K, A, and -H: CAAG 2.79–85). Moreover, the struc-
ture of this treatise remains on the whole disconnected and lacunose: lacking a preface and
conclusion, it begins and ends abruptly. The most coherent part is at the beginning where
the author comments upon Zo ̄simos on the extraction of gold, in the typical structure of
Neo-Platonic exegesis originating precisely from the school of Olumpiodo ̄ros. Otherwise,
the treatise consists in a collection of excerpts from early authors concerning the principle
notions and operations of alchemy, accompanied with commentary, among which are
found further extracts of Zo ̄simos.
The question of the alchemist Olumpiodo ̄ros’ identity has attracted much scholarly atten-
tion. Formerly, he was identified with O T, the historian (Berthelot
1885); later opinion was split between attributing the treatise to the Neo-Platonic commen-
tator, or to a homonym, or even to a pseudonym. In fact, reasons in favor of attributing the
work to the Neo-Platonist are numerous. Firstly, the tradition attributes the alchemical work
to an Alexandrian Olumpiodo ̄ros interpreter of Plato and Aristotle. Moreover, the author
demonstrates familiarity with Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy. His commentary presents
characteristic traits of Alexandrian Neo-Platonic exegesis, such as the apparent obscurity of
philosophic language, the identification of the goal of research with a unitary principle, and
even the structure of the doxography about that principle. Finally, one can discover evident
doctrinal and terminological convergences, whether with the commentary on Aristotle’s
Meteo ̄rologika, or whether with other works of the Neo-Platonist Olumpiodo ̄ros. Recently,
Brisson (1992) decided in favor of the identification with the Neo-Platonic commentator,
relying on a passage in the Commentary on the Phaedo (1.3, pp. 42–43 Westerink), where
Olumpiodo ̄ros seems to describe the generation of human beings as an alchemical operation
based on the sublimates of the vapors rising from the bodies of the thunder-struck Titans.
To conclude: given its discontinuous and composite state, one can imagine that our text
consists in extracts of a lost alchemical work of the Neo-Platonist Olumpiodo ̄ros (perhaps
a full commentary on the Kat’ Energeian of Zo ̄simos), arranged by a copyist, or perhaps that
the copyist copied the work of Olumpiodo ̄ros up to a point, and then added a series of
unstructured notes on the principal alchemical operations, accompanied by excerpts from
other alchemists and, probably, other works of Olumpiodo ̄ros himself.
Ed.: CAAG 2.69–106 (text), 3.75–115 (trans.); CAAG 2.79.11–85.5 ed. and trans. in Cristina Viano,
“Olympiodore l’alchimiste et les Présocratiques. Une doxographie de l’unité (De arte Sacra,
§ 18 – 27),” in Kahn and Matton (1995) 95–115.
Berthelot (1885) 191–195; J. Letrouit, “Datation d’Olympiodore l’Alchimiste,” Emerita 58 (1990)
289 – 292; L.G. Westerink, The Greek Commentaries on Plato’s Phaedo, v.1, Olympiodorus (1976) 20–32;
L. Brisson, “Le corps ‘dionysiaque.’ L’anthropogonie décrite dans le Commentaire sur le Phédon de
Platon (1, par. 3–6) attribuée à Olympiodore est-elle Orphique?” in Sophiês Maiêtores. Hommage à Jean
Pépin, ed. M.O. Goulet-Cazé, G. Madec, and D. O’Brien (1992) 481–499; DPA 4 (2005) 768–771,
H.D. Saffrey; Cristina Viano, La matière des choses: Le livre IV des Météorologiques d’Aristote, et son interpréta-
tion par Olympiodore (2006) 197–206; NDSB 5.338–340, Eadem.
Cristina Viano
Olumpiodo ̄ros of The ̄bai (Egypt) (405 – 425 CE)
Served as an envoy to the Huns, 412 CE, and has been tentatively identified with the neo-
Platonist and envoy “to barbarians,” anethnic dedicatee of Hierokle ̄s (in Pho ̄tios, Bibl. 214
[p. 171b]; but the name is very common, esp. in Athens: LGPN). He wrote a 22-book lost
“material for history” covering 407– 425 CE, excerpted by Pho ̄tios, Bibl. 80, and used by
OLUMPIODO ̄ROS OF THE ̄BAI (EGYPT)