Although the book’s title and abstract highlight Proclus’ use of Aristotle in the Neoplatonic theory of motion, the book offers a close analysis of Aristotle and Plato in the interwoven interpretations of Middle Platonists (e.g. Alcinous), Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Syrianus and Proclus, Ammonius, Simplicius and John Philoponus. What is its significance? M. clearly points out in the abstract: ‘The results enhance our view of the reception and authority of Aristotle in late antiquity, a crucial period for the transmission of Aristotelian thought which immensely shaped the later reading of his work’.
In due course readers will find that the study concentrates on Proclus’ engagement with Aristotle as regards at least two foci, the theories of motion and causation, and the metaphysics of Aristotle in relation to Plato. The first appeals to philosophical interest per se, but the second includes the interaction with a disputational force: ‘The book also counteracts the commonly held view that late-antique philosophers straightforwardly accepted Aristotle as an authority in certain areas such as logic or natural philosophy’ (abstract). The adversarial aspect engages M.’s drive to challenge the current view of the Neoplatonic fitting of Aristotle with Plato. He has not chosen Proclus’ conceptualisation just for its own sake, but rather to examine the rich development of Plato and Aristotle through Middle Platonism to Neoplatonism. Therefore the book has a much broader appeal to readers.
In the introduction and the first three chapters M. elucidates that he chose motion as the main subject for its range in philosophy from the study of the physical domain to that of the metaphysical. Proclus addressed this range neatly with two books, the Elements of Physics and the Elements of Theology. They were rooted in the two main grades of the Neoplatonic theory of being and stages of the soul’s elevation, which were taught by the systematic Neoplatonic curriculum. However, when M. examines the metaphysics of motion, including in the Elements of Theology, he takes every opportunity to extend the discussion to the complex metaphysics of causation (see particularly Chapter 4), a substantial subject, which merits mentioning in the book’s brief in equal terms as motion. By this choice of aspects M. aims to examine the material in a combination of depth and breadth.
The examination of the reception of Aristotle commences with a chapter on the Elements of Physics, which is a rare topic of research. It is not only Proclus’ least known work; it also consists of paraphrases selected from passages of Aristotle’s Physics and On the Heavens regarding motion. Proclus arranged them in a way that relates physical motion with the ‘unmoved’ principle in Aristotle. M. includes material from Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus and on axiomatic method in Proclus’ Commentary on Euclid. With due diligence M. reveals Proclus’ subtlety in the choice of material that combines Aristotle’s philosophy with Euclid’s mathematical method to demonstrate that science leads to metaphysics.
Why was Aristotle present in a Platonic setting? The Neoplatonic curriculum in Proclus’ time had been developed by Iamblichus (fourth century) influenced by Porphyry, the editor of Plotinus’ Enneads. He went on to promulgate the coherence of manifold Greek philosophy, especially the ‘Harmony’ of Aristotle with Plato. Thus Porphyry, a Platonist, rejuvenated the commentaries on Aristotle. According to this philosophical curriculum, the study of Aristotle fitted the study of logic and of the physical domain. Aristotle prepared the soul for the study of metaphysics in Plato’s dialogues. The overall aim was to train the soul with the rigours of rational philosophy in order to assist it in elevating towards an experience of unity, the divine.
Proclus’ prolific writing (extant c. 1,093,000 words) is devoted to Platonic topics. There we can find passages with his views on Aristotle. But we have very few samples from his works on Aristotelian topics. As a result, M. rightly remarks, ‘Proclus’ engagement with Aristotle has been little and only deficiently studied’ (p. 2).
However, M. has identified a deeper problem. Proclus’ views on Aristotle in relation to Plato appear to be quite critical. On the other hand, the evidence from two of his leading students (Ammonius, head of the Alexandria philosophy school, and Simplicius, initially at Alexandria, then at Athens) is more positive. This variation leads M. to examine in substantial detail a variety of interpretations of causation in Aristotelian and Platonic metaphysics.
The discussion on causation is clustered in Chapter 4. In particular, M. examines closely the problems that arise from comparing Aristotelian and Platonic accounts of the prime mover’s relation with the world. For example, if the prime mover is to be purely such, it must be regarded as a final cause (Aristotle). But how could it be the maker, an efficient cause (Aristotle), Demiurge (Plato, Timaeus)? Should the prime mover be both? The variety of positions that emerge from attempting to resolve the challenges of causation provide useful signature-markers of the kinds of interpretation that underlie the concepts of being, soul, etc. Therefore readers may come to discern that the chapters on motion depend on M.’s analysis in Chapter 4.
Here M. reaches the main purpose of the study: his contribution to the problem of Proclus’ philosophical position. How so? The variety of interpretations, largely on the problems of causation, opens a number of questions regarding the universality of ‘Harmony’: were there anti- and pro-Harmony interpretations? Or was there a distinction into a concordance vs a complementarist reading of Aristotle and Plato? This was not a parochial matter, for it was part of an eight-centuries long philosophical assessment of Aristotle in relation to Plato. The question remains open to this day. Accordingly, M. proposes that Proclus and Neoplatonism can contribute to modern ancient philosophy debates.
While examining the problem of Harmony, M. proceeds to relate it to the issue of a possible division between the Athenian (Syrianus, Proclus) and the Alexandrian (Ammonius, initially Simplicius) philosophy schools. He resolves that Proclus did not support the essential harmony between Aristotle and Plato, unlike Ammonius et al. What can a reader think? Regarding debates on abstracts, there could have been differences of view. But from a grounded perspective, there are many factors, historical, social, personal connections, academic practices of the period etc., that cannot sustain a real division between the two schools. Besides, M. does not examine Damascius, the last head of the Athenian school, who was a vociferous critic of everyone (including Proclus) and a colleague of Simplicius, nor Olympiodorus (Alexandria) who taught and wrote commentaries on Plato, based on Proclus, and on Aristotle.
In conclusion, M. sets an ambitious standard, which he attains. Throughout the study he structures and supports his argument with a sound framework. He signposts clearly his own contributions to the field and indicates areas for further work, especially the place of Proclus and Neoplatonic philosophical thinking within modern scholarly debates. Readers familiar with Aristotle and Plato’s metaphysics will find a thesaurus of texts and ways of understanding the forms, soul, motion, efficient and final causes. Neoplatonism specialists may become immersed in the rich material of refined concepts and be absorbed in the plethora of tightly woven threads of reasoning. As M. says: ‘Proclus’ systematic outlook on philosophy and the richness of his oeuvre, which covers a wide range of topics, from ethical to metaphysical questions, allows us to trace back the impact of Aristotle’s thought’ (p. 3). ‘I thus study Proclus both as an interpreter and as a philosopher in his own right’ (p. 4). ‘This accounts for at times quite detailed discussions of Platonic and Aristotelian scholarship which shed light on the very similar concerns shared by Proclus and place his views in relation to modern scholarship’ (p. 4).
