This is the third and concluding volume of the translation of Hermias’ Commentary on the Phaedrus, and it is very good to have. Dirk Baltzly and Michael Share once again do a fine job of bringing Hermias’ commentary to a wider audience, with a clear and accurate translation, and an abundance of explanatory notes. As an ingenious way of padding out the volume, the authors have added to it a translation of ps.-Syrianus’ Introduction to Hermogenes on Styles, which actually complements this part of Hermias’ commentary rather well—although it turns out to be not by Syrianus himself—except for the preface, which Syrianus dedicates to ‘Alexander, dearest of my children’. I had not known that he was a married man!
What is covered here is the latter part of the dialogue, concerned with the discussion of style and dialectic, which would be regarded by most modern commentators as quite distant in subject-matter from the first part, but which Hermias, following the lead of Iamblichus (and his own master, Syrianus) sees as the re-descent of the study of the Beautiful, from the heavenly realm back down again to the level of discourse; and indeed the original stimulus for regarding every Platonic dialogue as analogous to a living body arises from Socrates’ remarks at Phaedrus 264c (discussed by Hermias at 242.20-7 Lucarini-Moreschini). However, it remains true that Hermias’ commentary on this part of the dialogue is much concerned with matters of style, and it is that which makes the appending of an introduction to a treatise of Hermogenes On Styles reasonably appropriate, even though it is agreed to be not by Syrianus, but rather by an obscure later Alexandrian scholar called Phoebammon—who is, however, following in the footsteps of Syrianus.
As the authors remark, Hermias’ thoroughness in his commentary declines dramatically after the end of the Palinode at 257c, and what amounts to 40% of the whole dialogue is discussed in only 61 pages, out of a total of 280. Some details do retain his attention, though, such as the Myth of the Cicadas and the transition to the discussion of the development of writing (274b ff.), but, as once again the authors remark, he pays surprisingly little attention to the exegesis of the myth of Theuth and Thamus, but that, they suggest, is because Socrates has admitted (deviously), in response to a sceptical gibe from Phaedrus (275b), that he has made it up himself. And yet Hermias by no means ignores the myth, and makes a number of interesting remarks in connection with it.
The authors offer further apposite comments on the possible reasons for the comparative brevity of the commentary on the latter section, setting aside the traditional Platonist aversion to rhetoric (which is no longer in fact appropriate to the Athenian School from Syrianus on, as it actually embraced the study of rhetoric as a suitable preliminary to philosophy), in favour of an observed characteristic of other Neoplatonic commentaries, notably those of Proclus and Olympiodorus, to run somewhat out of steam in their latter parts——even in the case of such a dialogue as the Alcibiades, where the last section is really the most significant.
The authors provide a good discussion of Hermias’ treatment of the Myth of the Cicadas (258e6-259e1), to which in fact he accords noticeably more attention than he does to that of Theuth and Thamus. As they remark (p. 14):
Much of Hermias’ exegetical energy in his discussion of the myth of the cicadas is invested in pre-empting misleading appearances of temporality. Socrates’ story concerns humans who seemingly pre-dated the existence of the Muses and subsequently became entranced by the song of the Muses. As with the temporal language of the Timaeus (which might be taken to suggest that the sensible cosmos came into existence at some point in time), the seemingly temporal narrative structure of the Phaedrus account of the Muses and humans needs to be understood differently. Apparent temporal priority is translated into causal priority.
And they credit this exegesis, very reasonably, to Iamblichus.
The authors also devote a lengthy and pertinent discussion to the topic, mentioned above, of the Neoplatonic attitude to rhetoric and the relations between the treatment of that topic in the Phaedrus and the Gorgias—where, of course, the non-tekhnē of Polus and Gorgias is duly excoriated, while in the Phaedrus the possibility of a properly philosophical rhetoric is explored. It was a concern of Hermias, and of Olympiodorus, in his commentary on the Gorgias, to refute any suggestion that Plato’s evaluation of rhetoric is inconsistent as between the two dialogues, and the authors set out their discussion of this issue very well. A good passage from Hermias, at In Phdr. 7.2-9 Lucarini-Moreschini, is the following (quoted on p. 17):
“Anyone, then, who is going to write well must know the truth of things. And this is how the true and the popular rhetoric are distinguished: the former is acquainted with truth, is a knowledge of what is just and what is not just, is an attendant (opados) of philosophy, belongs to the philosopher alone, and creates and delivers content that is pleasing to gods (273e7) and men; the popular kind, on the other hand, produces a kind of allurement or charming of the soul and is a sort of knack (empeiria) that lacks all art (260e5) and is without any science.”
That suitably spells out the distinction, surely, and they are right to quote it.
Overall, then, this is a fine piece of work. I have not noted any typos or other errors, I am glad to say. The translation is backed up by copious notes, and rounded off by useful indices, Greek-English, English-Greek, and of subjects.