Resumen de Calcidius’ Elusive Identity, His Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, and Origen of Alexandria
This article focusses on Calcidius’ commentary on Plato’s Timaeus and his elusive identity, and offers new insights on Origen of Alexandria’s influence on this commentary, with many examples and reflections. In light of Reydams-Schils’ recent commentary on Calcidius’ work and observations concerning his religious affiliation and historical setting, this article discusses the hypothesis that Calcidius may have been a “pagan”: although this remains a moot point in Ramelli’s view, nevertheless the “pagan” hypothesis does not clash with Calcidius’ knowledge of Origen, with whose work many “pagan” Platonists were familiar in imperial and late antiquity (from Porphyry, and probably Plotinus, to Hierocles and Proclus). There are no definitive arguments to determine with certainty whether Calcidius was Christian or “pagan”, just as there are no definitive arguments to determine with certainty whether there were two Origen(s) of Alexandria, a Christian and a “pagan” Neoplatonist, both disciples of Ammonius Saaccas and both saying the same things, or the two – cited by all ancient authors as simply “Origen”, without any distinction of patronymic, geographic provenance, epithet, or the like – were in fact one and the same person.
