Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-skzmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T21:59:51.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

OLYMPIODOREAN NEOPLATONISM IN ALEXANDRIA AND CONSTANTINOPLE: NEW EVIDENCE IN THEOPHYLACT SIMOCATTA’S HISTORY AND LETTERS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2026

Sonsoles Costero-Quiroga Open the ORCID record for Sonsoles Costero-Quiroga [Opens in a new window]
Sonsoles Costero-Quiroga*
Affiliation:
CSIC (Spanish National Research Council) / Wolfson College, University of Oxford
*
s.costero.quiroga@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Alexandrian community guided by Olympiodorus the Younger (c. 500–after 565 c.e.) shaped a distinctive Neoplatonist philosophical curriculum during the sixth century c.e. Usener hypothesized that the school’s teaching and manuscripts were transmitted to Constantinople when Stephanus of Alexandria took up an ‘ecumenical professorship’ at the invitation of Heraclius. That hypothesis, since expanded, has been subjected to a rigorous challenge by Roueché, who points out that textual evidence is lacking. This article advances new evidence for Usener’s proposal, by identifying characteristically Olympiodorean language and philosophical commitments in a passage from the proem to Theophylact Simocatta’s History §11–13, paralleled in Letter 1. For example, Simocatta assumes a human capacity for consistently ‘embodied contemplation’ (θεωρία σωματωθεῖσα), which Olympiodorus’ own text and modern scholarship treat as peculiar to his school; and Simocatta appropriates the Phaedrus’ cosmology with the phrase περίγειος κόσμος in a manner found elsewhere only in Olympiodorus. Other distinctive features of Simocatta’s language draw attention to the breadth of his Christian and non-Christian philosophical sources. Further study may shed light on the textual transmission of Alexandrian Platonism from the sixth century.

Keywords

Olympiodorus the YoungerNeoplatonismPlatoPhaedrusTheophylact SimocattaStephanus of Alexandria

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , First View , pp. 1 - 7
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

(11) ἄγαμαι, θύγατερ, τῆς μεγαλονοίας τὸν ἱεροφάντην ἐγώ, ὁπόσης κατορθωμάτων ἀναβάσεως ἐπιβέβηκε τὴν ὑψηλὴν τῆς θεολογίας ἀκρώρειαν περικαθήμενος ἐπί τε τὸν κολοφῶνα τῶν ἀρετῶν τὴν ἀποικίαν ποιούμενος. καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ σελήνην πλεονεκτημάτων ἀντέχεται, καὶ βίος αὐτῷ οἱ πανάριστοι λόγοι· οὐκ ἐθέλει γὰρ οὔτε τὸν περίγειον κόσμον μένειν ἀκόσμητον. (12) οὕτως ὀναίμην τῶν ἐμῶν ἐραστῶν. ἢ σώματος ἐκτὸς φιλοσοφεῖ ἐπὶ γῆς, ἢ θεωρία σωματωθεῖσα μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (13) ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἀναστρέφεται.

(11) My daughter, I admire the hierophant [Sergius] for his magnanimity, for his attaining the summit of such a steep climb of accomplishments. He has taken his seat on the height of theology; he has made his dwelling on the peak of the virtues. He masters even the advantages that lie beneath the moon, and for him, the noblest discourses are a way of life, because he is unwilling to leave even the earthly world disordered. (12) If only I could thus benefit those who love me! Either he philosophizes like a man disembodied, while still on earth; or contemplation has become embodied among human beings, (13) and lives as a human.

Theophylact Simocatta, History, Proem §§11–13

The philosophical community guided by Olympiodorus (c. 500–after 565) shaped the curriculum and teaching routine of Alexandrian Neoplatonism.Footnote 1 Usener hypothesized that the school’s teaching and manuscripts were transmitted to Constantinople when Stephanus of Alexandria, a follower of Olympiodorus’ school, took up an ‘ecumenical professorship’ at the invitation of Heraclius.Footnote 2 This hypothesis, since expanded,Footnote 3 received a rigorous challenge by Roueché, who argued that textual evidence is lacking.Footnote 4 This article offers evidence by identifying Neoplatonic language and concepts unique to Olympiodorus’ lectures in the proem to Theophylact Simocatta’s History (above) that is paralleled in his first Letter.Footnote 5 The first proposal is linguistic, and the second is philosophical; jointly they lend additional plausibility to Usener’s thesis.

Simocatta’s text opens with a prologue in praise of the emperor Heraclius (c. 575–641). The emperor’s investment in education is contrasted with the imputed barbarism of his predecessor Phocas (547–610).Footnote 6 Simocatta presents an unusual allegorical dialogue between ‘Philosophy’ (represented as mother) and ‘History’ (represented as daughter). Both reflect on their return to life under Heraclius’ reign, while offering hyperbolic praise to the ecumenical patriarch Sergius (d. 638; in office 610–38) for their return to court.Footnote 7

While the historical sources of Simocatta’s History have been studied in depth,Footnote 8 his philosophical sources have received limited attention. An exception is the remark of ‘Philosophy’ that she has been restored to life by the ‘Heraclidae’, that is by Heraclius (§§5–7) and by Sergius.Footnote 9 Usener understood this comment as evidence that Stephanus conveyed the school’s library and teaching routine to Constantinople; but Roueché (n. 4 [2012], 122–5 and [2016], 542–3) points out that Usener and his supporters relied on circumstantial evidence, such as Stephanus’ titles οἰκουμενικὸς διδάσκαλος and καθολικὸς διδάσκαλος in some manuscript witnesses.

Simocatta’s praise is presented against the literary and intellectual background of Plato’s Phaedrus 230b (§13).Footnote 10 While Philosophy celebrates contemplation (θεωρία), History will celebrate action (πρᾶξις). This duality between contemplative virtue (θεωρητικὴ ἀρετή) and political virtue (πολιτικὴ ἀρετή)—a commonplace of Christian and non-Christian Platonism—Footnote 11 is reiterated throughout the textFootnote 12 to show that Sergius’ virtue is both contemplative and practical.Footnote 13 More narrowly, Simocatta alludes to Plato’s assertion that Zeus drives ‘his winged chariot’ (ἐλαύνων πτηνὸν ἅρμα) as leader in the heavens, setting everything under the fixed stars into order (διακοσμῶν πάντα καὶ ἐπιμελούμενος, Phaedrus 246e).Footnote 14 Sergius performs the same function by ensuring that nothing is without order (ἀκόσμητον). But Sergius surpasses Zeus, by ensuring that not only the planetary spheres, but even the earthly world below the moon is orderly.

Simocatta’s description of the sublunar world suggests a possible unique source for this redeployment of the Phaedrus’ cosmology. Where Zeus orders the heavens, Sergius’ virtue lays hold of advantages below the moon (τῶν ὑπὸ σελήνην πλεονεκτημάτων) and declines to leave even the earthly world out of order (οὐκ ἐθέλει γὰρ οὔτε τὸν περίγειον κόσμον μένειν ἀκόσμητον). In advancing this claim, Simocatta characterizes the sublunar world as ὁ περίγειος κόσμος. There is only one locus prior to Simocatta in Greek literature where the phrase περίγειος κόσμος is similarly used to describe the sublunar world: in Olympiodorus’ lecture On the Gorgias 47.4.9. Here again, as in the example above, Olympiodorus appeals to the myth of the Phaedrus:

τὴν δὲ Σελήνην ἐπὶ δύο ταύρων· ἐπὶ δύο μὲν διὰ τὴν αὔξησιν καὶ τὴν μείωσιν, ἐπὶ ταύρων δὲ ἐπειδὴ ὥσπερ οὗτοι τὴν γῆν ἐργάζονται, οὕτως καὶ αὕτη τὸν περίγειον κόσμον κυβερνᾷ.

They say that Selene, the moon, proceeded on two bulls. On two because of her waxing and waning, and on bulls, because just as they work the earth, so too the moon governs the cosmic order around the earth.Footnote 15

In Olympiodorus, this language describes the efficacy of Zeus at Phaedrus 246e in his ordering function, ‘piloting’ or ‘driving’ (κυβερνᾷ) as the heavenly gods do at Phaedrus 247c7 (ψυχῆς κυβερνήτῃ). The unique linguistic correspondence lends some weight to Usener’s suggestion that Simocatta is aware of the lecture texts of Olympiodorus’ school or a closely related tradition, since the phrase is not used by other Platonists in this context. Moreover, Olympiodorus and Simocatta both go out of their way to introduce imagery from the Phaedrus, although they are not commenting on this dialogue. This terminology is not found in the surviving Neoplatonic commentary on that dialogue, by Hermias.Footnote 16

I turn next to a more substantial argument for Simocatta’s affinity with the Alexandrian school, based on their mutual acceptance of an hypothesis that the reporter of Olympiodorus’ lecture regards as unique to the school. Simocatta’s ‘Philosophy’ offers the unusual hypothesis that Sergius’ contemplative virtue might be described as an ‘embodied contemplation’ (θεωρία σωματωθεῖσα). The idiom of taking on a body to ‘move among human beings as a human’ is rooted in late antique Christology: the phrase ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἀναστρέφεται is employed by earlier authors to characterize the λόγος taking on flesh as Christ.Footnote 17 But Simocatta surprisingly repurposes this phrase for Platonist philosophy. Here, it is not the divine logos that has taken a body, but philosophical contemplation (θεωρία) who ‘moves among human beings’ embodied on earth as Sergius.

The emphasis on embodied Platonist philosophy is sharpened in a virtually exact parallel from the first of Simocatta’s (fictitiously addressed) Letters:

The cicada, the musician, begins its melody at the appearance of spring … So we too hasten to sing of your virtues… For you have revived us, long deadened by a filthy life, toward virtue, through your writings. Would that I might become a Critias to your Plotinus: for either Plotinus philosophizes apart from the body while still on earth, or Philosophy, having taken on a body (σωματωθεῖσα), moves among human beings as a human (ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἀναστρέφεται).Footnote 18

Here, Simocatta praises the founding Neoplatonist Plotinus (c. 204/5–270)—or a person, like Sergius, who stands behind Plotinus as fictional addressee—as philosophy in the flesh. The literary atmosphere of the Phaedrus is introduced once again as the backdrop for this rhetorical praise, again accompanied by the pseudo-Christological language of an embodiment ‘moving among human beings’. Here, φιλοσοφία stands for the same act as θεωρία in the History: Plotinus is praised for his virtuosic philosophical contemplation.

The phrase θεωρία σωματωθεῖσα employed by Simocatta in the History is hapax (as is φιλοσοφία σωματωθεῖσα in Letter 1), and no prior Greek literature, with the exception of Olympiodorus (discussed below), allows that philosophical contemplation might be perpetually embodied in the way Simocatta implies.Footnote 19 Simocatta cannot be speaking of achieving a brief period of contemplation while in the body, for several reasons. A momentary period of embodied contemplation would be nothing praiseworthy. Here, philosophical contemplation walks among men ‘embodied’ (σωματωθεῖσα) as Sergius or Plotinus, not merely for a moment, but—as the source image of the λόγος taking flesh implies—for a lifetime.Footnote 20 This is also the implication of the aorist passive construction.Footnote 21 The inimitable achievement of Sergius and ‘Plotinus’ is to achieve contemplation permanently, which had been viewed by philosophers since Aristotle as the province of a god, not a human.Footnote 22

This praise leads to an apparent philosophical absurdity, though. The compossibility of consistent embodiment and contemplation is denied in non-Christian Platonism, and mentioned only for ridicule in a Christian source.Footnote 23 Simocatta’s comment, however, is not intended as mockery; for his praise of Sergius and ‘Plotinus’ to function rhetorically, his readers must take the possibility of perpetual embodied contemplation achievement seriously.

The only earlier locus in which such perpetual contemplation is possible in the body also occurs in Olympiodorus, in his lectures on Plato’s Phaedo. Here a peculiar position of Olympiodorus himself is framed,Footnote 24 perhaps in contrast with the remainder of the Platonic tradition. This passage, Olympiodorus, In Phd. 6.3.4, needs quoting in full:Footnote 25

φέρε δὲ τὸ πρόβλημα αὐτὸ ἐξετάσωμεν καθ’ αὑτό, ἆρά ἐστιν ἐν τῷ σώματι ὄντα διόλου καθαρτικῶς ἢ θεωρητικῶς ζῆν. οἱ μὲν οὖν παλαιοὶ οὐ βούλονται τοῦτο, φαίνεται δὲ καὶ ὁ Πλάτων μὴ βουλόμενος, εἴ γέ φησιν ὅτι οὐ μή ποτε δυνατὸν ἐν τῷ σώματι ὄντας γνῶναι τὸ ἀληθές. ὁ δὲ φιλόσοφος ὁ καθ’ ἡμᾶς φησιν ὅτι δυνατόν· εἰ γάρ ἐστιν ἔξω τοῦ σώματος ὄντα πολιτικῶς ἐνεργῆσαι, (5) διὰ τί μὴ καὶ ἐν τῷ σώματι καθαρτικῶς ἢ θεωρητικῶς; καὶ εἰ ἐν τῷ Φαίδρῳ [248d2–e3] μεμνημένος βίων ἐνθουσιαστικὸν οὐ λέγει παρ’ ὅλον τὸν χρόνον βίον εἶναι, θεωρητικοῦ δὲ μέμνηται βίου, διότι παρ’ ὅλον μὲν τὸν βίον ἐνθουσιαστικῶς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐνεργῆσαι, καθαρτικῶς δὲ καὶ θεωρητικῶς τί κωλύει; εἰ γὰρ καὶ τρεφόμεθα, ἀλλ’ ὡς καθαρτικοί, ἵνα γὰρ μὴ παραποδίζηται ἡ ψυχὴ (10) ἐν ταῖς ἐνεργείαις τοῦ σώματος ἐμποδίζοντος. οἷον οὖν φλύαρον γείτονα τὸ σῶμα θεραπεύει ὁ καθαρτικὸς καὶ θεωρητικός, ἵνα ἐν ταῖς νοήσεσιν ἀκώλυτος ᾖ· ὥσπερ φησὶν περὶ τοῦ κορυφαίου φιλοσόφου ὅτι ἀγνοεῖ ὅποι γῆς ἐστιν, καὶ ἀγνοεῖ ὅτι ἀγνοεῖ [Tht. 173c6–174a2]. καὶ εὗρεν ὁ λόγος διπλῆν ἀμαθίαν ἐπιστήμης κρείττονα.

But let us consider this question by itself, whether it is possible, while in the body, to lead an uninterrupted life of purification or of contemplation. The ancients do not grant this, and Plato too seems to deny it, since he says that it will never be possible, as long as we are in the body, to know the truth. Our own professor, however, maintains that it is possible: if one can share in the life of a community when outside the body, why should a life of purification and contemplation be impossible, while still in the body? Another point: in the Phaedrus, where he mentions various ways of life, Plato does not speak of a lifetime of continuous ecstasy, but he does refer to the contemplative life, because it is not possible to spend one’s whole life in ecstasy, but there is nothing to prevent us from spending it in purification and contemplation. For though we partake of food, we do so in a spirit of purification, that the soul should not be impeded in its activities by the body. Therefore the man who has dedicated himself to purification or contemplation pays attention to the body as to a talkative neighbour, so as not to be disturbed in his thoughts; this is what Plato says about the perfect philosopher, that he does not know where in the world he is, and is unaware that he does not know. Here we find a double ignorance that is superior to knowledge.

Olympiodorus’ position is that consistent and uninterrupted embodied contemplation is a rare but feasible accomplishment, one that follows from the achievement of purificatory virtue (καθαρτικὴ ἀρετή) in the scale of virtues. The recorder of the lecture credits this position to Olympiodorus as lecturer as if it is unique, set against (an alternative interpretation of) Plato as well as ‘the ancients’.Footnote 26

Westerink also treats the position as peculiar, suggesting that it is not shared by Proclus, Damascius or Porphyry.Footnote 27 This claim applies to the possibility of consistent embodied contemplation, the kind of singular achievement attributed to Sergius and ‘Plotinus’ by Simocatta. Proclus maintains that the embodied soul can contemplate Forms,Footnote 28 but Westerink may be correct in supporting the reporter’s view.

Olympiodorus also provides the conceptual background that explains the possibility of Simocatta’s claim that Sergius and ‘Plotinus’ might continually contemplate outside the body, or that contemplation might be continually embodied. This is a statement of the nature of purificatory and contemplative virtue, the achievement of the person who attends to the body only ‘as a talkative neighbour’, a metaphor that derives indirectly from Plotinus himself.Footnote 29 Like Simocatta in both the History and the Letters, Olympiodorus situates his claim against the cosmological background of the Phaedrus, which is external to the context of the commentaries on the Phaedo and Gorgias from which these texts are drawn, perhaps reflecting a distinctive tradition of exegesis of the Phaedrus.

Thus Usener’s initial hypothesis—that a teacher belonging to Olympiodorus’ Alexandrian tradition of Platonism conveyed the texts and concepts of the school to Constantinople—may find circumstantial support in Simocatta’s linguistic use of phrasing otherwise found only in Olympiodorus’ lectures, and his conceptual assumption that persistent ‘embodied contemplation’ is feasible and potentially praiseworthy. Simocatta combines Christian and Platonist vocabulary to present a unique and effective rhetorical image, which we find repeated in later authors, for example in Michael Psellos’ description of ‘embodied wisdom’.Footnote 30

A further detailed comparison with the school-texts of individual candidates, like Stephanus, may articulate a clearer line of transmission, and clarify which philosophical commentaries were read and discussed by Simocatta and contemporaries in his ambit. For example, Simocatta also represents Sergius as achieving the pinnacle of the virtues (κολοφὼν τῶν ἀρετῶν, §11). While the scale of virtues is a Christian and non-Christian commonplace,Footnote 31 the phrase κολοφὼν τῶν ἀρετῶν is also virtually hapax before Simocatta; it is used only once, by Nemesius in the fourth century, characterizing piety (De natura hominis 1.2.23),Footnote 32 which implies that Simocatta was reading Nemesius. Further investigation along these lines may illuminate the textual transmissions of Neoplatonist philosophy in this period, and the contributions of Olympiodorean philosophy in particular to intellectual continuity between Alexandria and the court of Heraclius at Constantinople.Footnote 33

Footnotes

*

I thank Professor Michael J. Griffin for invaluable conversations; and Dr Nikolas Hächler for introducing me to this text by Simocatta.

References

1 For Olympiodorus the Younger and his exegetical and pedagogical strategies see A. Joosse (ed.), Olympiodorus of Alexandria: Exegete, Teacher, Platonic Philosopher (Leiden, 2021).

2 See H. Usener, ‘De Stephano Alexandrino’, in Kleine Schriften 3 (Leipzig, 1914), 247–322.

3 See W. Wolska-Conus, ‘Stéphanos d’Athènes et Stéphanos d’Alexandrie. Essai d’identification et de biographie’, REByz 47 (1989), 5–89; M. Papathanassiou, ‘Stephanus of Alexandria: a famous Byzantine scholar, alchemist and astrologer’, in P. Magdalino and M. Mavroudi (edd.), The Occult Sciences in Byzantium (Geneva, 2006), 163–203; L.G. Westerink, Pseudo-Elias (Pseudo-David). Lectures on Porphyry’s Isagoge (Amsterdam, 1967), xiii; P. Mueller-Jourdain, Une initiation à la Philosophie de l’Antiquité tardive – Les leçons du Pseudo-Élias (Fribourg, 2007), xxv–xxvi. For more on the textual transmission from Alexandria see R. Goulet, ‘La conservation et la transmission des textes philosophiques grecs’, in C. D’Ancona (ed.), The Libraries of the Neoplatonists (Leiden, 2007), 29–62; M. Rashed, ‘Nicolas d’Otrante, Guillaume de Moerbeke et la “Collection Philosophique” – note complémentaire: sur l’origine et constitution de la “Collection Philosophique”’, StudMed 43 (2002), 693–717.

4 See M. Roueché, ‘Stephanus the Alexandrian Philosopher, the kanon and a seventh-century millennium’, JWI 74 (2011), 1–30; M. Roueché, ‘Stephanus the Philosopher and Ps.-Elias: a case of mistaken identity’, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 16 (2012), 120–38; M. Roueché, ‘A philosophical portrait of Stephanus the philosopher’, in R.R.K. Sorabji, Aristotle Re-Interpreted: New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators (London, 2016), 541–63.

5 I have referred to the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) for textual proximity word searches and lemmata, and to word indices in the works cited below. Quotations from Simocatta’s History are adapted from M. Whitby and M. Whitby, The History of Theophylact Simocatta. An English Translation with Introduction and Notes (Oxford, 1986). Letter 1 is cited from J. Zanetto, Theophylacti Simocatae Epistulae (Leipzig, 1985). The translation of Proem §§11–13 above, and of Letter 1, is mine.

6 See Theoph. Sim., Proem §3. Other examples include ibid. 8.6.9; Georg. Pisid. Heracl. 2.5–6; Theoph. Chron. AM 6094, 1.289 (C. de Boor, Theophanis Chronographia [Leipzig, 1883]); Zonaras 14.14.7, 14.14.36, 14.14.52. See D.M. Olster, The Politics of Usurpation in the Seventh Century: Rhetoric and Revolution in Byzantium (Amsterdam, 1993); M. Meier, ‘Kaiser Phokas (602–610) als Erinnerungsproblem’, ByzZ 107 (2014), 139–74; M. Meier, ‘Krieg und Friede in der Repräsentation der oströmisch-byzantinischen Kaiser (6.–7. Jahrhundert n. Chr.)’, in C.I. Chrysafis, A. Hartmann, C. Schliephake and G. Weber (edd.), Basileus eirenophylax. Friedenskultur(en) und monarchische Repräsentation in der Antike (Stuttgart, 2023), 457–87.

7 Theoph. Sim. Proem §3. Sergius had crowned Heraclius emperor. On the personification of Philosophy see D. O’Meara, ‘Lady philosophy and politics in Late Antiquity: a tense relationship’, in C. Riedweg (ed.), Philosophia in der Konkurrenz von Schulen, Wissenschaften und Religionen. Zur Pluralisierung des Philosophiebegriffs in Kaiserzeit und Spätantike (Berlin and Boston, 2017), 291–300.

8 See T. Olajos, Les sources de Théophylacte Simocatta historien (Leiden, 1988).

9 (5) κἀγὼ δὴ τότε τῆς βασιλέως στοᾶς ἐξωστρακίσθην, ὦ θύγατερ, καὶ τῆς Ἀττικῆς ἐπιβαίνειν οὐκ ἦν, ὁπότε τὸν ἐμὸν βασιλέα Σωκράτην ὁ Θρᾲξ ἐκεῖνος διώλεσεν Ἄνυτος. (6) χρόνῳ δ’ ὕστερον Ἡρακλεῖδαι διέσωσαν καὶ τὴν πολιτείαν ἀπέδοσαν τό τε ἄγος τῶν ἀνακτόρων ἀποδιοπομπήσαντο, ναὶ (7) δῆτα καὶ πρὸς τὰ βασιλέων τεμένη εἰσῴκισαν. καὶ περιλαλῶ τὰ βασίλεια καὶ ταῦτα δὴ τὰ ἀρχαῖα καὶ Ἀττικὰ μουσουργῶ κελαδήματα. (‘I too, my daughter, was ostracized then from the royal colonnade, and could not enter Attica at the time when that Thracian Anytus destroyed Socrates my king. (6) But subsequently the Heraclidae saved and restored the state, exorcized the pollution from the palaces, and indeed settled in the royal precincts. (7) I celebrate the royal courts and compose these antique Attic hymns,’ transl. Whitby and Whitby [n. 5], 4).

10 κάλλιστά γε, βασίλεια, τῶν ἐγκωμίων τὸν στέφανον ἔπλεξας. ἀλλ’ εἴ σοι δοκεῖ, περὶ ταυτηνὶ τὴν πλάτανον κάθισαι μικρόν· ἀμφιλαφὲς γὰρ τὸ δένδρον, τοῦ τε ἄγνου τὸ ὕψος καὶ τὸ σύσκιον πάγκαλον. (‘My queen, excellently indeed have you woven the garland of praises. But, if you agree, sit awhile by this plane here; for the tree is wide-spreading, and the height and shade of the chaste willow are most attractive,’ transl. Whitby and Whitby [n. 5], 5). As Whitby and Whitby point out, Theophylact employs a similar allusion to the Phaedrus at Quaestiones Physicae 5, page 23.7–8.

11 For Neoplatonist usage see for example Damascius, In Phd. 1. 142, in L.G. Westerink, The Greek Commentaries on Plato’s Phaedo, 2: Damascius (Amsterdam, 1976). For the general background, D. O’Meara, Platonopolis: Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 2003). For the scale of virtues see D. Baltzly, ‘The virtues and “becoming like God”: Alcinous to Proclus’, OSAPh 26 (2004), 297–321. Platonist sources are further discussed below. Christian uses are also common: for instance, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and John Cassian all suggest that at Luke 10:38, Martha stands for the practical life, Mary for the contemplative. See for instance Origen fr. 171, in J. Liehard (transl.), Origen: Homilies on Luke, Fragments on Luke (Washington, 1996), on Luke 10:38. For purificatory and contemplative virtue see also M. Griffin (transl.), Olympiodorus: Life of Plato and On Plato First Alcibiades 1–9 (London, 2014), 32–4 and, on the scale more broadly, J.F. Finamore, ‘Ethics, virtue and theurgy: on being a good person in Late-Neoplatonic philosophy’, in S. Xenophontos and A. Marmodoro (edd.), The Reception of Greek Ethics in Late Antiquity and Byzantium (Cambridge, 2021), 69–82.

12 For example, in Simocatta’s opening discussion of human λόγος as alternating between contemplation of the cosmos and practical action (Book 1, Proem §§1–16), artfully presenting History as a record of practical virtue; in the striking remark in a speech that ‘action is the precursor of contemplation’ (ἡ πρᾶξις τῆς θεωρίας γίνεται πρόδρομος, §3.13.19.4); and in the balancing remark that words should end in deeds to ‘divert contemplation toward action’ (πρὸς παράταξιν τὴν θεωρίαν μετοχετεύσωμεν, §7.10.10.4).

13 He has attained the height of theology (τὴν ὑψηλὴν τῆς θεολογίας, §11) in addition to his beneficial practical activity.

14 Hermias, In Phd. 141.15–145.21 discusses ancient philosophical explanations of the identity of the ‘Zeus’ who drives his winged chariot here; the first is that he represents one of the constellations of the fixed stars.

15 In Grg. 47.4.9; translation adapted from R. Jackson, H. Harold, and K. Lycos (transl.), Olympiodorus: Commentary on Plato’s Gorgias (Leiden, 1998).

16 I have searched for proximate words and cognates in the TLG to support this finding.

17 Gregory of Nazianzus, Ad Julianum trib. ex. (orat. 19), 35.1057.45 PG Χριστὸς ἄρτι γεννᾶταί σοι, καὶ Θεός ἐστι, καὶ ἄνθρωπος γίνεται, καὶ ἀνθρώποις συναναστρέφεται; Gregory of Nyssa, Antirrhet. adv. Apollinarium 3.1.173.15–16 PG τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συναναστρεφόμενον; Athanasius, De incarn. verb. 15.2 λαμβάνει ἑαυτῷ σῶμα, καὶ ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἀναστρέφεται.

18 τέττιξ ὁ μουσικὸς ἦρος φανέντος τῆς μελῳδίας ἀπάρχεται· […] ᾆσαι γοῦν καὶ ἡμεῖς τὰς σὰς ἀρετὰς ἐπειγόμεθα· […] πάλαι γὰρ νεκρωθέντας ἡμᾶς τῷ ῥυπώδει βίῳ ἐκ τῶν σῶν γραμμάτων πρὸς ἀρετὴν ἀνεψύχωσας. οὕτω γενοίμην ὁ Κριτίας Πλωτῖνος· Πλωτῖνος γὰρ ἢ σώματος ἐκτὸς φιλοσοφεῖ ἐπὶ γῆς, ἢ φιλοσοφία σωματωθεῖσα μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἀναστρέφεται (Letter 1.2–11, ed. Zanetto, above [n. 5]; my translation).

19 Again based on a search of the TLG, reviewing proximity of variants and cognates of both terms. The nearest comparison is Cyril of Alexandria, who juxtaposes body and contemplation to point out the ridiculousness of imagining contemplation in a body (Comm. on John 2. 421.24).

20 In the language of the λόγος becoming flesh, Christ’s embodiment is for a lifetime on earth; compare n. 17, above. Or they spend their time on earth (ἐπὶ γῆς) philosophizing outside the body (σώματος ἐκτός), which appears superficially impossible, but is effectively identical with purificatory virtue, below.

21 Not only in the Christological context of the λόγος taking on flesh, but also in non-Christian Neoplatonist literature, the aorist passive participle (like σωματωθεῖσα) is employed for the continuous embodiment of the soul or a capacity of the soul: e.g. Plotinus, Enn. 1.6.5.56 and Damascius, De princ. 1.31.25, where Damascius uses the form in a similar way to describe the sensitive body (σῶμα αἰσθητικόν) as a capacity for sensation that has become embodied (σωματωθεῖσα αἴσθησις).

22 Cf. Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 10.8, 1178b7–1179a9.

23 Including Porphyry, Sent. 32.31.9–10, Proclus, In R. 2.276.18–25, Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. On John 2.421.24. See Westerink (n. at 98) on 6.3 for these and other sources. A classic example is Porphyry, Abst. 1.41, which describes how one must attend either to the intelligible or to the sensible world, not to both at once.

24 The position belongs to ὁ δὲ φιλόσοφος ὁ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς below (‘our own professor’, Westerink), most likely referring to Olympiodorus himself in the voice of the student recording the lecture, or to Olympiodorus’ teacher Ammonius Hermiou (c. 435/45–517/26).

25 Translation from L.G. Westerink, The Greek Commentaries on Plato’s Phaedo. 1: Olympiodorus. 2: Damascius (Amsterdam, 1976–7).

26 A phrase that Westerink interprets as applying to the school of Plotinus and Porphyry, based on Proclus (see following n.). Whether this attribution stands is not essential to the following argument.

27 Westerink (n. 25), ad loc., citing Damascius, 1.115, Proclus, In R. 2.276.18–25, De providentia et fato 49.14–18, and Porphyry, Sent. 32.31.9–10; ‘the ancients’ applies to the school of Plotinus in Proclus, Theol. Plat. 1.10.42.4.

28 See D. Butorac, ‘Proclus’ interpretation of the Parmenides, dialectic, and the wandering of the soul’, Dionysius 27 (2009), 33–54; V. Tu, ‘Proclus on ἕνωσις: knowing the One by the One in the soul’, Philosophies 9.4 (2024), 100. I am grateful to CQ’s reader for these citations.

29 The ‘wise neighbour’ of 1.2.5.25–6; see also Porphyry, Sent. 32. But pupils of Ammonius focus on the body as the ‘talkative neighbour’ as here; thus Philoponus, In De anima 596.11, 26; Olympiodorus, In Phd. 4.3.15, 6.3.11. In Plotinus, too, we find a description of the soul achieving ‘purification’ from the troubles it took on in embodiment (ἀπαλλαγεῖσα δὲ τῶν ἄλλων παθῶν καὶ καθαρθεῖσα ἃ ἔχει σωματωθεῖσα, Enn. 1.6.5.56).

30 Orat. 8.17 τὰ νῦν δὲ αὐτή πως ἡ σοφία σωματωθεῖσα, μᾶλλον δὲ τῇ τοῦ βασιλέως ψυχῇ ἐνοικήσασα καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀξίας περιωπῆς καταστᾶσα τοὺς ἑαυτῆς τροφίμους καλεῖ καὶ λόγους αὐτοὺς καὶ τοὺς περὶ λόγους τὸ ἐνεργὸν ἐπιδειξομένους ἐφέλκεται.

31 See D. Baltzly (n. 11).

32 The phrase is next used by John of Damascus in the eighth century, who quotes Nemesius precisely (Expositio fidei 26.84), and then paraphrases it again at Homilia in transfigurationem salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi 10.2.

33 See n. 3 for discussion of broader issues of textual transmission, and S. Costero-Quiroga, ‘Paideia helénica restituida en la corte de Heraclio (s. VI-VII): Teofilacto Simocates ante la barbarie’, EBiz 13 (2025), 69–87.