In his introduction, ‘One Thousand Years of Proclus’, G. points out that the current hermeneutical situation has tended to elevate Plotinus’ contributions to Neoplatonism rather than those of Proclus. Either due to historiographic bias or simply the absence of English and continental translations, the importance and prevalence of Proclus’ major influence, before relatively recent times, has been sharply underestimated. Proclus has had an enormous influence on Late Antique, Medieval Latin and Byzantine works as well as on the Renaissance philosophers. G., in this edited collection, masterfully fills in the unfortunate gaps in a history that heretofore has eluded Proclus’ followers, providing an impressive and thorough coverage of this rich literature.
The volume makes it clear that later exegetes and theological philosophers constructed theories that incorporated Proclean doctrines but turned them towards their own ends. G., for example, discusses Boethius (480–524 c.e.) and Damascius (458–538 c.e.), who were approximate contemporaries but illustrate the wide diffusion of Proclus’ writings and doctrines in the late-fifth and early-sixth centuries. Boethius was a converted Christian, Damascius head of an academy that was resolutely Pagan. Boethius integrated Proclean doctrines into an Augustinian framework while Damascius fused them with Iamblichus. Boethius used Proclus’ Tria Opuscula and Commentary on Timaeus in his Consolation of Philosophy in service of a doctrine of providence and a cosmology. Damascius, who was an interpreter of the nine hypotheses of Plato's Parmenides, endorsed the notion that the first principle is ineffable and can be known only by double negative form, which was characteristic of the Christian theological interpretation circulating under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite at the end of antiquity.
The dissemination of Proclean doctrine was facilitated by the following factors: Proclus was read in conjunction with Syrianus and Damascius; the doctrines of Dionysius the Areopagite both incorporated and concealed Proclean doctrine in accordance with Christian theology (henads into multiplicity of divine names for example); the Liber de causis was widely known and the Aristotelian commentary tradition displayed Proclean influence. Aquinas wrote a commentary on Dionysius, an example of the interest in him and his role as a mediating link that allowed Proclus to enter medieval discourse. After several initial chapters on Proclus as exegete (A. Sheppard), Proclus’ life and works (L. Siorvanes), G.'s own chapter (Proclus as Theologian) supplies the premise that informs later interpretations: Proclus’ theological systematising allows for the possibility of applying Proclean axiomatics to Christian theology. The systematic interconnectedness of Being-Intellect, Power and Activity allow medieval readers such as Dietrich of Friberg, Berthold of Moosberg and Nicolas of Culsa, among others, to ‘assimilate’ Proclean doctrines to religious ends. Nicholas of Cusa is perhaps the best known of the appropriators of Proclean doctrine. De docta ignorantia is based on a relation between three terms: the ‘absolute maximum’, the ‘contracted maximum’ and the ‘absolute and contracted maximum’. These are equivalences to god, the universe and Christ. Though Nicholas followed Dionysius and annotated Proclus’ Elements and Parmenides Commentary, he did not directly utilise these works. G., in his essay on Nicholas, carefully exposes doctrinal affinities, for example, with Proclus’ Theologia Platonica in matters such as triadic structures and his own coincidence of opposites.
The Liber de causis is a particularly interesting example of the ‘undercover’ transmission of Proclean doctrine. Thought to be the work of Aristotle in the thirteenth century, it was later identified by Thomas Aquinas as the work of a Muslim philosopher who elaborated on Proclus’ Elements of Theology. D'Ancona reviews the scholarship on the Arabic translations of Elements. She concludes, after teasing out and comparing the two, that the philosopher who authored the reworking of both the Arabic Plotinus and the Arabic Proclus was al Kindi. C. Steel provides another contribution to Aquinas’ and other subsequent use of Proclus by supplying the details of how Proclus entered the tradition directly thanks to the translations of William of Moerbeke (1225–1286) of Elements, Tria Opuscula (on fate, providence and the existence of evil) and the Parmenides and Timaeus commentaries. Aquinas made a particularly close examination of Elements thanks to the Moerbeke translation. Other highlights of this collection are J. Dillon's essay on Dionysius the Areopagite, D. O'Meara on Psellos and M. Allen on Fincino. The range of future interpreters includes figures less well known as well (Dietrich of Freiberg, Berthold of Moosburg, Plethon and Francesco Patrizi). It covers a period that extends from Proclus himself as exegete of Hesiod, the Chaldean Oracles and the Orphic poems all the way to the sixteenth century.
G. relies on the methodological dichotomy of revelation and reason to establish the premise that Proclus regards Plato's writings as falling primarily into the category of revelation. Even the very logical Commentary on the Parmenides can be interpreted in an entheistic manner by regarding the deductions concerning the One as symbols of different orders of gods and viewing inner meaning as non-discursive and theurgic. The ‘theological’ use of Proclean doctrine can be seen in J. Dillon's piece. He explains that Dionysius the Areopagite (the pseudonym itself anticipates the Christianisation of Proclus’ Neoplatonism) was probably in the circle of the controversial Monophysite theologian, Severus of Antioch, and adopted Neoplatonic doctrine to his purposes. Dionysius’ doctrine of the ‘first principle’ is coordinated with the God of Jewish and Christian scripture, ‘at once an ineffable and transcendent unity about which nothing can be properly said’. This is clearly an adaptation of Proclean negative theology. Even Neoplatonist theurgic rites become construed as sacrament and Jesus becomes the true source of every theurgic act. Proclus’ theory of no room for evil is most useful to Dionysius as a radical monist.
The Renaissance appreciation of Proclean doctrine is a fascinating example of the persistence of Proclean legacy. Michael Psellos (1018–after 1078), as D. O'Meara tells us, was responsible for the Proclus renaissance of the eleventh and twelfth centuries due to his extensive use of Elements, Euclid Commentary and other works. Notably, Psellos may have had access to Proclus’ lost commentary on the Chaldaean Oracles and along with Plethon (see G.'s essay on Plethon), comments on them. M. Allen reminds the reader of the important role Proclus played for Marsilio Ficino as a doxographer. Neoplatonist hierachising of the dialogues confers a special role to the Timaeus and Parmenides and also to Philebus, Sophist and Alcibiades. Ficino cast a Neoplatonic perspective on the entire Plato canon and asserted its essential unity. Ficino and other Quattrocento thinkers, Flemish Dominican William of Moerbeke, Henry of Ghent and others, completed the translations of Proclus while Nicholas of Cusa annotated several of Proclus’ works. Ficino translated Proclus’ Hymns, Elements and Elements of Physics. Ficino regarded the Parmenides Commentary as scriptural, calling it a heavenly work, as it extols the One as the one principle of all things, outside all and within all.
The volume amply demonstrates that the influence of Proclus outweighs that of any other Neoplatonist. This learned collection exposes both the continuities and discontinuities in the Proclean legacy, one that has appropriated and assimilated Proclean doctrine but often construed a perceived doctrinal affinity towards their own ends. G.'s project, then, raises hermeneutical issues such as what ‘influence’ means. It is well known that translation is interpretation and exegesis is a term of retrieval, but in light of the Christian use of polytheist ontology in the service of Christian monism it is well-worth examining what the act of assimilating doctrine actually entails. This book is also valuable as it provides the English-speaking reader with an extensive documentation of extant literature and translations. G. has successfully and impressively executed a project that is heuristic and important. Identifying Proclean themes in later guises, mediated by Antique, Medieval and Renaissance ‘assimilators’, allows further research that can identify Proclean conceptual apparatus as it extends into the far future. Hegel appreciated Proclus and I believe there are many other such ‘diffusions’ of Proclean doctrine that can fruitfully be exposed.
