Platonism had a long history at Alexandria, with significant contributions to the development of Jewish and Christian theology in the early centuries AD, and occasionally violent clashes between pagan and Christian forces, as in the death of Hypatia in the early fifth century. For Olympiodorus' period, the late Alexandrian school, the significant beginning is probably with Hermeias in the fifth century CE. Like that giant among Neoplatonists, Hermeias had been taught at Athens by Syrianus,3 and his commentary on Plato's Phaedrus is generally considered to preserve faithfully the interpretation of his master. Hermeias seems to have established himself securely at Alexandria, and when he died (some time before 470) his son Ammonius was destined for his official position in the city, and his widow Aedesia was able to bring him to Athens for lessons with Proclus himself. During this time it seems that the city authorities continued to pay the professor's salary to Aedesia.
Ammonius, Olympiodorus' own teacher, was probably born between 445 and 435, and died between 517 (when Philoponus made available his Physics lectures) and 526 (for Damascius speaks of him as if he were dead). Ammonius is probably responsible for taking the Alexandrians in the direction of a less highly structured theology than that of the Athenian School. It has been disputed whether this results from an independent desire to harmonize the teachings of Plato and Aristotle, or a more pragmatic need to adapt philosophy to be more acceptable to Christian tastes. We believe that both factors are in fact relevant. Concentration on Aristotle may itself have been encouraged by Christian hostility to Platonist theology as presented by Proclus. It is significant that neither Ammonius nor Olympiodorus is known to have lectured on the four 'theological' works in the Platonist curriculum: Phaedrus, Symposium, Philebus, Parmenides. We should not assume more than there is evidence for regarding Olympiodorus himself. He used to be confused with the Christian writer of the same name, though it is clear that our author is no Christian." He was probably born between 495 and 505, and was still lecturing in 565 or slightly after. This implies a long career. Indeed the Gorgias commentary has been placed as early as 525, but this is mostly guesswork.
It is very fortunate that we have ancient commentary on Plato's Gorgias and especially so given that he makes reference twice to Plato's 'naked with naked' concept. Here is Olympiodorus's first reference to Gorgias 532d:
So much about what the bad judgments signify. Now let me go back to demonstrating what [the myth means by] original embodiment and subsequent nakedness. Here too the myth separates what belongs together and invites us to proceed from the more imperfect to the more perfect. Note that here too [the myth] refers riddlingly to our life here and to life there. For we who are embodied pass judgment on the judged who are also embodied, and that is how error arises. For as a result of the great wealth and resources of the judged, we necessarily judge badly and say what is pleasing to the rulers and suchlike. But there the judges are naked. For just as those who see through in a mirror do not see clearly, so too those who judge when embodied have their judgment clouded. That is why the judges are naked there. The same is true of the judged, so their great wealth does not deceive the judges. Observe also that the judges and the judged are always naked and always embodied; but as a myth it put imperfection first, leading on to nakedness and perfection. The interpreters have not been able to grasp this because they have traversed the depths of Plato's language; for he says this clearly and emphatically, and nothing other than this. [Commentary on Gorgias 48.3]
In the myth, for example, Plato seems to speak of an earlier time when souls were judged clothed and a later time when they were judged naked. No such change over time is allowable, says Olympiodorus, who explains that what Plato really means is that souls are always judged clothed (ie, "clothed in bodies") in this world and always judged naked (ie, "separated from their bodies") in Hades.
Note the distinction, but observe that it does makes it as a story, since in reality, as I shall demonstrate, there are always naked judges and always embodied ones, and there are always bad judgments and always excellent ones [ibid 48.1]
Perhaps Jowett's summary might be useful to bring in here:
The myth in the Gorgias is one of those descriptions of another life which, like the Sixth Aeneid of Virgil, appear to contain reminiscences of the mysteries. It is a vision of the rewards and punishments which await good and bad men after death. It supposes the body to continue and to be in another world what it has become in this. It includes a Paradiso, Purgatorio, and Inferno, like the sister myths of the Phaedo and the Republic. The Inferno is reserved for great criminals only. The argument of the dialogue is frequently referred to, and the meaning breaks through so as rather to destroy the liveliness and consistency of the picture. The structure of the fiction is very slight, the chief point or moral being that in the judgments of another world there is no possibility of concealment: Zeus has taken from men the power of foreseeing death, and brings together the souls both of them and their judges naked and undisguised at the judgment-seat. Both are exposed to view, stripped of the veils and clothes which might prevent them from seeing into or being seen by one another.
I am now absolutely certain that Gorgias 532d is the literary context of LGM 1 (= the first addition to the longer gospel of Mark) or - just to refresh the memories of my audience:
And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.
After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him", and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.
Yes, they were not found in the gospel but that was clearly acted out in the Alexandrian mysteries. Clement says as much. Read our last post ...
