy (eudaimôn), and Plato replies that, if Heracles was as the myths portray him, he was not; but if he lived with excellence (aretê), he was. Riginos argues that the account of the Alcibiades commentary is the more structurally sophisticated of the two: the questions show an increasing boldness in Plato’s answers, at first slighting the tyrant, then belittling the cornerstone of his reputation, and climaxing with a personal insult that touches Dionysius’ fear of assassination. This interpretation corroborates Westerink’s contention that the Gorgias commentary dates to a period near the beginning of Olympiodorus’ career (1990, 331). The relative simplicity of the Gorgias account could also point to the activity of different recorders or editors on the Gorgias and Alcibiades commentaries respectively, but this seems less likely.
[49] Compare Republic 1, 342E on the governing statesman’s responsibility to act for the good of his subjects, and not for his own good.
[50] Compare Gorgias 520A–B on the legislator’s superiority to the judge, and more generally Socrates’ discussions with Polus, Callicles, and Thrasymachus (e.g. Gorg. 466C–E) on the status of tyrants.
[51] The story of Plato’s slavery (Riginos 1976, 86–92) is omitted in the report of the Platonic Seventh Letter, although this does not necessarily prove its falsehood; Plato, or someone writing in his name, would understandably avoid it. It is first preserved in the Index Herculanensis.
[52] It may be significant that Aegina was not only Pollis’ home, but also his destination at the time of these events: according to Aristides Or. 46.233, special legislation dictated that Athenians seized at Aegina be put to death.
[53] Aristides Or. 46.234.
[54] The story that Plato travelled to Egypt became very common after Cicero (De Fin. 5.29.87, De Re Pub. 1.10.16) and Diodorus Siculus (1.96.2), the earliest surviving sources for this story; see Riginos 1976, 64–5 and Moyer 2011, 58. The tale may be patterned on the reports of Pythagoras’ legendary journeys to Phoenicia, Egypt, and Babylon before he settled in southern Italy. But it is certainly true, as Riginos points out (64), that the Platonic writings betray a genuine familiarity with Egyptian customs, religion and legends. Apart from the oath of Socrates, which Olympiodorus adduces below, Riginos cites Laws 2.656D–657A and 7.3819A–E (educational practices), Laws 7.799A, Tim. 21E, Polit. 290D–E (Egyptian deities and religious practices), Resp. 4.436A and Laws 5.747C (Egyptian character), Phaedo 80C and Polit. 264C (general customs), and most of all Phaedr. 274C–275B, Tim. 21E–25D, and the Critias (stories set in Egypt). Egyptian culture was growingly familiar in fift h- and fourth-century Athens: see for example the introduction to and commentary on Herodotus Book 2 by Lloyd 1976. Plato may well have become acquainted with Egyptian thought, regardless of whether he actually journeyed to the Nile.
[55] The expertise of the Egyptian priests would include theurgy, the appropriate care for and engagement with divine images and beings, as well as theology, the systematic accounting of such beings (cf. Iamblichus De Mysteriis 1: ‘you... do well in laying before the priests questions about theology, such as they love to deal with, and which pertain to their expertise (eis gnôsin)’, tr. Clarke, Dillon and Hershbell 2003).
[56] 482b5: ma ton kuna ton Aiguptiôn theon. Dodds 1959 (for instance) points out that this line does not constitute a proof that Plato visited Egypt, since Herodotus already knew that the dog was sacred there (ad loc.) Instead, as Dodds suggests, it might be a ‘jocular oath’, a euphemistic distortion of the nomen sacrum, and at any rate not unique to Socrates (compare Aristophanes Wasps 83). For Olympiodorus, on the other hand, as for any Neoplatonic commentator following Proclus, the choice of words is not haphazard (in Gorg. 25.10, tr. Jackson et al. 1998): ‘ “[T]he dog” signifies the discerning faculty of the rational soul. He said “Egyptian” because the Egyptians were leaders in the use of symbols.’ Earlier in the same commentary, Olympiodorus remarks, ad 461A7–B1, that ‘the dog is the symbol of the life of reason... it is because the life of reason distinguishes what is fine from what is base, that he spoke symbolically of this life by means of the word “dog” ’.
[57] The story that Plato hoped to visit the Magi, and went as far as Phoenicia, also recalls the legend of Pythagoras; Cicero alludes to both philosophers reaching ultimae terrae (De Fin. 5.19.50, Tusc. Disp. 4.19.44). According to another tradition, Magi or Chaldaeans even came to Athens to study with Plato (Index Herc. Col. III 36–41, p. 13 Mekler; Anon. Proleg. 6.19–22, p. 15 Westerink 1962). Pliny Nat. Hist. 30.1.9 adds that Plato studied Zoroastrianism, and Proclus in Remp. 2.109.7–16, quotes Colotes as accusing Plato of borrowing from Zoroaster. At any rate, Plato’s schooling in Sicily, Egypt and the East suggests his mastery of the entire oikoumenê of known philosophy.
[58] Tim. 71A–72D.
[59] This looks like a scholiast’s observation that the second and third journeys to Sicily must postdate Plato’s travels in the East. It is also possible that the interjection is Olympiodorus’ own, since this is a record of spoken lectures. On the other hand, Olympiodorus might have chosen to relate all three Sicilian voyages in one place. The language of the transition at 2,134 – ‘And one should know that he also journeyed to Egypt (hoti kai eis Aigupton apêlthen)’ – suggests that this episode does intentionally stand after the account of the Sicilian voyages.
[60] Riginos 1976, 119–21 (Anecdote 75); Diogenes Laertius 4.1 provides the earliest testimony that Plato himself established a Mouseion in the Academy, but Pausanias 1.30.2 tells of a bômos sacred to the Muses without giving the circumstances of its establishment.
[61] Riginos (1976, 162 n. 35) suggests that this story initially conveyed Plato’s preference for solitude over human company, although the anecdote seems primarily concerned with Timon’s character and not with Plato’s.
[62] Compare Diogenes Laertius’ comment that Plato taught women in his school, Lasthenea of Mantinea and Axiothea of Phlius (DL 3.46), and the latter ‘even used to dress up in men’s clothes, as Dicaearchus reports’.
[63] If philoponia here echoes Alc. 122C, where it is characteristic of the Spartans, then this biographical detail may reflect the sentiment of Alc. 124A–B: Alcibiades cannot contend with the Spartans’ love of hardship and self-discipline, nor with the Persians’ wealth and material resources, but he can attain the greater goal of self-knowledge through philosophy. Alternatively, the reference might be to domestic work of the kind that ordinarily fell to women in fourth-century Athens: the pursuit of Plato’s philosophy is presented as a better way of life.
[64] ‘Himself said so’ (autos epha) was a mark of authenticity and authority for a Pythagorean doctrine, attributing the view to Pythagoras himself. Olympiodorus is suggesting that Plato had no interest in exclusivity or the cult of leadership.
[65] Cf. Aristotle, Topics 8.3, 158b10 on the technical division of haplôs and pollakhôs; Metaphysics 5 (D) is a tour de force of analysis of things ‘said in many ways’.
[66] Olympiodorus uses the metaphor of a musical mode, such as the Dorian or Ionic systems of tuning an instrument. Plato and Homer used all the different ‘tunings’, in the sense that their words could be interpreted symbolically or allegorically on all the levels of reality. The Neoplatonists had significant projects of allegorical exegesis; consider for example the introductions to Proclus’ commentaries on the Timaeus or Parmenides, where the characters of the dialogues are carefully interpreted allegorically. See also Griffi n 2014b.
[67] Diogenes Laertius in 3.45 gives two of his own epigrams which compare Apollo’s two sons as healers: Asclepius of the body, Plato of the soul (cf. Riginos, Anecdote 9, pp. 28–9). Olympiodorus’ version is mirrored in the later Anonymous Prolegomena, but the author of that work seems obliged to avoid attributing an overtly miraculous birth and divine parentage to Plato, and he accordingly changes the wording to describe Plato as the son of Ariston.