Proclus and his Legacy Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:01 Millennium-Studien zu Kultur und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends n. Chr. Millennium Studies in the culture and history of the first millennium C.E. Herausgegeben von / Edited by Wolfram Brandes, Alexander Demandt, Helmut Krasser, Hartmut Leppin, Peter von Möllendorff, Karla Pollmann Volume 65 Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:01 Proclus and his Legacy Edited by David D. Butorac and Danielle A. Layne Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:01 ISBN 978-3-11-046699-7 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-047162-5 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-047037-6 ISSN 1862-1139 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:01 Contents Note on editions, translations and abbreviations IX John Dillon, David D. Butorac and Danielle A. Layne Introduction 1 I Proclus in Context: Background, Relevance and System Stephen Gersh Proclus in the History of Philosophy: Construction and Deconstruction Harold Tarrant Forgetting Procline Theology: the Alexandrian Story Dimitrios A. Vasilakis Platonic Eros, Moral Egoism, and Proclus Danielle A. Layne The Platonic Hero 17 33 45 53 Helen S. Lang The Status of Body in Proclus 69 Antonio Vargas Proclus on Time and the Units of Time Ilaria Ramelli Proclus and Apokatastasis David D. Butorac Proclus’ aporetic epistemology 83 95 123 Edward Watts The Lycians are coming: The career of Patricius, the Father of Proclus Menahem Luz Marinus’ Abrahamic notions of the Soul and One 137 145 Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:01 VI Contents II Ps.-Dionysius, Byzantium and the Christian inheritance of Proclus Rebecca Coughlin Spiritual Motion and the Incarnation in the Divine Names of Dionysius The Areopagite 161 Tuomo Lankila A Crypto-Pagan Reading of the Figure of Hierotheus and the “Dormition” Passage 175 in the Corpus Areopagiticum Ben Schomakers An unknown Elements of Theology? On Proclus as the model for the Hierotheos 183 in the Dionysian Corpus Ernesto Sergio Mainoldi The Transfiguration of Proclus’ Legacy: Pseudo-Dionysius and the Late Neoplatonic School of Athens 199 Sarah Klitenic Wear Pseudo-Dionysius and Proclus on Parmenides 137d: On Parts and Wholes Frederick Lauritzen The Renaissance of Proclus in the Eleventh Century 219 233 Levan Gigineishvili Proclus as a biblical exegete: Bible and its Platonic interpretation in Ioane Petritsi’s commentaries 241 Joshua M. Robinson Dionysius Against Proclus: the Apophatic Critique in Nicholas of Methone’s Refutation of the Elements of Theology 249 Elias Tempelis and Christos Terezis The Presence of Proclus in George Pachymeres’ Paraphrase of Ps.-Dionysius’ De Divinis Nominibus 271 III Proclus in Arabic philosophy and Early Modernity Tim Riggs On the Absence of the Henads in the Liber de Causis: Some Consequences for 289 Procline Subjectivity Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:01 Contents VII Theodora Zampaki Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s Istithmār on Proclus’ Commentary on the Pythagorean Golden 311 Verses Michael Chase Al-Šahrastānī on Proclus 323 Elias Giannakis Proclus’ Arguments on the Eternity of the World in al-Shahrastānī’s 335 Works Georgios Steiris Proclus as a Source for Giovanni Pico della Mirandola’s Arguments Concerning 353 Emanatio and Creatio Ex Nihilo Torrance Kirby Aeternall Lawe: Richard Hooker’s Neoplatonic Account of Law and Causality 365 Y. Tzvi Langermann Proclus Revenant: The (Re‐)Integration of Proclus into the Creationism-Eternalism Debate in Joseph Solomon Delmedigo’s (1591 – 1655) Novelot Ḥokhma 375 Marie-Élise Zovko Understanding the Geometric Method: Prolegomena to a Study of Procline Influences in Spinoza as Mediated through Abraham Cohen Herrera 391 Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:01 Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:01 Ernesto Sergio Mainoldi The Transfiguration of Proclus’ Legacy: Pseudo-Dionysius and the Late Neoplatonic School of Athens I. Is Pseudo-Dionysius Christian or Crypto-Pagan? Modern Dionysian historiography has its beginning in the discoveries by Hugo Koch and Joseph Stiglmayr,¹ dated from the end of 19th century, of an evident textual link between the works of Proclus Lycaeus Diadochus and the Corpus Dionysiacum Areopagiticum (CDA).² These philological discoveries provide us with the most important information about the real historical context that produced the pseudo-epigraphic masterpiece. Since the time of the two German scholars many other proofs demonstrating the close relationship between Ps.-Dionysius and the Neoplatonic school of Athens have been adduced: we should recall a monograph by Eugenio Corsini, arguing that DN can be considered as a text representative of the Neoplatonic tradition of commentaries on the Parmenides,³ the three “classical” studies by Henri-Dominique Saffrey, presenting new objective links between Ps.-Dionysius and Proclus,⁴ and a fundamental paper by Salvatore Lilla that showed traces of the indebtedness of Ps.Dionysius to Porphyry and Damascius.⁵ In particular, the discovery of a textual dependence of the CDA upon the works of Damascius, the last diadoch of the Neoplatonic school of Athens, implicates that Ps.-Dionysius’ speculative activity can be dated towards the last years of the Athenian institution (that is, the years 520s). The evidence that Proclus and Damascius played a remarkable influence on the writing of the CDA does not mean automatically that Ps.-Dionysius adopted the same philosophical perspectives of the two Diadochoi. In fact the text of the CDA presents some elements that suggest that his author looked in the direction of the overpassing of Procline thought and of the demarcation from – if not opposition to – Damascian aporetic solutions. Nevertheless, a deep-rooted historiographical tendency assumed Ps.-Dionysius’ closeness to the Neoplatonic school of Athens as a proof of his belonging to the Neoplatonic paradigm of thought, considering his Christianity as a sort of  Koch (1895a), 438 – 454; Stiglmayr (1895a); Stiglmayr (1895b).  All Greek quotations from the CDA are based on the following critical editions: Suchla ed. (1990), Ps.-Dionysius Areopagita, De divinis nominibus; Heil/Ritter edd. (1991), Ps.-Dionysius Areopagita, De caelesti hierarchia, De ecclesiastica hierarchia, De mystica theologia, Epistolae.The titles of Dionysian works will be quoted according to the abbreviation between brackets.  Corsini (1962).  Saffrey (1966), 98 – 105; Saffrey (1979b); Saffrey (1998) [repr. in Saffrey (2000)].  Lilla (1997). DOI 10.1515/9783110471625-015 Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:04 200 Ernesto Sergio Mainoldi shell artificially created to protect, in a hostile religious context, the relics of the genuine Neoplatonic thought. This historiographical tendency, already found in Martin Luther’s judgment upon Ps.-Dionysius,⁶ recently drove the Byzantine philologist Carlo Maria Mazzucchi to propose the identification of the author of the Areopagitica with Damascius, the last Athenian diadoch.⁷ This supposition has been properly defined by Tuomo Lankila as the “crypto-pagan” hypothesis,⁸ and since it assumes that the CDA would have been a pagan and antichristian plot, we can look at Mazzucchi’s hypothesis as the “crypto-pagan” hypothesis in its strongest formulation.⁹ Another form of the crypto-pagan hypothesis is formulated by Tuomo Lankila himself and by Ronald Hathaway,¹⁰ according to whom Ps.-Dionysius’ intention would have been that of ensuring the surviving of Neoplatonic philosophy under a Christian coverage.¹¹ In this case the Christian paradigm does not appear to be the core of Dionysian thought, but only a strategic and exterior shell. On the other hand another major historiographical stream in Dionysian studies is constituted by the supposed link between the mysterious author of the CDA and the Monophysite and Origenist milieus of Palestine and Syria. This hypothesis is based on the evidence of several points of contact between the CDA and the Christian Western Syria ecclesiastical culture of the late 5th Century: we can sum up these points of contact in the very early reception of the CDA in Syria (with the translation made by Sergius of Reshayna and the pseudo-epigraphic Book of Holy Hierotheos), in the positive reception of CDA among moderate monophysite circles, such as that of Severus of Antioch, the first author who quoted the CDA, and, above all, in the similarities between the rites described in the Ecclesiastica Hierarchia (EH) and the Syriac liturgy and euchology, as it was firstly noticed by Stiglmayr.¹² According to the Syriacist perspective the Neoplatonic background of the CDA is assumed to be a mere linguistic shell that Ps.-Dionysius exploited in order to formulate arguments that were able to influence the debates among the Christological and Origenistic factions somewhere in the Syrian or Palestinian monastic milieus.¹³ Dionysian questions in the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century can be depicted as a sort of silent struggle among scholars belonging to different dis-  Luther (1888), 562: “In ‘Theologia’ vero ‘mystica’, quam sic inflant ignorantissimi quidam Theologistae, etiam pernitiosissimus est, plus plutonisans quam Christianisans, ita ut nollem fidelem animum his libris operam dare quam minimam. Christum ibi adeo non disces, ut, si etiam scias, amittas.”  Mazzucchi (2006).  Lankila (2011). See also his contribution in this volume.  About the difficulties raised by Mazzucchi’s argumentation see E. Fiori’s review of his paper: Fiori (2008).  Hathaway (1969).  For another reference to crypto-paganism see Caseau (2011).  Stiglmayr (1909); see also Perzcel (2008), Fiori (2011).  See Perczel (2001). Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:04 The Transfiguration of Proclus’ Legacy 201 ciplinary areas (historians of philosophy, Syriacists, patrologists and theologians), claiming Ps.-Dionysius for their own field, giving relevance to the elements of the CDA that are more evidently connected to their discipline. Perhaps the only exception is constituted by the work of István Perczel, who explored the large spectrum of disciplinary implications behind the CDA, increasing our knowledge of it with many new acquisitions, but in his results he offers rather an explanation ad sensum of the general problem rather than a solution: a work by a Christian monk, issued from the Syrian monastic world, an Origenist and an exponent of the diophysite Christology, a former student of the Neoplatonic school of Athens, but also a Christian convert.¹⁴ These conclusions are very likely close to the historical reality, since they recapitulate what has been observed in the text of the CDA by Dionysian scholars, but they fail to explain the Dionysian project as a whole. Finally, the conclusions on the Origenism of Ps.-Dionysius formulated by Perczel raise more problems than they solve.¹⁵ Most scholars accept the enigma of the identity of the author of the CDA as a matter of fact, and not as a decisive point of departure to understand his thought. For instance, this same position is held by Werner Beierwaltes, who, at the beginning of his essay, significantly entitled “Dionysius Areopagita: a Christian Proclus?”,¹⁶ declares that the reconstruction of Dionysian thought is to be made outside the problem of the attribution of the CDA. Beierwaltes’ conclusions are based on the evidence of the text, as he interpreted it: Ps.-Dionysius is a Neoplatonist, but his Christianity is also indisputable. Nevertheless this explanation cannot prevent the crypto-pagan hypothesis in its weaker form, which postulates that the Christian inspiration of Ps.-Dionysius is secondary to his conformity to the Neoplatonic paradigm of thought – unless one admits that the Christian paradigm is simply interchangeable with the Neoplatonic one. The Areopagitic question has been overwhelmingly approached from the side of the Quellenforschung. Yet, another important achievement issuing from the Dionysian studies of the last half century is that concerning the status of the text. Every scholar knows well the status quaestionis concerning the sources of the CDA, but very little attention has been paid to the composition of the text. The understanding of the genetic structure of the text is perhaps more relevant for shedding light on the authorship of the CDA than the identification of its sources. This problem has been highlighted by Bernhard Brons¹⁷ and Mihai Nasta,¹⁸ whose contributions provide many philological reasons to understand the CDA genesis as a sort of patchwork, written in different stages and, perhaps, not entirely by the same author.      See below, in the bibliography, for a list of Perczel’ studies on Ps.-Dionysius. For a criticism of the main tenets of the Origenist thesis concerning Ps.-Dionysius see Fiori (2011). Essay published in Beierwaltes (2001). Brons (1975). Nasta (1997). Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:04 202 Ernesto Sergio Mainoldi In this paper I would like to get a deeper insight into some of the philosophical aspects of the CDA, in comparison with the achievements of Proclus and Damascius in order to verify how much Ps.-Dionysius’ thought can be said in continuity with the reflection of the two great Neoplatonic thinkers. Very often in fact conceptual and terminological correspondences among Christian and pagan authors in the Late Antiquity are interpreted as a proof of a paradigmatic continuity, while the original intention, both by Christian and pagan authors, was to emphasize doctrinal discontinuities. Ps.-Dionysius transformed Neoplatonic philosophy in order to fit it in the Christian paradigmatic vision of the world, employing arguments and terminology from the works of Proclus, his possible master, and from the works of Damascius, his probable colleague in the school of Athens, removing all elements that linked the philosophy of the two thinkers to pagan theology and to its vision of the world. The transformation of Neoplatonism operated by Ps.-Dionysius, in particular reference to Parmenides exegesis, is referred by Stephan Gersh as “revolutionary rethinking”.¹⁹ My concern here is to show that the reinterpretation of Neoplatonism by Ps.Dionysius was driven by a paradigmatic awareness, in which it appears that the innermost textual strategy of CDA is to accept the external form of pagan philosophy to transform it, establishing a doctrinal hiatus through formal continuity. This strategy can also be depicted as an appropriation with the intention to turn the page of philosophy into a new direction. Furthermore, the analysis of some of the most striking philosophical argumentation in CDA lets us glimpse traces of a theoretical debate in the texture of the pseudo-epigraphic masterpiece that can disclose to us some important information about the making of the CDA. II. The law of mediation The first question to ask is how Neoplatonism is compatible with the paradigm depicted by Ps.-Dionysius’ hierarchies. The second question is whether the system of Dionysian hierarchies are a strict application of the principle of mediation, as it is generally assumed. The law of mediation is certainly one of the main aspect of the Dionysian universe because the transmission of the gifts from above by means of hierarchical intermediaries has a primary role in the definition of the hierarchical order. Nevertheless this is not the only way of transmission of the thearchical gifts envisaged in the CDA. Ps.-Dionysius conceives, in fact, two way transmission of the goods from above, that is the immediate one and the mediated one. In CH, he states in fact: Hence the middle rank of the heavenly intelligences manifests its conformity to God. This, as has been said, is how it achieves purification, illumination, and perfection, at second hand (δευ-  Gersh (1984), 299. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:04 The Transfiguration of Proclus’ Legacy 203 τέρως) from the divine enlightenments by way of the first hierarchical rank, and passed on secondarily through that mediating rank (καὶ διὰ μέσης ἐκείνης δευτεροφανῶς διαπορθμευομένων).²⁰ Here it is clearly stated that the first mode of transmission is by direct illumination, the second is by means of the hierarchical mediation. In general we can notice in the first two treatises of the CDA, that is CH and EH, a major weight of the principle of mediation, whereas in DN the principle of immediateness is more emphasized: The Good is described as light (φῶς νοητὸν ὁ ἀγαθὸς λέγεται) of the mind because it illuminates the mind of every supra-celestial being with the light of the mind, and because it drives from souls the ignorance and the error squatting there (πᾶσαν δὲ ἄγνοιαν καὶ πλάνην ἐλαύνειν ἐκ πασῶν). It gives them all a share of sacred light (καὶ πάσαις αὐταῖς φωτὸς ἱεροῦ μεταδιδόναι). It clears away the fog of ignorance from the eyes of the mind.²¹ The principle of immediate interaction with God’s energies seems implicated in the concept of synergia: This first group [i. e. rank] is particularly worthy of communing with God and of sharing in his work (συνεργίας). It imitates, as far as possible, the beauty of God’s condition and activity (τῶν καλῶν ἕξεών τε καὶ ἐνεργειῶν).²² Moreover, according to neo-testamentary theology and terminology, Ps.-Dionysius speaks of Grace, a concept that implicates the direct transmission of divine goods to creatures: And so it comes about that every order in the hierarchical rank is uplifted as best it can toward cooperation with God. By grace and a God-given power (ἐκεῖνα τελοῦσα χάριτι καὶ θεοσδότῳ δυνάμει), it does things which belong naturally and supernaturally to God, things performed by him transcendently and revealed in the hierarchy (ἱεραρχικῶς ἐκφαινόμενα) for the permitted imitation of God-loving minds.²³ In this last passage Ps.-Dionysius distinguishes Grace from natural power. Grace is accorded directly by God, even if it is transmitted through the hierarchy. The role of the hierarchical ranks can be seen as the assistance provided by the superior τάξεις to the inferior ones to fulfil the conditions of knowledge and purification that allow these last to participate in the thearchical gifts. Following the same logic Ps.-Dionysius conceives prayer (in DN III, 1) as the faculty to move anagogically and directly to God, without passing through any intermediation.     CH VII.2.240B, 33 – 34: Luibhéid/Rorem transl. (1987), 167. DN IV.6.700D, 149; Luibhéid/Rorem transl. (1987), 75. CH VII.4.212 A, 31; Luibhéid/Rorem transl. (1987), 165. CH III.3.168 A, 19; Luibhéid/Rorem transl. (1987), 55. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:04 204 Ernesto Sergio Mainoldi In EH it is affirmed that the function of the hierarchy is to help the anagogical movement of all ranks, but it is also specified that the illumination is not given by the higher members of the hierarchy, since it comes directly from God: The ranks coming in succession to these premier beings are sacredly lifted up by their mediation to enlightenment in the sacred working of the divinity (πρὸς τὴν θεουργὸν τῆς θεαρχίας). They form the orders of initiates and they are named as such.²⁴ Such a mode of action characterizing the hierarchical transmission of the divine gifts matches perfectly with the absolute monotheism expressed in DN XI: The absolute being underlying individual manifestations of being as their cause is not a divine or an angelic being, for only transcendent being itself can be the principle, the being, and the cause of the being of beings. Nor have we to do with some other life-producing divinity distinct from that supra-divine life which is the originating Cause of all living beings and of life itself. Nor, in summary, is God to be thought of as identical with those originating and creative beings and substances which men stupidly describe as certain gods or creators of the world. Such men, and their fathers before them, had no genuine or proper knowledge of being of this kind.²⁵ The affirmation of an unique causality acting in the universe is a distinguishing aspect of Dionysian monotheism. He defends the compatibility between the absolute transcendence of God and his providential extensions, recurring to the theory of energies/operations, which implicate immediateness:²⁶ …in his total unity he rises above all limitation. He is neither contained nor comprehended by anything. He reaches out to everything and beyond everything and does so with unfailing generosity and unstinted activity (ἀλλὰ διατεῖνον ἐπὶ πάντα ἅμα καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντα ταῖς ἀνεκλείπτοις ἐπιδόσεσι καὶ ἀτελευτήτοις ἐνεργείαις).²⁷ The function of the hierarchy is not to emanate the Grace, but to transmit the illumination from above as knowledge of God. According to the synergy of transmission of the divine goods, the hierarchy has the function to support the purification of each rank as the preliminary condition of the transmission. In any case what is transmitted is proceeding only and directly from God. The formation of the concept of “hierarchy”, a word that we should recall is a Dionysian neologism, fits the religious conception of the universe as product of the One willing cause. Even in EH, the treatise that among the Dionysian writings responds the most to the law of mediation, we  HE V.2.501B, 105, Luibhéid/Rorem transl. (1987), 233 – 234.  DN XI.6.953C-D, 222; Luibhéid/Rorem transl. (1987), 124– 125. I translate here and in following quotations from this edition ἀρχή / ἀρχαί by “principle/principles”, where the original translation has “source/sources”.  A possible source of the Ps.-Dionysius’ theory of the distinction between essence and energies may be Basil the Great, Contra Eunomium I.14; cf. Larchet (2010), 154.  DN XIII.1.977B, 227; Luibhéid/Rorem transl. (1987), 128. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:04 The Transfiguration of Proclus’ Legacy 205 read about the divine energies working through the hierarchical ranks. This is quite evident when Ps.-Dionysius said that the ecclesiastical functions are “icons of divine operations”: Since the differences of clerical function represent symbolically the divine activities (τῶν θείων ἐνεργειῶν) and since they bestow enlightenment corresponding to the unconfused and pure order of these activities, their sacred activities and holy orders have been arranged hierarchically in the threefold division of first, middle, and last so as to present, as I have said already, an image of the order and harmonious nature of the divine activities. The divinity first purifies those minds which it reaches and illuminates them. Following on their illumination it perfects them in a perfect conformity to God. This being so, it is clear that the hierarchy, as an image of the divine, is divided into distinctive orders and powers in order to reveal that the activities of the divinity (ἐναργῶς ὑποδεικνῦσα τὰς θεαρχικὰς ἐνεργείας) are preeminent for the utter holiness and purity, permanence and distinctiveness of their orders.²⁸ If the hierarchy represents the order by which divine energies operate, and its role is to manifest the action of divine energies, we can understand that energies are said to be “distinct” because they are energies of the Thearchy, and not of the hierarchy; the ἱερατικαὶ διακοσμήσεις are synergical to divine energies, but the anagogic power is distinct only through energy/operation/activity of the divine Thearchy. The comprehension of the principles of immediateness and synergy is of great importance: if we maintain that the Dionysian universe is ruled only by the principle of mediate transmission of divine energies we would turn this universe into an emanatistic kosmos, in which causality would spread among different entities, that is among several causal levels subordinated to each other, where the superior ranks are causes of the inferiors. On the contrary, we shall think of mediation as a synergical function by which the upper hierarchical orders help the lower orders participate in the gifts of the Thearchy. III. From ἀρχαί to the ὑπεράρχιος ἀρχή Turning now to Procline henology, in order to verify its compatibility within the Dionysian conception of causality, we should discuss how Proclus introduces the theory of the henads between the One and Being (or Intellect). Departing from the hypostatic order defined by Plotinus, Proclus aims to separate the One from every multiplicity that proceeds from it. This is the main tenet of the philosophy of the One in Proclus and Damascius. Proclus rejects the idea found in Plotinus that the prototypes of the intelligible world would have their origin in the One itself. According to Plotinus there are no hypostatical intermediaries between the One and Nous. ²⁹ Proclus looks not only to  EH V.7.508C-509 A, 109 – 110; Luibhéid/Rorem transl. (1987), 238 – 239.  D’Ancona (1992), 288. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:04 206 Ernesto Sergio Mainoldi the separation of the multiplicity from the One, but also wants to avoid the idea that the One would be the direct productive principle of the multiplicity. To avoid this conclusion Proclus introduces the couple of ἀρχαί, i. e. the limit and the unlimited (πέρας – ἄπειρος), or, alternatively, the set of ὑπερούσιοι ἑνάδες. Proclus conceives πέρας as the principle of identity and ἄπειρον as principle of alterity. ³⁰ This solution raises the problem of the understanding of the compatibility between the ἀρχαί and ἑνάδες systems³¹ but in the Platonic Theology III, 8 we can envisage an explanation where the ἀρχαί are presented as a dyad, or supreme henad. The henads are the first determination of the One, but, being generated καθ᾽ἕνωσιν and being before every otherness and division, they don’t implicate any multiplicity into the One. The henads are forms of the One and derive from the One, but are less transcendent. They are divine entities and each henad can be assimilated to a particular divinity of the traditional Greek pantheon.³² The One itself is conceived of as “original Henad” or “Henad of the Henads”.³³ In Platonic Theology πέρας is presented as monad,³⁴ but this limit-monad should be distinguished from the Monad in itself, which obtains the main place among ideas.³⁵ In Proclus’ henology we can then distinguish three levels: the One, the Archai, and the Henads-Gods. The Monad is inferior to the One, but superior to the Henads. In relation to this distinction we should recall that Ps.-Dionysius unified in God the concepts of henad and monad: […] all these scriptural utterances celebrate the supreme Deity by describing it as a monad or henad, because of its supernatural simplicity and indivisible unity (ὡς μονάδα μὲν καὶ ἑνάδα διὰ τὴν ἁπλότητα καὶ ἑνότητα τῆς ὑπερφυοῦς ἀμερείας)…³⁶ Unifying the concepts of monad and henad, on the basis of a definition found in Origen,³⁷ Ps.-Dionysius avoided the Procline henad-level, that, according to the Neoplatonic paradigm, has the task of providing a mediation in the procession from the One.³⁸ Furthermore, the system of the henads provides a philosophical foundation for the Greek polytheism. It is not by mere hazard that Proclus, in his subtle polemics against the Christian faith, accuses Christians not of impiety or lack of faith, but of  See In Tim. II.159 – 160. See also D’Ancona (1992), 278.  D’Ancona (1992), 266 ff; Van Riel (2001a).  ET §114: “Every god is a self-complete henad or unit, and every self-complete henad is a god” (Dodds ed./transl. (1963)); see also Abbate (2008), 95 – 96.  Abbate (2008), 95.  See D’Ancona (1992), 275.  For other monadic systems in Proclus, see Combès (1987).  DN I.4.589D, 112, Luibhéid/Rorem transl. (1987), 51.  On this topic see Perczel (2003a).  See D’Ancona (1992), 274. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:04 The Transfiguration of Proclus’ Legacy 207 epistemological ignorance and atheism, since he envisages the lack of philosophical foundation behind the Christian belief.³⁹ Ps.-Dionysius was very likely well aware of Procline philosophical foundation of polytheism, so he felt the need to contrast it by a new philosophical perspective, built upon the causal uniqueness of the First principle, which is conceived as beyond the Principle (ὑπεράρχιος) and at the same as what comprehends in itself every being in a superessential way: Godhead (θεαρχία) is a monad, that it is one in three persons (μονάς ἐστι καὶ ἑνὰς τρισυπόστατος), that its splendid providence for all reaches from the most exalted beings in heaven above to the lowliest creatures of earth. It is the Cause and principle beyond every principle (ὑπεράρχιος ἀρχὴ καὶ αἰτία) for every being and it transcendently draws everything into its perennial embrace.⁴⁰ Ps.-Dionysius combines the logic of radical apophaticism with the hyperontological discourse. He avoids the necessity to postulate, as Proclus did, a distinction among the One, the Monad and the Henads, and to develop a theory of causal principles beside the First Principle. Identifying the Principle beyond the Principle, which is absolutely transcendent, with the universal and unique Cause of everything, Ps.-Dionysius avoids the need for a logical distinction between the principle beyond the One (ἐπέκεινα τοῦ ἑνός) and the One itself, unlike Damascius, who felt such a distinction as necessary.⁴¹ Ps.-Dionysius abandons the strict dialectical argumentation followed by Proclus and Damascius in their respective commentaries on the Parmenides, a consequence of which was the multiplication of the first “principles”. Accepting the antinomy of a Principle completely transcendent and at the same time revealing itself in theophanies, Ps.-Dionysius bypasses the multiplication of the first “principles” and also avoids the distributing of affirmative and negative features of the One Principle, as well as its causal power, to several secondary principles, as it has been concluded by the two diadochs. The unification of the henad and monad allows Ps.-Dionysius to simplify the supersensible world, withdrawing from its order the need for secondary intermediate principles: “Being itself”, “life itself”, “divinity itself” (αὐτοθεότητά), are names signifying principle, divinity, and cause, and these are applied to the one transcendent cause and principle beyond principle of all things (τὴν μίαν πάντων ὑπεράρχιον καὶ ὑπερούσιον ἀρχὴν καὶ αἰτίαν). But we use the same terms in a derivative fashion and we apply them to the provident acts of power which come forth from that God in whom nothing at all participates (ἐκ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀμεθέκτου). I am talking here of being itself, of life itself, of deification itself (αὐτοθέωσιν) which shapes things in a way  See Saffrey (1975), 558.  CH VII.4.212C, 32; Luibhéid/Rorem transl. (1987), 166.  On this topic see Napoli (2008). Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:04 208 Ernesto Sergio Mainoldi that each creature, according to capacity, has his share of these. From the fact of such sharing come the qualities and the names “existing”, “living”, “possessed by divinity”, and suchlike.⁴² Beside the absolute monotheism and monocausalism affirmed in this passage, we should notice the asymmetry between “divinity itself” and “deification itself”, in that the first is unparticipated and the second participated, and, secondly, that the deified-ones are counted among beings. From these remarks we can deduce that one of the aims systematically pursued by Ps.-Dionysius in his reworking of Neoplatonism is the complete elimination of the henads-gods from the divine world. Even if Ps.-Dionysius employs the term ἀρχή in the plural for the most part to refer to the first rank of the third angelical hierarchy (i. e. archai, archangeloi and angeloi), in DN we can find the plural occurrence of this word with the concept of “principles”, as it is the case in the 4th book of DN.: In my concern for other matters I forgot to say that the Good is the Cause even for the principles and the frontiers of the heavens (καὶ τῶν οὐρανίων ἀρχῶν καὶ ἀποπερατώσεων αἰτία τἀγαθόν).⁴³ Here he speaks of the Good as the cause of the principles and limits of the heavens. In another case Ps.-Dionysius formulates an argumentation per absurdum starting from the premise that the Good is a principle alongside the evil: If it has some kind of being then it must derive from the Good, since every being owes its origin to the Good. Hence Good produces evil, because evil coming from Good is good, or else the Good is itself produced by evil and is therefore evil because of its principle. Or, once again, it may be that there are two principles (ἢ δύο αὖθις ἀρχαί). But if so these must in turn be derived from some anterior principle.⁴⁴ Assuming that Being is the first gift of the Good and that everything participates in Being, the author of DN emphasizes the fact that the principles are beings before being principles which means that the principles are not beyond Being. All the principles of whatever there is both exist and are principles by virtue of their participation in Being. First, they are, and then, they are principles (Καὶ γοῦν αἱ ἀρχαὶ τῶν ὄντων πᾶσαι τοῦ εἶναι μετέχουσαι καὶ εἰσὶ καὶ ἀρχαὶ εἰσὶ καὶ πρῶτον εἰσίν, ἔπειτα ἀρχαὶ εἰσίν).⁴⁵ The insistence on these topics by Ps.-Dionysius can be explained by his desire to avoid every possible link with the Procline principles beyond Being. But what are the principles according to Ps.-Dionysius? According to him, “principles” are the divine names, which do not have any causal independence from God’s will, as unique causal principle. Consequently the divine names can be referred to as “principles”,     DN DN DN DN XI.6.953D-956 A, 222; Luibhéid/Rorem transl. (1987), 125. With light modifcations. IV.4.697B, 146; Luibhéid/Rorem transl. (1987), 73. IV.28.729 A, 174; Luibhéid/Rorem transl. (1987), 91– 92. V.5.820B, 184; Luibhéid/Rorem transl. (1987), 99. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:04 The Transfiguration of Proclus’ Legacy 209 but only in a nominal way, since they are names of the Principle, not principles per se. From it and in it are Being itself, the principle of beings (αἱ τῶν ὄντων ἀρχαὶ), all being and whatever else has a portion of existence. This characteristic is in it as an irrepressible, comprehensive, and singular feature.⁴⁶ In the same direction, Ps.-Dionysius reworkes the concept of henad to distance his system from the Procline one. In the Areopagitic texts the plural of ἑνάς occurs only in one case as genitive plural (ἑνάδων; the nominative form ἑνάδες never occurs), and only in DN, a clear difference from the abundant employment of this word by Proclus and Damascius. We can argue that this main feature of ProclineDamascian terminology, linked not only to the concept of intermediation, but also to the justification of traditional Greek polytheism, has been completely removed by Ps.-Dionysius: the term ἑνάς is mostly intended by Ps.-Dionysius as synonym of μονάς, as one of the names of God.⁴⁷ In only one occurrence in the plural, in the whole CDA, the usage of the word ἑνάς can be assimilated to the Procline theology, and it is where Ps.-Dionysius speaks of “angelic henads”.⁴⁸ Defining the angels as ‘henads’ Ps.-Dionysius manifests his intention to recall the terminology applied to the gods by Neoplatonists. Nevertheless, whereas in Proclus the henads-gods are beyond Being, i. e. they are super-essentials, according to Ps.-Dionysius the angels are ontological entities, being created in ousia, dynamis and energeia. ⁴⁹ Employing the same words used by Proclus could means that Ps.-Dionysius’ intention was to underline their conceptual difference from how they are understood in Proclus. At the same time we can observe that Ps.-Dionysius never employs μονάς in the plural, whereas Proclus and Damascius utilize this term in the plural several times in order to define the particular gods.⁵⁰ In DN XI.6 – one of the most striking instances of monotheistic apology in the whole CDA – Ps.-Dionysius provides assertions that ensure us that his starting point is the henads of Proclus, which he wants to leave behind: The absolute being underlying individual manifestations of being as their cause is not a divine or an angelic being, for only transcendent being itself can be the principle, the being, and the cause of the being of beings (τὸ ὑπερούσιον ἀρχὴ καὶ οὐσία καὶ αἴτιον).⁵¹  DN V.6.820C-D, 184; Luibhéid/Rorem transl. (1987), 99.  See DN I.4.589D, 112; DN I.5.593B, 116; DN I.1.588B, 109.  DN VIII.5.892C, 202; Luibhéid/Rorem transl. (1987), 111: “This Power ensures that the orders and directions of the universe achieve their proper good and it preserves in immortality the unharmed lives of the angelic henads (τῶν ἀγγελικῶν ἑνάδων ζωὰς)”.  See CH XI.2.284D-285 A, 41– 42.  Plat. Theol. III.20.2– 3: “Πάλιν δὴ οὖν συλλήβδην εἴπωμεν ὅτι μετὰ τὴν μίαν τῶν ὅλων ἀρχὴν μονάδες ἡμῖν αὐτοτελεῖς ἐφάνησαν οἱ θεοί”. Saffrey-Westerink (1968 – 1997).  DN XI.6.953C, 222; Luibhéid/Rorem transl. (1987), 124. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:04 210 Ernesto Sergio Mainoldi In conclusion, Ps.-Dionysius does not intend to follow the theoretical outline drawn by the Procline system. He directs his reflection in an asymptotical direction with regard to the Diadochus’ philosophical outline. Nevertheless, the aim of the CDA author was not a mere adaptation of the late Neoplatonic system to the Christian paradigmatic frame. Rather, it is mainly a clear and firm stance in the face of the criticism addressed to Proclus by Damascius about the First principle and the possibility to conceive a Principle beyond the One.⁵² IV. Clash of triadologies Another important ground of comparison between the speculation of Ps.-Dionysius and the developments of the late Neoplatonic thought is that of the Damascian triadology. Damascius deals with the problem of triadicity as a possible outcome of the problem of multiplicity and otherness in the intelligible, assuming that there cannot be multiplicity or otherness or number in the intelligible. In this way, through a speculative argument, Damascius comes to a solution that sounds like a demonstration of the impossibility of the Christian Trinity. This argument fits smoothly into the program of anti-Christian apologetics pursued by Damascius.⁵³ The argument provided by the last diadoch proceeds as follows: in De primis principiis I.6, he recalls the principle by which the One (τὸ ἓν) in itself cannot be equated to a numeric concept, since it expresses simplicity; the “indefinite dyad”, which comes after the One (ἡ δυὰς μετὰ τὸ ἓν ἡ <ἀόριστος>), is not the sum of two monads, but is the generative cause of everything. The One is assimilated to the principle called “Father” by Oracula Caldaica, which has the power to “generate everything” (πατὴρ πάντα γεννᾶν δυνάμενος).⁵⁴ From this Monad and this Dyad Damascius derives the Triad, that “by nature has the character of the unified” (τριὰς κατὰ φύσιν ἔχουσα τὸ ἡνωμένον), and as Dyad that converts itself to the One is the “paternal intellect” (νοῦς πατρικός).⁵⁵ It follows, first, that the Father, in his generative power, is the entire Triad (ὅλη τριάς), and second, that the Triad is the Monad, not as the first expression of multiplicity, but as cause of the multiplicity; in the third place, the Triad is the simplicity of the unitary form of everything (μονοειδὴς τῶν πάντων ἁπλότης).⁵⁶ The principle of noetic monism on which this argument is based leads to the affirmation that “the Father is the One, the unlimited power of the One is the multiplicity, and the intellect      See Napoli (2008), 201– 259. See Napoli (2008), 79 – 89. Damascius, De principiis, Ruelle ed., (1889/1964), I.300,7– 12. Damascius, De principiis, Ruelle ed., (1889), I.300. Damascius, De principiis, Ruelle ed., (1889), I.300. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:04 The Transfiguration of Proclus’ Legacy 211 of the Father is the All”.⁵⁷ Consequently, the attempt itself to speak of a Triad is a mere consequence of the inability of human thought to conceive the nature of the Monad as pure simplicity, and to grasp the multiplicity and the totality with a simple act of the mind.⁵⁸ Damascius avoids in this way an aporetic reconciliation between the One as generator of the multiplicity and the triadic structure that emerges in this process of generation. Restoring the primacy of the One as monadic simplicity, beyond its triadic property, Damascius opens the way to his conception of the ineffable principle beyond the One.⁵⁹ The three principles defined by the Father, the paternal power and the paternal intellect, in reality are neither one nor three, nor one-and-three (οὔτε μία, οὔτε τρεῖς, οὔτε μία ἅμα καὶ τρεῖς), but it’s only by necessity that the thought is expressed with such names and concepts (διὰ τῶν τοιούτων ὀνομάτων καὶ νοημάτων).⁶⁰ Through this argument Damascius opposes a serious alternative to the speculative fundaments of the Christian dogma of the Trinity. The Dionysian trinitarian argument deals in two different steps with the problem of “unions and distinctions” in God. In relation to ἕνωσις, Ps.-Dionysius affirms the absolute transcendence of the Trinity, which he defines as enarchic, a neologism which appears in DN II. With the expression τῇ ἑναρχικῇ τριάδι, Ps.-Dionysius affirms that the Divine Triad (the Trinity) is the principle of unity, stating consequently that the One derives from the Triad. He offers, then, a sample of antinomy, saying that God is “unity beyond the principle of unity” (ἡ ὑπὲρ ἑναρχίαν ἑνότης), but at the same time he affirms the antinomies constituted by his “polynomicity” (τὸ πολύφωνον) and his “ineffability” (τὸ ἄφθεγκτον), and between his “unknowability” (ἡ ἀγνωσία) and his “complete intelligibility” (τὸ παννόητον).⁶¹ Contrary to Damascius, who excludes the antinomy between the simplicity of the Monad and its triadicity, claiming the argument of the poorness (πενία) of human thought, Ps.-Dionysius assumes the antinomy as a distinctive trait of the exegetical tradition of the Holy Scriptures. This assumption allows him to reconcile the ineffable principle with the unity and the triadic hypostaticity of the Holy Trinity.⁶² The hyperousiologic and apophatic argument, which Ps.-Dionysius refers to in DN XIII, explains the possibility of the conception of superessential and hypostatic distinctions and unions in God at the same time. Here again it’s very likely the Damascian triadology is targeted by the Dionysian elaboration. The answer to the ques-  Damascius, De principiis, Ruelle ed., (1889), I.300: “Οὐκοῦν ἓν μὲν ὁ πατήρ, πολλὰ δὲ ἡ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀόριστος δύναμις, πάντα δὲ ὁ νοῦς τοῦ πατρός”.  Damascius, De principiis, Ruelle ed., I.301.  See Napoli (2008), 421– 469.  Damascius, De principiis, Ruelle ed., I.302.  See DN II.4.641 A, 126 – 127.  About the differences between Proclus’ and Ps.-Dionysius’ reciprocal conceptions of the opposites in relation to the One, see Steel (2003). Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:04 212 Ernesto Sergio Mainoldi tion whether the Three of the One “are the same or are different and if the monad is the triad”, in Damascius’ De primis principis sounds as follows: Are the three the same thing or are they different, and is the monad a triad? (καὶ τριὰς ἡ μονάς;) None of these things is true. There is none of this in that realm, not sameness, not otherness, not triad, not monad as distinct from triad (οὐ τριάς, οὐ μονὰς ἡ πρὸς τριάδα ἀντικειμένη). There is no antithesis in the intelligible (οὐδεμία γὰρ ἀντίθεσις ἐν τῷ νοητῷ).⁶³ This negative outcome, affirming that the divinity is said as neither monadic nor triadic, would have sounded to a Christian observer as a radical criticism indirectly addressed to the dogma of the Trinity. As far as I can see Ps.-Dionysius replies to this precise argument in DN XIII.3 – 4, accepting the challenge based on extreme apophaticism launched by Damascius. Moving on the same speculative and terminological ground the author of DN follows the same path of the extreme apophatic denial: There is the transcendent unity of God and the fruitfulness of God, and as we prepare to sing this truth we use the names Trinity and Unity (τῇ τριαδικῇ καὶ ἑνιαίᾳ θεωνυμίᾳ τὴν ὑπερώνυμον ὀνομάζομεν) for that which is in fact beyond every name, calling it the transcendent being above every being. But no unity or trinity (οὐδεμία δὲ μονὰς ἢ τριάς), no number or oneness, no fruitfulness, indeed, nothing that is or is known can proclaim that hiddenness beyond every mind and reason of the transcendent Godhead which transcends every being. There is no name for it or expression. We cannot follow it into its inaccessible dwelling place so far above us and we cannot even call it by the name of goodness.⁶⁴ Concerning the topics of “unions” (ἑνώσεις) Ps.-Dionysius seems to have taken in account the results of Damascius’ negative triadology with the intent to overcome it. Building on the orthodox perspective fixed by the Cappadocian Fathers and turning to the side of “distinctions” (διακρίσεις), the author of the CDA argues in DN II.2: Anyone claiming that this procedure involves a confusion (σύγχυσιν) of the distinctions (διαιρέσεως) within God will not be able, I believe, to prove the truth of his claim, even to himself. And if, in this, he is entirely at loggerheads with Scripture, he will be far removed also from what is my philosophy, and if he thinks nothing of the divine wisdom of the Scriptures, how can I introduce him to a real understanding of the Word of God?⁶⁵ In this passage Ps.-Dionysius addresses “someone” who rejects the Holy Scriptures, very likely alluding to a pagan thinker, with whom he had, we may suppose, a dispute on the “distinctions” befitting the magnificence of God (τῆς θεοπρεποῦς διαιρέσεως). This mysterious person, whom Ps.-Dionysius addresses, may simply be a literary fiction that sketches the general character of a pagan philosopher who refuses  Damascius, De principiis XVII, q. 117, Ruelle ed. (1889), I.300; Ahbel-Rappe transl. (2010), 400.  DN XIII.3.980D-981 A, 229; Luibhéid/Rorem transl. (1987), 129 – 130.  DN II.2.637D, 124; Luibhéid/Rorem transl. (1987), 60. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:04 The Transfiguration of Proclus’ Legacy 213 the Christian dogma of the Trinity, or perhaps it could refer to a real person, someone who really opposed Ps.-Dionysius on the topic of the distinctions in God. The fact that Damascius conceives the distinctions relative to the triad as a nominal representation by the human thought, while according to him the intelligible triad is absolute unity and simplicity, may be an indication that the real referent of Ps.-Dionysius’ polemics was precisely Damascius. This supposition can be confirmed by another Dionysian Trinitarian definition in DN II, which is worthy to draw our attention: Theology, in dealing with what is beyond being, resorts also to differentiation. I am not referring solely to the fact that, within a unity, each of the indivisible persons is grounded in an unconfused and unmixed way. I mean also that the attributes of the transcendentally divine generation are not interchangeable (τῆς ὑπερουσίου θεογονίας οὐκ ἀντιστρέφει πρὸς ἄλληλα). The Father is the only source of that Godhead which in fact is beyond being and the Father is not a Son nor is the Son a Father. Each of the divine persons continues to possess his own praiseworthy characteristics, so that one has here examples of unions and of differentiations (ἑνώσεις τε καὶ διακρίσεις) in the inexpressible unity and subsistence of God.⁶⁶ This statement is surprising because among the numerous Trinitarian heresies that emerged up until the sixth century, no one has ever argued for the interchangeability of the Father and the Son; even the ancient heresy of Sabellius (ca. 215 CE.), who maintained that the three Persons of the Trinity are mere names of the one God, cannot be the object of Ps.-Dionysius’ disagreement here. Which doctrine has then Ps.Dionysius in mind with this unusual statement? The answer – I think – can be found again in Damascius’ triadology, where the conversion that equates the generator and the generated is affirmed. The generation process is actually described as a “division of what is anticipated in the generator”, but saying that in the “summit of the intelligible, even the faint semblance of plurality is absorbed in union”,⁶⁷ it follows that the generation gives life to an external plurality (τὸ ἔξω πλῆθος) which develops from the internal plurality that is unified in generators (ὡς εἰ πολλὰ εἶναι ἐν τῷ γεννῶντι): This, too, must form part of our doctrine, from what has been said, that at every level, the external multiplicity that becomes differentiated in the things that are generated out of it (τὸ ἔξω πλῆθος διακρινόμενον ἐν τοῖς ἀπογεννωμένοις), grows out of what is concentrated internally in the things that generate [the external multiplicity]. As a result, the correlate (ἀντιστρέφοντα) is also true, that if many are within the generator (εἰ πολλὰ εἶναι ἐν τῷ γεννῶντι), they most certainly are transferred in the next thing generated, and if the many are externally differentiated in the generated, the many are certainly manifested prior to this, in the closest generator.⁶⁸  DN II.5.641D, 128; Luibhéid/Rorem transl. (1987), 62.  Damascius, De principiis, Ruelle ed. (1889), I.242: “…ἐν τῇ ἀκρότητι τοῦ νοητοῦ καταπίνεται καὶ ἡ τοῦ πλήθους ἔμφασις ὑπὸ τῆς ἑνώσεως”.  Damascius, De principiis, Ruelle ed. (1889), I.242– 243; Ahbel-Rappe transl. (2010), 339. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:04 214 Ernesto Sergio Mainoldi The verb ἀντιστρέφω, here used by Damascius, is the same that Ps.-Dionysius uses in the negative to exclude the convertibility of the Father in the Son, in relation to divine generation (οὐκ ἀντιστρέφει πρὸς ἄλληλα).⁶⁹ Moreover, Damascius reaffirms this principle also in the fourth chapter of De principiis I (dedicated to the One and procession), saying that “things of the same rank are suitable for conversion to equality.”⁷⁰ Consequently, in relation to what “is beyond all distinctions”, he can establish that “things that are distinct in reality are not absolutely distinct.”⁷¹ According to this dossier of texts and problems that find correspondences and crossing references between Ps.-Dionysius and the late Neoplatonic school we can surmise that the composition of DN played a part in the apologetics against pagan Neoplatonic speculation, in particular that of Damascius, who raised in a more or less veiled manner a strong refutation of Christian dogmas. Since 515 AD, in fact, Damascius held the position of diadochus of the school of Athens, and, with his later works, he brought not only the level of the institution to the glories of the past, but also was driving the most vigorous pagan response to the cultural hegemony of Christianity. V. Anti-pagan apologetics in CDA plot Among the variety of issues that can be identified behind the plot of the CDA, the critical dialogue with the late Neoplatonic philosophy is a central one and enables us to understand to what extent the author of the CDA was personally involved in the debates issuing from the late school of Athens. The philosophical polemics that can be acknowledged behind the CDA are not only a matter of literary fiction. It seems quite evident that Ps.-Dionysius addresses a secret polemical dialogue against certain philosophers of his time: very likely, they were exponents of the school of Athens. Ps.-Dionysius should have been directly involved in the events that marked the last period of the school and, being very likely a Christian convert, he was well aware of the apologetic direction taken by Isidore and Damascius, in the direction of a militant reaction of pagan philosophy against Christian faith, in a historical moment in which Christianity had reached an hegemonic position and menaced the existence of paganism.  See above, n. 70.  Damascius, De principiis, Ruelle ed. (1889), I.116: “Ἡ μὲν δὴ τῶν ὁμοταγῶν ἐπίσης ἔχει πρὸς τὴν ἀντιστροφήν, ἡ δὲ τοῦ κρείττονος καὶ χείρονος ἀντιστρέφει μέν, ἀλλὰ μετὰ τῆς ὑπεροχῆς καὶ τῆς ἐλλείψεως”.  Damascius, De principiis, Ruelle ed. (1889), I.78; Ahbel-Rappe transl. (2010), 152: “But as for what is beyond every differentiation, no one could say that this is subject to any differentiation at any time (τὸ δὲ ἐπέκεινα διορισμοῦ παντὸς οὐκ ἄν τις ἔχοι λέγειν οὐδαμῆ οὐδαμῶς διωρισμένον)”. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:04 The Transfiguration of Proclus’ Legacy 215 We can confirm this hypothesis if we observe that the Dionysian reworking of Neoplatonic principles is not only implicit in the texts, but is explicitly contextualized in open polemics. We can witness these polemics in at least three striking places in the CDA. First, in DN II.2, as we have seen above. Second, in DN V.9, where Ps.-Dionysius, with reference to παραδείγματα, argues against the possibility of a principle of causality other than the One itself, that is the one God. Contesting that every causality and ontological productiveness can be found outside God, Ps.-Dionysius directs his criticism toward a philosopher named “Clement” (DN V.9, 824D). Concerning the identification of the real person behind this name, Eugenio Corsini concludes definitively: “the adversary targeted here is Proclus and cannot be any other than Proclus”.⁷² The third place of anti-pagan polemics is the well-known contention with Apollophanes, in the 7th Ep. But you say that the sophist Apollophanes reviles me, that he is calling me parricide, that he charges me with making unholy use of things Greek to attack the Greeks (ὡς τοῖς Ἑλλήνων ἐπὶ τοὺς Ἕλληνας οὐχ ὁσίως χρωμένῳ). It would be more correct to say to him in reply that it is the Greeks who make unholy use of godly things to attack God (ὡς Ἕλληνες τοῖς θείοις οὐχ ὁσίως ἐπὶ τὰ θεῖα χρῶνται). They try to banish divine reverence by means of the very wisdom (τῆς σοφίας τοῦ θεοῦ) which God has given them.⁷³ In this case the polemic is presented by Ps.-Dionysius as a reply to Apollophanes’ criticism of his supposed “pillage” of philosophical Greek sources. We don’t know if this exchange is fictitious or if it echoes a real personal diatribe; in any case it demonstrates that Ps.-Dionysius was well aware that his speculation opposed the Greek [i. e. pagan Neoplatonic] tradition. Through the episode of Apollophanes, he wants to highlight the paradigmatic gap of his thought in respect to pagan philosophy. Ps.-Dionysius acknowledges that God has given wisdom to the Greeks, but he rejects the use of the wisdom made by them. This justifies for him his exploitation of Greek philosophy without sharing the Greek-pagan paradigm. Finally, we can conclude that Ps.-Dionysius’ philosophical reworking does not intend to fit the genuine tradition of Neoplatonic speculation into a Christian frame, but rather it attempts to argue for the rightness of the monotheistic paradigm with the help of Neoplatonic arguments, responding also to the speculative need to simplify or radically modify Proclus’ system of archai. It further contrasts the radical negation of every possibility of knowledge of the First Principle, claimed by Damascius. According to Ps.-Dionysius simplification and conciliation between apophaticism and positive knowledge of God finds its possibility in Christian monotheism, as he clearly affirms in DN XIII.4, that is in the last paragraphs of this treatise.  Corsini (1962), 163 (our transl.).  Ep VII.2.1080 A-B, 166; Luibhéid/Rorem transl. (1987), 267. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:04 216 Ernesto Sergio Mainoldi The outcome of Dionysian philosophical reflection converges with the monocausality of Christian theology, that avoids henads and ideas, asserting the identification of the apophatic One with the creative One – i.e. the one God revealed in the Holy Scriptures. In Ps.-Dionysius the weight of revelation, upheld by continuous references to the Scripture and the holy tradition, balances the weight that dialectics has in Proclus and Damascius. In DN XIII.4 it is not other than revelation, defined as the gift of saying and well saying (τὸν δωρούμενον πρῶτον αὐτὸ τὸ εἰπεῖν, ἔπειτα τὸ εὖ εἰπεῖν), that allows Ps.-Dionysius to affirm the possibility of the knowledge of God, through his self-revelation. Following the path of negation, he arrives at the same aporetical conclusion reached by Damascian dialectics, according to which God is neither monad nor triad. Nevertheless, Dionysus closes his treatises on divine names with a strong invocation of the divine gift of knowledge, which goes back to the Biblical main tenet, that of the personal revelation of God: So if what I have said is right and if, somehow, I have correctly understood and explicated something of the names of God, the work must be ascribed to the cause of all good things for having given me the words to speak and the power to use them well (τὸν δωρούμενον πρῶτον αὐτὸ τὸ εἰπεῖν, ἔπειτα τὸ εὖ εἰπεῖν).⁷⁴ Due to the cultural rivalry against the uprising hegemony of Christianity, one of the directions taken by Neoplatonism after Iamblichus was the attempt to justify the Hellenic religious system through philosophical arguments, conceived to ensure it a strong epistemic basis.⁷⁵ This has determined the multiplication of intermediary principles and consequently the need for their reconciliation with the primacy of the One.⁷⁶ Instead, the main target of Dionysian reflection is not concerning the One, but the elimination of intermediaries, conceived either as deities or causal principles. It appears that this theoretical topic is central in order to understand the clash between monotheism and polytheism behind the works of late Neoplatonists and Ps.-Dionysius as well. The strength of Neoplatonic henology cannot avoid the fact that Neoplatonic philosophy maintains an enduring justification of dualism, which is the characteristic element of the pagan vision of the world, as codification of the antagonism among causal principles. The possibility that a key figure of the late Neoplatonic school of Athens would have collaborated in the composition of the CDA would confirm the hypothesis that Ps.-Dionysius’ massive use of Neoplatonic terminology and concepts – radically transformed – underlies his polemic position regarding his former colleagues of the school of Athens. This criticism doesn’t merely concern religious faith, but also philosophical principles, such as causality and the possibility of knowledge of the divine realities.  DN XIII.4.981C-984 A, 230 – 231; Luibhéid/Rorem transl. (1987), 124.  See West (1999), 21– 40; 41– 68.  See Abbate (2008), 27; d’Hoine/Michalewski (2012), 179. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:04 The Transfiguration of Proclus’ Legacy 217 The CDA is linked to the philosophical debates concerning the One, the Good and causality in the late Neoplatonic school, but despite the causal role attributed to metaphysical intermediaries by Neoplatonists, according to Ps.-Dionysius the principle of mediation doesn’t prevail on that of immediacy, since their mutual relationship and action can be understood as synergy between the hierarchical energies and thearchical ones. Synergy is according to will, and this ensures us that the epistrophé to the One, as conceived by Ps.-Dionysius, is a voluntary conversion, a concept that is rather distant from the Neoplatonic dialectic between the One and multiplicity, which is described through the metaphor of the emanation and return.⁷⁷ Ps.-Dionysius negates the idea that universal causality can be shared among different archai: only God is the causal-creative principle of everything, his names are not ontological principles nor ideas but his “providential powers”. In DN, Dionysus argues against philosophical triadic structures which imply criticism of the dogma of the Christian Trinity. I suggest that Damascius’ triadic doctrine is targeted in this polemic. The CDA presupposes in fact not only the knowledge of Proclus but also that of Damascius, with whom Ps.-Dionysius undertook a critical dialogue. Moreover, many passages of the CDA contain allusions to a more or less open philosophical and religious polemic against certain thinkers of his time, in two cases referred with the fictive names of “Clement” and “Apollophanes”. We have argued the possibility to identify these figures respectively with Proclus and Damascius. If the second one is presented – with negative accents – as a “sophist”, toward the first one, who is called “philosopher”, Ps.-Dionysius shows a sort of deference, even if he strongly disagrees with him about the conception of causality. In conclusion we can notice that this scenario implicitly reveals much of the relationships among the late members of the school of Athens. Ps.-Dionysius’ debt to Neoplatonism can be finally understood as a reworking of Proclus’ teachings on intermediaries and mediation, in the direction of a full theoretical affirmation of the Christian paradigm over pagan Neoplatonism. In the second place, he intended to oppose Damascian radical apophaticism, particularly in the field of triadic theories, which were a tool of the last diadoch’s apologetics against the fundaments of Christian theology. Fondazione Ezio Franceschini, Florence  On the rejection of this metaphor by Christians see Gersh (1978), 205 ff. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:04 Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 31.03.17 13:04 Bibliography 415 Bibliography Abbate (2008): M. Abbate, Il divino tra unità e molteplicità: Saggio sulla teologia platonica di Proclo, Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Adam (1902): J. Adam, The Republic of Plato, vols. I, II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adamson (2002): P. Adamson, The Arabic Plotinus: A Philosophical Study of the “Theology of Aristotle”, London: Duckworth. — (2011): “Making a Virtue of Necessity: Anangkê in Plato, Plotinus and Proclus”, in: Études platoniciennes 8, 9 – 30. Addey (2012): C. Addey, “The Role of Divine Providence, Will and Love in Iamblichus’ Theory of Theurgic Prayer and Religious Invocation”, in: Afonasin, Dillon, and Finamore (2012), 148 – 167. — (2014): “The Daimonion of Socrates: Daimones and Divination in Neoplatonism”, in: D. A. Layne and H. Tarrant (eds.), The Neoplatonic Socrates, Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press, 51 – 72. Adler (1928 – 1938): A. Adler, Suidae Lexicon, I-V. Leipzig: Teubner. Afonasin, Dillon, and Finamore (2012): E. Afonasin, J. Dillon, and J. F. Finamore (eds.), Iamblichus and the Foundations of Late Platonism, Leiden: Brill. Ahbel-Rappe (2010): S. Ahbel-Rappe (trans.), Damascius’ Problems and Solutions Concerning First Principles, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alexander (1994): A. Hieromonk, Et introibo ad altare Dei: The Mystagogy of Dionysius Areopagite, with Special Reference to its Predecessors in the Eastern Christian Tradition, Thessaloniki: Patriarchikon Hidryma Paterikōn Meletōn. — (2007): “Dionysius Areopagites: A Christian Mysticism?”, in: Scrinium 3, 128 – 179. Alexidze (2002): L. Alexidze, “Dionysius Areopagita in den mittelalterlichen Kommentaren zur Elementatio theologica des Proclus”, in: Th. Kobusch, B. Mojsisch and O. F. Summerell (eds.), Selbst—Singularität—Subjektivität. Vom Neuplatonismus zum Deutschen Idealismus, Amsterdam: Grüner. Alexidze/Bergemann (eds.) (2009): L. Alexidze and L. Bergemann, Ioane Petrizi, Kommentar zur Elementatio theologica des Proklos, Übersetzung aus dem Altgeorgischen, Anmerkungen, Indices und Einleitung, Amsterdam: Grüner. Allegretti (1997): V. Allegretti, Esegesi medieval e umanesimo: L’ Heptaplus di Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Ravenna: Edizioni del Girasole. Allen (1985): D. Allen, Philosophy for Understanding Theology, Atlanta: John Knox. Allen (1986/19952): M. J. B. Allen, “The Second Ficino-Pico Controversy: Parmenidean Poetry, Eristic and the One” in: G. C. Garfagnini (ed.) Marsilio Ficino e il ritorno di Platone: Studi e documenti, Florence: Olschki, 417 – 55; repr. in: M. J. B. Allen, Plato’s Third Eye: Studies in Marsilio Ficino’s Metaphysics and its Sources, London: Variorum. — (2008): “The Birth Day of Venus: Pico as Platonic Exegete in the Commento and the Heptaplus”, in M. V. Dougherty (ed.), Pico della Mirandola: New Essays, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 81 – 113. Allison (1987): H. A. Allison (ed.), Benedict de Spinoza: An Introduction, New Haven: Yale University Press. Alper (2004): O. M. Alper, “Avicenna’s Argument for the Existence of God: Was He Really Influenced by the Mutakallimūn?”, in: J. McGinnis and D. Reisman (eds.), Interpreting Avicenna: Science and Philosophy in Medieval Islam, London: Brill, 129 – 141. Altmann (1982): A. Altmann, “Lurianic Kabbala in a Platonic Key: Abraham Cohen Herrera’s Puerta del Cielo”, in: Hebrew Union College Annual 53, 317 – 55. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 416 Bibliography Al-Yasin (1992): J. Al-Yasin (ed./intro./notes), Al-Fārābī. Kitāb taḥṣīl as-saʻāda (The Attainment of Happiness), Beirut: al-Andaloss. Anawati (1956): G. Anawati, “Un fragment perdu De aeternitate mundi de Proclus”, in: Mélanges de philosophie grecque offerts à Mgr. Diès, Paris: J. Vrin, 223 – 227. Angelou (1984): A. Angelou, Nicholas of Methone: Refutation of Proclus’ Elements of Theology (Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi, Philosophi Byzantini), Athens: Academy of Athens/Leiden: Brill. Armstrong (1966 – 1988): A. H. Armstrong (trans.), Plotinus. Enneads. 7 vols., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. — (1977/19792): “Form, Individual and Person in Plotinus”, Dionysius 1, 49 – 68; repr. in Plotinian and Christian Studies, London: Variorum Reprints. Arthur (2006): R. A. Arthur, “‘Ps-Dionysius’ Angelic Hierarchy and the Chaldaean Oracles”, in: Studia Patristica 42, 23 – 28. — (2008): Pseudo-Dionysius as polemicist: the development and purpose of the angelic hierarchy in sixth century Syria, Aldershot: Ashgate. Athanassiadi (1999): P. Athanassiadi (trans./intro.), Damascius: The Philosophical History, Athens: Apamea Cultural Association. Athanassiadi/Macris (2013): P. Athanassiadi and C. Macris, “La philosophisation du religieux”, in: L. Bricault and C. Bonnet (eds.), Panthée: Religious Transformations in the Graeco-Roman Empire, Leiden: Brill, 41 – 84. Badawī (1955): A. Badawī, “Procli (Pseudo-Aristotelis) Liber de expositione bonitatis purae (liber de causis),” in: Neoplatonici apud Arabes, Islamica 19, Cairo, 1 – 33. — (1955): (ed.), Al-Aflāṭūniyya al-muḥdatha ‛ind al-‛arab (Dirāsāt islāmiyya 19), al-Qahira, 34 – 42. — (1968): La transmission de la philosophie grecque au monde arabe, Paris: J. Vrin. Badrān (1951 – 1955): (ed.), M. Badrān al-Shahrastānī, Kitāb al-Milal wa-l-niḥal, 2 vols., al-Qahira. Baeck (1926/1934): L. Baeck, Monatsschrift fü r Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums , vol. 70, p. 371 – 376; vol. 78, 448 – 455 Baffioni (1992): C. Baffioni, “Traces of ‘Secret Sects’ in the Rasāʾil of the Ikhwān al-Ṣafā”, in: F. De Jong (ed.), Shīʿa Islām, Sects and Sufism: Historical Dimensions, Religious Practice and Methodological Considerations, Utrecht: Houtsma, 10 – 25. — (1994): “‘Detti aurei’ di Pitagora in trasmissione araba”, in: V. Placella and S. Martelli (eds.), I moderni ausili all’ecdotica, Naples: Edizioni scientifiche italiane, 107 – 131. Baltes (1976/1978): M. Baltes, Die Weltenstehung des platonischen Timaios nach den antiken Interpreten, 2 vols. (Philosophia Antiqua 30 and 35), Leiden: Brill. Baltzly (2013): D. Baltzly (trans./intro./notes), Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus. Vol. V. Book 4: Proclus on Time and the Stars, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barnes (2002): J. Barnes, “Syllogistic in the Anonymous Heiberg”, in: K. Ierodiakonou (ed.), Byzantine Philosophy and its Ancient Sources, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97 – 139. Baron (1928): H. Baron (ed.), Leonardo Bruni Aretino: Humanistisch-philosophische Schriften mit einer Chronologie seiner Werke und Briefe, Leipzig: Teubner. — (1968): From Petrarch to Leonardo Bruni, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Barstad (1997): J. E. Barstad, Body, Soul, and Image: Gregory of Nyssa’s Influence on Eriugena, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Notre Dame. Barzilay (1974): I. Barzilay, Yoseph Shlomoh Delmedigo (Yashar of Candia): His Life, Work and Times, Leiden: Brill. Basnage (1708): J. Basnage, The History of the Jews from Jesus Christ to the Present Time: Containing their Antiquities, their Religion, their Rites, the Dispersion of the Ten Tribes in the East , and the Persecutions this Nation has suffer’d in the West. Being aa Supplement and Continuation of the History of Josephus, London. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 Bibliography 417 Bastid (1969): P. Bastid, Proclus et le crépuscule de la pensée grecque, Paris: J. Vrin. Battisti (1986): G. S. Battisti, “La cultura filosofica del Rinascimento italiaon nella Puerta del Cielo di Abraham Cohen Herrera”, in: Italia Judaica. Gli ebrei in Italia tra Rinascimento ed Età barocca, Proceedings of the Conference held at Genova 10 – 15 June, Rome: Instituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato. Baumstark (1922): A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluß der christlich-palästinensischen Texte, Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Webers Verlag. Beatrice (1992): P. F. Beatrice, “Porphyry’s judgment on Origen”, in: R. J. Daly (ed.), Origeniana V, Leuven: Peeters, 351–367. — (2009): “Origen in Nemesius’ treatise On the nature of man”, in: G. Heidl and R. Somos (eds.), Origeniana IX, Leuven: Peeters, 505–532. Becchius (1560): P. Becchius (trans.), Georgii Pachymerii Hieromnemonis, in universam fere Aristotelis philosophiam epitome : in qua et aliorum philosophorum, qui ante post ipsum claruere, dogmata, sic enarrantur, ut iusti commentarii instar esse possit, Basel: Frobenius & Episcopius. Bechtle (1999): G. Bechtle, The Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, Bern: Haupt. Beierwaltes (1975): W. Beierwaltes, “Das Problem der Erkenntnis bei Proklos”, in: De Jamblique à Proclus. Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique, XXI, Vandoeuvres/Genève: Fondation Hardt, 153 – 183. — (1979): Proklos, Grundzüge seiner Metaphysik, 2nd edition, Philosophische Abhandlungen 24, Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann. — (1983): “Trost im Begriff. Zu Boethius’ Hymnus ‘O qui perpetua mundum ratione gubernas’”, in: H. Bürkle and G. Becker (eds.), Communicatio Fidei, Festschrift für Eugen Biser zum 65 Geburtstag, Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 241 – 251. — (1985): “Henosis”, in: W. Beierwaltes, Denken des Einen, Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 123 – 154. — (1994): Eriugena, Grundzüge seines Denkens, Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann. — (2000): “Centrum Tocius Vite: zur Bedeutung von Proklos’ Theologia Platonis im Denken des Cusanus”, in: Segonds/Steel (eds.) (2000), 629 – 651. — (2001): “Dionysios Areopagites – ein christlicher Proklos?”, in: W. Beierwaltes, Platonismus im Christentum, Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 44 – 84. Bekkeri (1854): I. Bekkeri, Suidae Lexicon, ex recognitione I. Bekkeri, Berlin: Georgii Reimeri. Belayche (2013): N. Belayche, “L’évolution des formes rituelles: hymnes et mystèria”, in: L. Bricault and C. Bonnet (eds.), Panthée: Religious Transformations in the Graeco-Roman Empire, Leiden: Brill, 17 – 40. Bennett (1984): J. Bennett, A Study of Spinoza’s Ethics. Indianapolis: Hackett. Berquist (1999): A. Berquist, “Christian Hebrew Scholarship in Quattrocento Florence”, in: W. Horbury (ed.), Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 224 – 233. Bertolacci (2005): A. Bertolacci, “Ammonius and al-Fārābī: The Sources of Avicenna’s Concept of Metaphysics”, in: Quaestio 5, 287 – 305. Bettenson (1963): H. Bettenson, “The definition of Chalcedon, 451”, in: H. Bettenson and C. Maunder (eds.), Documents of the Christian Church 2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 51 – 52. Bianchi (1984): L. Bianchi, L’errore di Aristotele. La polemica contro l’eternità del mondo nel XIII secolo, Florence: La Nuova Bidez (1928): J. Bidez (ed.), Catalogue des manuscrits alchimiques grecs, vol. 6, Bruxelles: Lamertin, 148 – 151. Black (2006): C. Black, Pico’s Heptaplus and Biblical Hermeneutics, Leiden: Brill. Blum (2008): P. R. Blum, “Pico, Theology and the Church”, in: M. V. Dougherty (ed.), Pico della Mirandola: New Essays, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 37 – 60. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 418 Bibliography — (2010): Philosophy of Religion in the Renaissance, Farnham: Ashgate. Blumenthal (1966): H. J. Blumenthal, “Did Plotinus believe in Ideas of Individuals?”, in: Phronesis 11.3, 61 – 80. Italia. Boese (1960): H. Boese (ed.), Procli Diadochi tria opuscula, Berlin: de Gruyter. Böhm (2002): T. Böhm, “Origenes – Theologe und (Neu‐)Platoniker? Oder: Wem soll man misstrauen: Eusebius oder Porphyrius?”, in: Adamantius 8, 7 –23. Boissonade (1814/19662): J. F. Boissonade (ed.), Marini Vita Procli, Leipzig; repr. Amsterdam: Hakkert. Bonin (2001): T. Bonin, Creation as Emanation: The Origin of Diversity in Albert the Great’s On the Causes and the Procession of the Universe, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Borghesi (2008): F. Borghesi, “A Life in Works”, in: M. V. Dougherty (ed.), Pico della Mirandola: New Essays, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 202 – 220. — (2012): “Interpretations”, in: Borghesi et al. (2012), 52 – 65. Borghesi et al. (2012): F. Borghesi, M. Riva, M. Papio, S. Marchignoli, Melloni, G. Melloni, and N. Buzzetti, “Overview of the Text”, in: F. Borghesi, M. Papio, and M. Riva (eds.), Pico della Mirandola: Oration on the Dignity of Man, A New Translation and Commentary, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bori (2000): P. C. Bori, Pluralità delle vie: Alle origini del Discorso sulla dignità umana di Pico della Mirandola, Milan: Feltrinelli. Bormann (1986): K. Bormann (ed.), Cusanus-Texte III, Marginalien, 2. Proclus Latinus: Die Exzerpte und Randnoten des Nikolaus von Kues zu den lateinischen Übersetzungen der Proclus-Schriften, 2.2 Expositio in Parmenidem Platonis, Heidelberg: Carl Winter-Universität Verlag. — (2001): “Affirmation und Negation: Der Parmenides-Kommentar des Proklos in Nikolaus von Kues’ Schrift Tu quis es”, in: 600 Jahre Nikolaus von Kues (1401 – 2001), Tradition und Aktualität Negativer Theologie = Theologische Quartalschrift 181, 84 – 96. Bos/Meijer (1992): E. P. Bos and P. A. Meijer (eds.), On Proclus and his Influence in Medieval Philosophy, Leiden: Brill. Boss/Seel (1987): G. Boss and G. Seel (eds.), Proclus et son influence, Actes du colloque de Neuchâtel, juin 1985, Zürich: Éditions du Grand Midi. Bouyges (1938): M. Bouyges (ed.), Al-Fārābī. Letter on the Intellect: Risâlah fî l-‘Aql, Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique. Boyer (1991): C. Boyer, A History of Mathematics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Bradbury (1994): S. Bradbury, “Constantine and the Problem of Anti-Pagan Legislation in the Fourth Century”, in: Classical Philology 89, 120 – 39. — (2004): Selected Letters of Libanius, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Bradshaw (2004): D. Bradshaw, The Formation of the Eastern Tradition, in Aristotle East and West. Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 153 – 186. Brehier (1966): E. Brehier, The History of Philosophy. The Seventeenth Century, W. Baskin (trans.), Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Broadie (1981): A. Broadie, A Samaritan Philosophy: A Study of the Hellenistic Cultural Ethos of the Memar Marqah, Leiden: Brill. Brockelmann (1943 – 1949): C. Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Literatur (GAL), 2 vols., Leiden: Brill, and (1937 – 1942) Supplementbände, 3 vols., Leiden: Brill. Brons (1975): B. Brons, “Sekundäre Textparteien in Corpus Pseudo-Dionysiacum? Literarkritische Beobachtungen zu ausgewählten Textstellen”, in: Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-Historische Klasse 5, 101 – 140. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 Bibliography 419 — (1976): Gott und die Seienden. Untersuchungen zum Verhältnis von neuplatonischer Metaphysik und christlicher Tradition bei Dionysius Areopagita, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Bucur (2008): B. G. Bucur, “Foreordained from All Eternity. The Mystery of the Incarnation According to Some Early Christian and Byzantine Writers”, in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers 62, 199 – 215. Burckhardt (1859): J. Burckhardt, Die Kultur der Renaissance in Italien und G. Voigt’s Die Wiederbelebung des klassischen Altertums oder Das erste Jahrhundert des Humanismus, Berlin. Burnet (1900 – 1907): J. Burnet (ed.), Platonis Opera, 5 vol., Oxford: Oxford University Press, repr. 1967 – 1968. Burnyeat (2000): M. Burnyeat, “Plato on Why Mathematics is Good for the Soul”, Proceedings of the British Academy, 103, The British Academy, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burns (2004): D. Burns, “Proclus and the Theurgic Liturgy of Pseudo-Dionysius”, in: Dionysius 22, 111 – 132. Burrell (1980): D. Burrell, Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors, Leiden: Brill. — (1993): “Aquinas and Islamic and Jewish Thinkers”, in: N. Kretzmann and E. Stump (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 60 – 84. — (2004): “Act of Creation with its Theological Consequences”, in: T. Weinandy, D. Keating, and J. Yocum (eds.), Aquinas on Doctrine: A Critical Introduction, London: T&T Clark, 27 – 44. Burrel et al. (2009): D. Burrel, C. S. C. Moulin and I. Moulin, “Albert, Aquinas, and Dionysius”, in: Re-thinking Dionysius the Aeropagite, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 103 – 120. Burton (1831): E. Burton, Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Doctrine of the Trinity and of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Busi (2009): G. Busi, “Toward a New Evaluation of Pico’s Kabbalistic Sources”, in: Rinascimento 48, 165 – 183. Busi et al. (2010): G. Busi, S. Bondini and S. Campanini (eds.), The Kabbalistic Library of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Turin: Nino Aragno. Butler (2005): E. P. Butler, “Polytheism and Individuality in the Henadic Manifold”, in: Dionysius 23, 83 – 103. — (2008): “The Gods and Being in Proclus”, in: Dionysius 26, 93 – 114. — (2013): “The Henadic Structure of Providence in Proclus”, lecture given at Dalhousie University, Dept. of Classics, 03/11/2010, (1 – 17); available at http://henadology.wordpress.com/philosophy/ (seen 06. 26. 2013) — (2014): “Time and the Heroes”, in: Walking the Worlds: A Biannual Journal of Polytheism and Spiritwork 1:1, 23 – 44. Butorac (2009): D. D. Butorac, “The wandering of the soul: Proclus and the dialectic of the Parmenides”, in: Dionysius 27, 33 – 54. — (2012): “The place and purpose of hypotheses in Proclus: method, logic, mathematics and philosophy”, in: Argument from Hypothesis in Ancient Philosophy, Naples: Bibliopolis, 365 – 382. Calma (2010): D. Calma, Le poids de la citation, Étude sur les sources arabes et grecques dans l’oeuvre de Dietrich de Freiberg, Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg. — (2016a): (ed.), Neoplatonism in the Middle Ages. New Commentaries on ’Liber de Causis’ and ’Elementatio Theologica’, 2 vols., Turnhout: Brepols. — (2016b): “A Medieval Companion to Aristotle. John Krosbein and his Paraphrase of Liber de Causis,” in: D. Calma (ed.), Neoplatonism in the Middle Ages. New Commentaries on ’Liber de Causis’ and ’Elementatio Theologica’, 2 vols., Turnhout: Brepols, vol. 2, 11 – 97. Cameron (1969): A. Cameron, ‘The Last Days of the Academy at Athens’, in: Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 195, (n.s. 15), 7 – 29. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 420 Bibliography Campanini (2005): S. Campanini, “Talmud, Philosophy and Kabbalah: A Passage from Pico della Mirandola’s Apologia and its Source”, in: M. Perani (ed.), “The Words of a Wise Man’s Mouth are Gracious” (QOH 10, 12): Festschrift for Gunter Stemberger on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Berlin: de Gruyter, 429 – 447. Caramella (1929): S. Caramella (ed.), Abrabanel, Judah (Ebreo, Leone). Dialoghi d’amore, Bari: Laterza e Figli. Cardullo (1995): R. L. Cardullo, Siriano, Esegeta di Aristotele I: Frammenti e Testimonianze dei Commentari all’ Organon, Florence: La Nuova Italia. — (2000): Siriano, Esegeta di Aristotele II: Frammenti e Testimonianze del Commentario alla Fisica, Catania: CUECM Carratelli (1972): G. P. Carratelli, “Genesi ed aspetti del Mazdakismo”, in: La parola del passato 27, 80 – 81. Caseau (2011): B. Caseau, “Le crypto paganisme et les frontières du licite: un jeu de masques?”, in: P. Brown and R. Lizzi Testa (eds.), Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire. The Breaking of a Dialogue: IVth-VIth Century A.D, Proceedings of the International Conference at the Monastery of Bose (October 2008), Münster: LIT, 541 – 571. Cassirer (1963): E. Cassirer, The Individual and the Cosmos in the Renaissance, New York: Harper & Row. Chadwick (1966): H. Chadwick, Early Christian thought and the classical tradition: studies in Justin, Clement, and Origen, Oxford: Clarendon Press. — (1967): “Philo and the Beginnings of Christian Thought”, in: A. H. Armstrong (ed.), The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, Cambridge: University Press. Charles-Saget (1982): A. Charles-Saget, L’architecture du divin, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Chaix-Ruy (1959): J. Chaix-Ruy, “Du pythagorisme d’Avicenne au soufisme d’al-Ghazālī”, in: Revue de la Méditerrannée 19, 289 – 327. Chase (2011): M. Chase, “Discussions on the Eternity of the world in Late Antiquity”, in: ΣΧΟΛΗ, A Journal of the Centre for Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition 5.2, 111 – 173. — (2012): “Philoponus’ cosmology in the Arabic tradition”, in: Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie Médiévales 79.2, 271 – 306. — (2013): “Discussions on the eternity of the world in Antiquity and contemporary cosmology”, in: ΣΧΟΛΗ: Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition 7.1, 19 – 68. Cherni (2011a): A. Cherni (ed./trans.), Al-Fārābī. Opinions des habitants de la cité vertueuse, Paris: Dar Albouraq. — (2011b): A. Cherni (ed./trans.), Al-Fārābī. La politique civile ou les principes des existants, Paris: Dar Albouraq. Chlup (2012): R. Chlup, Proclus: An Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clark (1989): G. Clark, Iamblichus: On the Pythagorean Life, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. — (2007): “Augustine’s Porphyry and the Universal Way of Salvation”, in: G. Karamanolis and A. Sheppard (eds.), Studies on Porphyry, London: University of London, 127 – 140. Clarke et al. (2004): E. C. Clarke, J. M. Dillon and J. P. Hershbell (trans./eds.), Iamblichus: De mysteriis, Leiden: Brill. Cleary (ed.) (1997): J. J. Cleary (ed.), The Perennial Tradition of Neoplatonism, Leuven: Leuven University Press. Coakley/Stang (2009): S. Coakley and C. M. Stang (eds.), Rethinking Dionysius the Areopagite, Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell. Cohn (1889/19672): L. Cohn (ed.), Philonis Alexandrini Libellus de Opificio Mundi, Breslau: G. Koebner. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 Bibliography 421 Combès (1987): J. Combès, “Les trois monades du Philèbe selon Proclus”, in: J. Pépin and H.D. Saffrey (eds.), Proclus. Lecteur et interprète des anciens. Acts du colloque du CNRS, (Paris, 2 – 4 October 1985), Paris: CNRS, 177 – 190. Comnena (2001): A. Comnena, Alexias 5.8.3.1 – 12, in: A. Kambylis and D. R. Reinsch (eds.), Annae Comnenae Alexias, Berlin: De Gruyter. Cooper/Hutchinson (1997): J. M. Cooper and D. S. Hutchinson (eds.), Plato. Complete works, Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett. Copenhaver (1999): B. Copenhaver, “Number, Shape, and Meaning in Pico’s Christian Kabbalah: The Upright Tsade, The Closed Mem, and the Gaping Jaws of Azazel”, in: A. Grafton and N. Siraisi (eds.), Natural Particulars: Nature and Disciplines in Renaissance Europe, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 25 – 76. — (2002a): “Magic and the Dignity of Man: De-Kanting Pico’s Oration”, in: A. Griego, M. Rocke, and F. G. Superbi (eds.), The Italian Renaissance in the Twentieth Century: Acts of an International Conference. Florence, Villa I Tatti, June 9 – 11, 1999, Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 295 – 320. — (2002b): “The Secret of Pico’s Oration: Kabbalah and Renaissance Philosophy”, in: P. French and H. Wettstein, B. Silver (eds.), Renaissance and Early Modern Philosophy, Midwest Studies in Philosophy, vol. XXVI, Boston: Blackwell Publishing, 56 – 81. Copleston (1950): F. Copleston, History of Philosophy: Augustine to Scotus vol. II, Mahwah: Paulist Press. — (2001): Medieval Philosophy: An Introduction, New York: Dover Publications. Cornford (1939): F. Cornford, Plato and Parmenides. Parmenides’ Way of Truth and Plato’s Parmenides. Translation with Running Commentary by Francis Cornford, London: Trench, Trubner, and Co. Corsini (1962): E. Corsini, Il trattato ‘De Divinis Nominibus’ dello pseudo-Dionigi e i commenti neoplatonici al Parmenide, Turin: G. Giappichelli. Cottingham et al (1984): J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff and D. Murdoch, The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, vol. 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coughlin (2006): R. Coughlin, ΘΕΟΥΡΓΙΑ and ΘΕΩΡΙΑ. Divine Activity in Dionysius the Areopagite, MA thesis Dalhousie University. Coudert (2011): A. Coudert, “Christian Kabbalah”, in: F. Greenspahn (ed.), Jewish Mysticism and Kabbalah, New York: New York University Press, 159 – 174. Courcelle (1948): P. Courcelle, Les Lettres grecques en Occident, de Macrobe à Cassiodore, Paris: E. de Boccard. Cousin (1961/19642): V. Cousin (ed.), Procli In Platonis Parmenidem, Paris: Durand/Hildesheim. Craven (1981): W. Craven, G. Pico della Mirandola, Geneva: Librairie Droz. Criscuolo (1989): U. Criscuolo, Michele Psello. Autobiografia: encomio per la madre, Naples: M. D’Auria. Crouzel (1956): H. Crouzel, “Origène et Plotin élèves d’Ammonios Saccas”, in: Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique 57, 193–214. Crown (1989): A. D. Crown, “The Byzantine and Moslem Period”, in: A. D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans, Tuebingen: Mohr, 55 – 81. Cureton (1846/19232): W. Cureton (ed.), Kitāb al-milal wa-l-niḥal: Book of Religious and Philosophical Sects by Muhammad al-Shahrastānī, Part II Containing the account of Philosophical Sects, London: Society for Publication of Oriental Texts, repr. Otto Harrassowitz 1923. Curley (1985): E. Curley (ed. and trans.), The Collected Works of Spinoza, vol. 1, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Curtright (2012): T. Curtright, The One Thomas More, Washington: The Catholic University of America Press. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 422 Bibliography Daiber (1988): H. Daiber, Review of N. Linley, Ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib: Proclus’ Commentary on the Pythagorean Golden Verses, in: Der Islam 65, 134 – 7. — (1995): Neuplatonische Pythagorica in arabischem Gewande. Der Kommentar des Iamblichus zu den Carmina Aurea: Ein verlorener griechischer Text in arabischer Überlieferung, Amsterdam: North-Holland. Damasio (2005): A. Damasio, Der Spinoza-Effekt. Wie Gefühle bestimmen unser Leben, Berlin: Ullstein Taschenbuchverlag. Dales (1990): R. Dales, Medieval Discussions of the Eternity of the World, Leiden: Brill. D’Ancona (1992): C. D’Ancona, “Proclo: Enadi e arxai nell’ ordine sovrasensible”, in: Rivista di Storia della Filosofia 47, nuova serie 2, 265 – 294. — (1995a): “Al-Kindī et l’auteur du Liber de Causis”, in: Recherches sur le Liber de Causis, Études de philosophie médiévale, vol 72, Paris: Vrin, 155 – 194. — (1995b): “Cause Prime non est yliathim”, Liber de Causis, Prop. 8[9]: les sources et la doctrine”, in: Recherches sur le Liber de Causis, Études de philosophie médiévale, vol 72, Paris: Vrin, 97 – 119. — (1995c): “Esse quod est supra eternitatem: La cause première, l’être et l’éternité dans le Liber de Causis et dans ses sources”, in: Recherches sur le Liber de Causis, Études de philosophie médiévale, vol. 72, Paris: Vrin, 53 – 72. — (1995d): “La doctrine de la création “ mediante intelligentia “ dans le Liber de Causis et dans ses sources”, in: Recherches sur le Liber de Causis, Études de philosophie médiévale, vol. 72, Paris: Vrin, 73 – 95. — (1995e): “Sources et structure du Liber de Causis”, in: Recherches sur le Liber de Causis, Études de philosophie médiévale, vol. 72, Paris: Vrin, 23 – 52. — (2014): “The Liber de causis,” in: Gersh (2014b), 137 – 164. Dannenfeldt (1957): K. Dannenfeldt, “The Pseudo-Zoroastrian Oracles in the Renaissance”, in: Studies in the Renaissance 4, 7 – 30. Davies (1993): B. Davies, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davidson (1969): H. A. Davidson, “John Philoponus as a source of Medieval Islamic and Jewish proofs of creation”, in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 89, 357 – 391. — (1987): Proofs for Eternity, Creation, and the Existence of God in Medieval Islamic and Jewish Philosophy, New York: Oxford University Press. De Andia (1996): Y. De Andia, Henosis. L’union à Dieu chez Denys l’Aréopagite, Leiden: Brill. — (1997): (ed.), Denys l’Aréopagite et sa postérité en Orient et en Occident: actes du colloque international, Paris, 21 – 24 septembre 1994, Paris: Institut d’études augustiniennes. — (2000): “Neoplatonismo y Cristianismo en Pseudo-Dionisio Areopagita”, in: Annuario Filosófico 33, 363 – 394. Dechair (1706): E. Dechair (ed.), Athenagoras, Legatio Pro Christianis, London: Oxoniae. De Falco (1922): (ed.), Iamblichus, Theologoumena Arithmeticae, Leipzig: Teubner. Deitz (1999): L. Deitz, “Space, Light and Soul in Francesco Patrizi’s Nova de Universis Philosophia (1591)”, in: A. Grafton and N. Siraisi (eds.), Natural Particulars, Nature and the Disciplines in Renaissance Europe, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 139 – 169. Deleuze (1988): G. Deleuze, Spinoza: Practical Philosophy, trans. R. Hurley, San Francisco: City Lights. De Libera (1984): A. De Libera, Introduction à la mystique rhénane, D’Albert le Grand à Maître Eckhart, Paris: O.E.I.L. Demetrakopulos (1866/19662): A. Demetrakopulos, Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica, Leipzig/Hildesheim: Olms. Dennis (1994a): G. Dennis, Michaelis Pselli: Orationes Forenses et Acta, Leipzig: Teubner. — (1994b): Michaelis Pselli: Orationes Panegyricae, Leipzig: Teubner. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 Bibliography 423 d’Entrèves (1959): A. P. d’Entrèves, The Medieval Contribution to Political Thought: Thomas Aquinas, Marsilius of Padua, Richard Hooker. New York: The Humanities Press. Des Places (1971/2003): E. Des Places (ed./trans.), Eclogae e Proclo de philosophia chaldaica in Oracles Chaldaiques, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. d’Hoine/Michalewski (2012): P. d’Hoine and A. Michalewski, “Ontologia ed epistemologia: le Idee e la partecipazione”, in: R. Chiaradonna (ed.), Filosofia tardoantica, Rome: Carocci, 179. d’Hoine et al (2005): P. d’Hoine, C. Helmig, C. Macé, L. Van Campe under the direction of C. Steel, “Proclus: Fifteen Years of Research (1990 – 2004). An Annotated Bibliography,” in: Lustrum 44. See https://hiw.kuleuven.be/dwmc/ancientphilosophy/proclus/proclusbiblio.html for continously updated bibliography. Di Branco (2006): M. Di Branco, La città dei filosofi. Storia di Atene da Marco Aurelio a Giustiniano, Florence: Olschki. Diehl (1903 – 1906/19652): E. Diehl (ed.), Procli In Platonis Timaeum commentaria, 3 vol. Leipzig: Teubner/Amsterdam: Hakkert. — (1882): H. Diels (ed./trans.), Simplicius, In Aristotelis physicorum libros commentaria, Berlin: Reimer. Digeser (2012): E. D. Digeser, A Threat to Public Piety: Christian, Platonists, and the Great Persecution, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Dillon (1991): J. Dillon, “Philosophy and Theology in Proclus: Some Remarks on the “Philosophical” and “Theological” Modes of Exegesis in Proclus’ Platonic Commentaries”, in: F. X. Martin and J. A. Richmond (eds.), From Augustine to Eriugena: Essays on Neoplatonism and Christianity in Honor of John O’Meara, Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 66 – 76. — (1992): “Porphyry’s Doctrine of the One”, in: M.-O. Goulet-Cazé, G. Madec, and D. O’Brien (eds.), Sophiês Maiêtores: hommage à Jean Pépin, Paris: Institut d’études augustiniennes, 256 – 66. — (1996): “Damascius on the Ineffable”, in: Archiv Für Geschichte der Philosophie 78, 120 – 129. — (2000): “The Role of the Demiurge in the Platonic Theology”, in: Segonds/Steel (eds.) (2000), 339 – 349. — (2007): “What Price the Father of the Noetic Triad? Some Thoughts on Porphry’s Doctrine of the First Principle”, in: G. Karamanolis and A. Sheppard (eds.), Studies on Porphyry London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of London, 51 – 59. — (2008): “The One of the Soul and the Flower of the Intellect: Special Modes of Knowing in Later Neoplatonism”, in: J. Dillon and M. Zovko (eds.), Platonism and Forms of Intelligence, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 247 – 257. Dodds (1933/19632/20043): E. R. Dodds, (ed./trans./comm.), The Elements of Theology, a revised text with translation, introduction and commentary, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dörrie/Baltes (1996): H. Dörrie and M. Baltes, Der Platonismus in der Antike. Grundlagen – System – Entwicklung. IV, Die philosophische Lehre des Platonismus. Einige grundlegende Axiome/Platonische Physik im antiken Verständis I.Bausteine 101 – 124, Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt: Frommann-Holzboog. Dörrie/Baltes (1998): H. Dörrie and M. Baltes, Der Platonismus in der Antike. Grundlagen – System – Entwicklung. Band V, Die philosophische Lehre des Platonismus. Platonische Physik (im antiken Verständnis). 2, Bausteine 125 – 150: Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar, Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt: Frommann-Holzboog. Dougherty (2008): M. V. Dougherty, “Three Precursors to Pico della Mirandola’s Roman Disputation and the Question of Human Nature in the Oratio”, in: M. V. Dougherty (ed.), Pico della Mirandola: New Essays, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 114 – 151. Doull (1997): J. A. Doull, “Neoplatonism and the Origin of the Older Modern Philosophy”, in: Cleary (ed.) (1997), 486 – 516. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 424 Bibliography Duffy (1992): J. M. Duffy, Michaelis Pselli philosophica minora I, Leipzig: Teubner. — (2002): “Hellenic philosophy and the lonely mission of Michael Psellos”, in: K. Ierodiakonou (ed.), Byzantine philosophy and its Ancient Sources, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 139 – 157. Duffy/Westerink (2002): J. M. Duffy and L. G. Westerink, Michael Psellus, Theologica 2, Munich: K. G. Saur. Dunin-Borkowski (1933): S. Dunin-Borkowski, Der junge De Spinoza 2nd edition, Münster: Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung. Duvick (2007): B. Duvick (trans.), Proclus: On Plato Cratylus, with a preface by: Harold Tarrant, Ancient Commentators on Aristotle, London: Duckworth. Edelheit (2008): A. Edelheit, Ficino, Pico and Savonarola: The Evolution of Humanist Theology 1461/2 – 1498, Leiden: Brill. Edwards (1990): M. Edwards, “Porphyry and the Intelligible Triad”, in: Journal of Hellenic Studies 110, 14 – 25. — (2000): Neoplatonic Saints, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Effe (1970): B. Effe, Studien zur Kosmologie und Theologie der Aristotelischen Schrift “Über die Philosophie”, Munich: C.H. Beck. Elders (1990): L. Elders, The Philosophical Theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Leiden: Brill. Endress (1973): G. Endress, Proclus Arabus. Zwanzig Abschnitte aus der Institutio Theologica in arabischer Übersetzung (Beiruter Texte und Studien, Bd. 10), Beirut: F. Steiner. — (1997): “The Circle of al-Kindī”, in: G. Endress and R. Kruk (eds.), The Ancient Tradition in Christian and Islamic Hellenism, Leiden: Research School CNWS, 43 – 76. — (2000): “The New and Improved Platonic Theology: Proclus Arabus and Arabic Islamic Philosophy”, in: Segonds/Steel (eds.) (2000), 553 – 70. — (2007a): “Building the Library of Arabic Philosophy. Platonism and Aristotelianism in the Sources of Al-Kindī”, in: C. d’Ancona (ed.), Libraries of the Neoplatonists, Leiden: Brill, 319 – 350. — (2007b): “The New and Improved Platonic Theology: Proclus Arabus and Arabic Islamic Philosophy”, in: A.H. Segonds and C. Steel (eds.), Proclus et la Théologie Platonicienne. Actes du Colloque International de Louvain (13 – 16 mai 1998) En l’honneur de H.D. Saffrey et L.G. Westerink, Ancient and Medieval Philosophy, De Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series I, XXVI. Leuven / Paris: Leuven University Press / Les Belles Lettres, 553 – 570. Engelhardt (1820): J. G. V. Engelhardt, Dissertatio de Dionysio plotinizante, Erlangen: Typis Hilpertianis. — (1822): De origine scriptorum areopagiticorum, Erlangen: Typis Hilpertianis. Esposito (1997): L. M. Esposito, Pseudo-Dionysius: A Philosophical Study of Certain Hellenic Sources, Diss. University of Toronto. Evans (1996): J. A. S. Evans, The Age of Justinian. The Circumstances of Imperial Power, London: Routledge. Farmer (1998): S. A. Farmer, G. Pico della Mirandola, “Conclusiones nongentae”, Syncretism in the West: Pico’s 900 Theses (1486), The Evolution of Traditional Religious and Philosophical Systems, Tempe, AZ: Medieval & Renaissance Text and Studies. Feldman (1980): S. Feldman, “The Theory of Eternal Creation in Hasdai Crescas and Some of His Predecessors”, in: Viator 11, 289 – 320. — (1999): (trans.), Levi ben (Gersonides) Gershom, The Wars of the Lord vol. 3, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. — (2002): Philosophy in a Time of Crisis: Don Isaac Abravanel – Defender of the Faith, London: Routledge. Festugière (1966 – 1968): A. J. Festugière (trans./notes), Commentaire sur le Timée, 5 vols., Paris: Vrin. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 Bibliography 425 — (1963): “Modes de composition des commentaires de Proclus”, in: Museum Helveticum 20, 77 – 100. Fiaccadori (1983): G. Fiaccadori, “Il tramonto dell’Accademia, I. Kavâdh”, in: Corsi di cultura sull’arte ravennate e bizantina 30, 255 – 271. Finamore (1997): J. Finamore, “The rational soul in Iamblichus’ philosophy”, in: Syllecta Classica 8, 163 – 175. — (2009): “Iamblichus and the intermediate nature of the human soul”, in: M. Achard, W. J. Hankey & J.-M. Narbonne (eds.), Perspectives sur le Néoplatonisme, Québec: Presses de l’Université de Laval, 123 – 136. — (forthcoming): “Proclus and the conjunction of soul and body”, in: Svetla Slaveva-Griffin and Ilaria Ramelli (eds.), Lovers of the Soul and Lovers of the Body, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Fiori (2011): E. Fiori, “The impossibility of the apokatastasis in Dionysius the Areopagite”, in: S. Kaczmarek and H. Pietras (eds.), Origeniana decima. Origen as writer, Papers of the 10th International Origen Congress, University School of Philosophy and Education “Ignatianum”, Kraków (Poland), 31 August – 4 September 2009, Leuven: Peeters, 831 – 843. — (2008): review of C. M. Mazzucchi’s “Damascio, autore del Corpus Dionysiacum, e il dialogo Περὶ πολιτικῆς ἐπιστήμης”, in: Adamantius 14, 670 – 3. Fisher (2001): J. Fisher, “The Theology of Dissimilarity: Negation in Pseudo-Dionysius”, in: The Journal of Religion 81, 529 – 548. Fisher (1990): S. Fisher (ed.), Crescas’ Or ha-Shem (Light of the Lord), Jerusalem: Ramot. Flasch (2007): K. Flasch, Dietrich von Freiberg: Philosophie, Theologie, Naturforschung um 1300, Frankfurt: Klostermann. Flügel et al. (1871 – 1872): G. Flügel, J. Rödiger and A. Müller, Muḥammad b. Isḥāq Ibn al-Nadīm, Kitāb al-Fihrist, 2 vols., Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel. Frank (1978): R. M. Frank, Beings and Their Attributes. The Teaching of the Basrian School of the Muʽtazila in the Classical Period, Albany: SUNY Press. — (1994/2005): “‘lam yazal’ as a Formal Term in Muslim Theological Discourse”, in: Mélanges d’Institut Dominicain d’Études Orientales du Caire, 22, 243 – 270. Reprinted in: Richard M. Frank: Philosophy, Theology, and Mysticism in Medieval Islam. Texts and Studies on the Development and History of Kalam, vol. I. Edited by D. Gutas, Aldershot: Ashgate. Freddoso (2016): A. J. Freddoso (trans.), St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae (Summa Theologica), University of Notre Dame (in progress). http://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/summatranslation/Part%201/st1-ques45.pdf (accessed 6/28/16). Frede (1999): M. Frede, “Monotheism and Pagan Philosophy in Later Antiquity”, in: P. Athanassiadi and M. Frede (ed.), Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 41 – 68. Fredriksen (2012): P. Fredriksen, Sin: The Early History of an Idea, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Friedeberg-Seeley et al (1937): F. Friedeberg-Seeley and J. H. Barnes (trans.), The Philosophy of Love with introduction by C. Roth, London: Soncino Press. Friedländer (1904/19512): M. Friedländer (trans.), The Guide for the Perplexed by Moses Maimonides, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Friedlein (ed.) (1873): G. Friedlein, Procli Diadochi in primum Euclidis elementorum librum commentarii (Leipzig: Teubner), repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1967. Führer (1999): M. Führer, “The Agent Intellect in the Writings of Meister Dietrich of Freiberg and its Influence on the Cologne School”, in: K. H. Kandler, B. Mojsisch and F. B. Stammkötter (eds.), Dietrich von Freiberg: neue Perspektiven seiner Philosophie, Theologie, und Naturwissenschaft: Freiberger Symposion, 10 – 13 März 1997, Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner, 69 – 88. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 426 Bibliography — (2012): “Dietrich of Freiberg”, in: E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/dietrich-freiberg>. Gannagé (2011): E. Gannagé, “Philopon (Jean‐). Tradition arabe”, in: R. Goulet (ed.) (2011/12), 503 – 563. Garin (1937): E. Garin, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola: Vita et dottrina, Florence: F. le Monnier. — (1942): (ed.), G. Pico della Mirandola “Heptaplus”, De hominis dignitate, Heptaplus, De ente et uno, e scritti vari a cura di Eugenio Garin (Edizione nazionale dei classici del pensiero italiano, Florence: Vallechi. — (2008): History of Italian Philosophy, G. Pinton (ed./trans.), Amsterdam: Rodopi. Gautier (1989): P. Gautier, Michaelis Pselli theologica I, Leipzig: Teubner. Gebhardt (1921): C. Gebhardt, “Spinoza und der Platonismus”, in: Chronicon Spinozanum 1, 178 – 234. — (1922/1965): Baruch de Spinoza, Kurze Abhandlung von Gott, dem Menschen und seinem Glück, Leipzig: F. Meiner. — (1925): (ed.) Spinoza Opera, 4 vols., Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Gersh (1973): S. Gersh, Kinēsis Akinētos: A study of Spiritual Motion in the Philosophy of Proclus, Leiden: Brill. — (1978): From Iamblichus to Eriugena: An Investigation of the Prehistory and Evolution of the Pseudo-Dionysian Tradition, Leiden: Brill. — (1984): “Ideas and Energies in Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite”, in: Studia Patristica 15, 297 – 300. — (2000) “Proclus’ Theological Methods. The Program of Theol. Plat. I 4”, in: A.P. Segonds and C. Steel (eds.), Proclus et la Théologie Platonicienne. Actes du Colloque International de Louvain, Leuven, Leuven University Press. — (2001/20052): “Berthold of Moosburg on the Content and Method of Platonic Philosophy”, in: J. Aertsen, K. Emery, and A. Speer (eds.), Nach der Verurteilung von 1277, Philosophie und Theologie an der Universität von Paris im letzten Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts = Miscellanea Mediaevalia 28, Berlin: de Gruyter, 493 – 503. — (2005): Reading Plato, Tracing Plato: From Ancient Commentary to Medieval Reception, Aldershot: Ashgate. — (2006): Neoplatonism after Derrida: Parallelograms, Leiden: Brill. — (2010): “Dionysius’ On Divine Names Revisited: A Structural Analysis”, in: Dionysius 28, 77 – 96. — (2012): “The First Principles of Latin Neoplatonism: Augustine, Macrobius, Boethius”, in: Vivarium 50, 113 – 138. — (2014a): Being Different: More Neoplatonism after Derrida, Leiden: Brill. — (2014b): (ed.), Interpreting Proclus: From Antiquity to the Renaissance, New York: Cambridge University Press. — (2014c): “One Thousand Years of Proclus, An Introduction to his Reception”, in: Gersh (2014b), 1 – 30. — (2014d): “Nicholas of Cusa”, in: Gersh (2014b), 318 – 352. Gerson (1993): L. Gerson, “Plotinus’ Metaphysics: Emanation or Creation?”, in: The Review of Metaphysics XLVI, 559 – 564. — (1996): (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus, New York: Cambridge University Press. Gertz/Dillon/Russell (2012): S. Gertz, J. Dillon and D. Russell, (trans.), Aeneas of Gaza, Theophrastus, with Zacharias of Mytilene, Ammonius. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. Ghira (2009): D. Ghira, “Esiodo, Theog. 116 – 122” in Maia 61, 224 – 28. Giannakis (2002 – 2003): E. Giannakis, “The Quotations from John Philoponus’ De Aeternitate Mundi Contra Proclum in al-Bīrūnī’s India”, in: Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Arabisch-Islamischen Wissenschaften 15, 185 – 195. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 Bibliography 427 — (2005): “Η πραγματεία ‘Περί ἀϊδιότητος τοῦ κόσμου’ του Πρόκλου στην Αραβική παράδοση”, Δωδώνη: Ιστορία και Αρχαιολογία 34, 51 – 75 [= “Proclus’ Treatise ‘On the Eternity of the World’ in Arabic Tradition”, in: Dodoni: History and Archaeology, Journal published by the University of Ioannina 34, 51 – 75]. — (2011): “Philoponus, Arabic”, in: H. Lagerlund (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Medieval Philosophy. Philosophy between 500 and 1500, Dordrecht: Springer, 975 – 78. Gigineishvili (2007): L. Gigineishvili, The Platonic Theology of Ioane Petritsi, Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. Gildemeister (1870): J. Gildemeister, “Pythagorassprüche in syrischer Überlieferung”, in: Hermes 4, 81 – 98. Gilman/Parso (1970): W. Gilman and J. E. Parso (eds.), The Journals and Miscellaneous Notebooks of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gilson (1986): É. Gilson, La Philosophie au Moyen Âge, 2nd ed., Paris: Payot. Gimaret (1988): D. Gimaret, Les noms divins en Islam, Paris: Editions du Cerf. Gimaret/Monnot (1986): D. Gimaret and G. Monnot (trans.), Shahrastani, Livre des religions et des sects, Tome I: Traduction avec introduction et notes, Leuven: Peeters/UNESCO. Giocarinis (1964): K. Giocarinis, “Eustratius of Nicaea’s Defense of the Doctrine of Ideas”, in: Franciscan Studies 24, 159 – 204. Girgenti (1987): G. Girgenti, Porfirio negli ultimi cinquant’anni: bibliografia sistematica e ragionata della letteratura primaria e secondaria riguardante il pensiero porfiriano e i suoi influssi storici, Milan: Vita e Pensiero. Glasner (1992): R. Glasner, “Beginning, Middle, and End in Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides”, in: Hermes 120.1, 194 – 204. Godman (1998): P. Godman, From Poliziano to Machiavelli: Florentine Humanism in the High Renaissance, Princeton: Princeton University Press. González (1998): F. J. González, Dialectic and Dialogue: Plato’s Practice of Philosophical Inquiry Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Goodmann (1992): L. Goodmann, Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought, Albany: SUNY Press. Gouillard (1967): J. Gouillard, “Le synodikon de l’ orthodoxie”, in: Travaux et Memoires 2, 188 – 202. — (1985): “Le procès officiel de Jean l’Italien. Les actes et leurs sous-entendus”, in: Travaux et Memoires 9, 133 – 174. Goulet (2011/12): R. Goulet (ed.), Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques. V, de Paccius à Rutilius Rufus. Va, de Paccius à Plotin, Paris: CNRS. Graf (1947): G. Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Litteratur, Band II, Rome: Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana. Grafton (1997): A. Grafton, Commerce with the Classics: Ancient Books and Renaissance Readers, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Grant (1981): E. Grant, Much Ado About Nothing: Theories of Space and Vacuum from the Middle Ages to the Scientific Revolution, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Griffin (2014): M. Griffin (trans. and intro.), Olympiodorus: Life of Plato and Lectures of Plato’s First Alcibiades, part 1: lectures 1 – 9, London: Bloomsbury. — (2016): (trans.), Olympiodorus: On Plato First Alcibiades 10 – 28, London: Bloomsbury. Griffith (1997): R. Griffith, “Neo-Platonism and Christianity. Pseudo-Dionysius and Damascius”, in: Studia Patristica 29, 238 – 243. Gritti (2007): E. Gritti, “Insegnamento Pitagorico e metodo dialettico in Proclo”, in: M. Bonazzi, C. Lévy and C. Steel (eds.), A Platonic Pythagoras: Platonism and Pythagoreanism in the Imperial Age, Turnhout: Brepols, 163 – 194. — (2008): Proclo: Dialettica Anima Esegesi. Milan: LED. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 428 Bibliography Grondijs (1962): L. H. Grondijs, “The Patristic Origins of Palamas’ Doctrine of God”, in: Studia Patristica 5, 324 – 5. Guérard (1982): C. Guérard, “La Théorie des Hénades et La Mystique de Proclus”, in: Dionysius 6, 73 – 82. Guillaume (1934): A. Guillaume (ed./trans.), al-Shahrastānī, The Summa Philosophiae of al-Shahrastānī: Kitāb nihāyatu ‘l-iqdām fī ‘ilmi ‘l-kalām, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gutas (1975): D. Gutas, Greek Wisdom Literature in Arabic Translation: A Study of the Graeco-Arabic Gnomologia, New Haven: American Oriental Society. — (1998): Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early ‘Abbāsid Society (2nd -4th/8th-10th centuries), New York: Routledge. Gyekye (1979): K. Gyekye (trans.), Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s Commentary on Porphyry’s Eisagoge, Albany: SUNY Press. Haarbrücker (1850 – 1851): T. Haarbrücker (trans.), Abu-l-Fath‘ Muhammad asch-Scharastâni’s Religionspartheien und Philosophen-Schulen, zum ersten Male vollständig aus dem Arabischen übersetzt, 2 vols., Halle: Schwetschke. Hadot (1960): P. Hadot, “Citations de Porphyre chez Augustin”, in: Revue des études augustiniennes 6, 205 – 244. — (1968): Porphyre et Victorinus, 2 vols., Paris: Études Augustiniennes. — (1995): Qu’est–ce que la philosophie antique?, Paris: Gallimard. Halfwassen (2005): J. Halfwassen, “Seele und Zeit im Neuplatonismus”, in: H.-D. Klein (ed.), Der Begriff der Seele in der Philosophiegeschichte, Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann, 101 – 117. Hall (1993): B. Hall, “From John Hyrcanus to Baba Rabba”, in: A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans, Tubingen: Mohr, 32 – 54. Hällström (1994): G. Hällström, “The Closing of the Neoplatonic School in A.D. 529: An Additional Aspect”, in: P. Castrén (ed.), Post-Herulian Athens. Aspects of Life and Culture in Athens, A.D. 267 – 529, Helsinki: Suomen Ateenan-instituutin säätiö, 141 – 160. Hanegraaf (2012): W. Hanegraaf, Esotericism and the Academy: Rejected Knowledge in Western Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hankey (1998): W. J. Hankey, “Augustinian Immediacy and Dionysian Mediation in John Colet, Edmund Spenser, Richard Hooker and the Cardinal de Bérulle”, in: Dominique Courcelles (ed.), Augustinus in der Neuzeit: Colloque de las Herzog August Bibliothek de Wolfenbüttel 14 – 17 Octobre 1996, Turnhout: Brepols, 125 – 160. — (2004): “Cent ans de néoplatonisme en France, une brève histoire philosophique”, in: J.-M. Narbonne and W. J. Hankey (eds), Lévinas et l’héritage grec, suivi de Cent ans de néoplatonisme en France, une brève histoire philosophique, Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 97 – 248. — (2007): “Ab uno simplici non est nisi unum: The Place of Natural and Necessary Emanation in Aquinas’ Doctrine of Creation”, in: W. Otten, W. Hannam and M. Treschow (eds.), Divine Creation in Ancient, Medieval, and Early Modern Thought: Essays Presented to the Rev’d Dr. Robert D. Crouse, Leiden: Brill, 309 – 334. — (2012): “Aquinas, Plato, and Neoplatonism”, in: B. Davies and E. Stump (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Aquinas, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 55 – 64. Hankins (2003): J. Hankins, Humanism and Platonism in the Italian Renaissance, Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, v.1. Harari (2008): O. Harari, “Proclus’ Account of Explanatory Demonstrations in Mathematics”, in: Archiv Für Geschichte der Philosophie 90, 137 – 164. Harrington (2002): M. Harrington, “Eastern and Western Psychological Triads in Eriugena’s Realized Eschatology”, in: J. McEvoy and M. Dunn (eds.), History and Eschatology in John Scottus Eriugena and His Time, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 447 – 462. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 Bibliography 429 Harvey (1981): W. Z. Harvey, “The Term Hitdabbekut in Crescas’ Definition of Time”, in: Jewish Quarterly Review 71, 44 – 47. Hart (1983): A. Hart, Spinoza’s Ethics : part 1 and 2 ; a Platonic commentary, Leiden : E. J. Brill. Hathaway (1969): R. F. Hathaway, Hierarchy and the Definiton of Order in the Letters of Pseudo-Dionysius. A Study in the Form and Meaning of Pseudo-Dionysian Writings, The Hague: Nijhoff. Hayduck (1897): M. Hayduck (ed.), Ioannis Philoponi in Aristotelis De Anima Libros Commentaria, Berlin: Reimer. Hegel (1995): G. W. F. Hegel, Lectures on the History of Philosophy. Volume II: Plato and the Platonists, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Heiberg (1929): J. L. Heiberg, Anonymi logica et quadrivium cum scholiis antiquis, Copenhagen: Høst. Heil/Ritter (1991): G. Heil and A. M. Ritter (eds.), Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De caelesti hierarchia, De ecclesiastica hierarchia, De mystica theologia, Epistolae, in Corpus dionysiacum II, Berlin: de Gruyter. Heine (1978): P. Heine, “Translation of Proclus’ First Argument”, in: M. Baltes, Die Weltenstehung des platonischen Timaios nach den antiken Interpreten, Vol. 2, Philosophia Antiqua 35, Leiden: Brill, II, 134 – 36. Helmig (2012): C. Helmig, Forms and Concepts: Concept Formation in the Platonic Tradition, Berlin: de Gruyter. Henry/Schwyzer (1959): P. Henry and H. R. Schwyzer (eds.), Plotini Opera, Tomus II: Enneades IV-VI, Plotiniana Arabica ad codicum fidem anglice vertit G. Lewis, Paris/Brussels: Museum Lessianum. Herufek (2011): J. Herufek, “Giovanni Pico della Mirandola’s Encounter with Jewish Intellectuals”, in: Acta Comeniana 25, 7 – 24. Herrera (2002a): Abraham Cohen de Herrera, Epitome y Compendio de la Logica o Dialectica, Instrumenta Rationis IX. Ed. Giuseppa Saccaro del Buffa. Bologna: Clueb. — (2002b): Gate of Heaven, Kenneth Krabbenhoft (trans.), Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill. — (2002c): House of Divinity Casa de la Divinidad), Gate of Heaven (Puerta del Cielo). Ann. transl. from Spanish into Hebrew with Intro. by Nissim Yosha. Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute. Hoffmann (1994): P. Hoffmann, “Damascius”, in: R. Goulet (ed.), Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, Paris: CNRS, vol. II, 541 – 593. Hill (1977 – 1997): W. S. Hill (ed.), Richard Hooker, Of the Lawes of Ecclesiasticall Politie. The Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker, 7 vols. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Horn (2006): C. Horn, “Proklos. Zur philosophiegeschichtlichen Stellung und zum Forschungsstand”, in: M. Perkams and R. M. Piccione (eds.), Proklos Methode, Seelenlehre, Metaphysik Akten der Konferenz in Jena am 18.–20. September 2003, Leiden: Brill, 7 – 34. Hourani (1958): G. Hourani, “The Dialogue between al-Ghazālī and the Philosophers on the Origin of the World”, in: The Muslim World 48, 183 – 191, 308 – 314. Hughes, Aaron., (2008) “Judah Abrabanel”, E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/abrabanel>. Idel (1983): M. Idel, “The Magical and Neoplatonic Interpretations of the Kabbalah in the Renaissance”, in: B. D. Cooperman (ed.), Jewish Thought in the Sixttenth Century, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 186 – 242. — (2002): Absorbing Perfections: Kabbalah and Interpretation, New Haven: Yale University Press. ILIESI (2007 – 2016): Istituto per il Lessico Intellettuale Europeo e Storia delle Idee, Consiglio Nazionale delle Richere, Biblioteca di Spinoza, http://www.iliesi.cnr.it/perl/pagina_xhtml.pl? scelta=201&par1=natura&operatore=uguale&par2=lessico (Accessed 24. Oct. 2016). Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 430 Bibliography Ioannou (1956): P. Ioannou, Quaestiones quodlibetales, Ettal: Buch-Kunstverlag. Impellizzeri (1984): S. Impellizzeri, Michele Psello, Imperatori di Bisanzio, Milan: A. Mondadori. Iremadze (2004): T. Iremadze, Konzeptionen des Denkens im Neuplatonismus. Zur Rezeption der Proklischen Philosophie im deutschen und georgischen Mittelalter: Dietrich von Freiberg – Berthold von Moosburg – Joane Petrizi, Bochumer Studien zur Philosophie, Vol. 40, Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner. Israel (2001): J. Israel, Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity, 1650 – 1750. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Issac (1977 – 1982): D. Isaac (ed./trans.), Proclus, Trois études sur la providence, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Isser (1976): S. J. Isser, The Dositheans: A Samaritan Sect in Late Antiquity, Leiden: Brill. Itter (2000): A. Itter, “Pseudo-Dionysian Soteriology and its Transformation of Neoplatonism”, in: Colloquium 31, 71 – 92. Jaeger (ed.) (1960): W. Jaeger, Contra Eunomium Libri, Pars Prior, in Gregorii Nysseni Opera, Leiden: Brill. Janos (2010): D. Janos, “The Greek and Arabic Proclus and al- Fārābī’s Theory of Celestial Intellection and its Relation to Creation”, in: Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale XXI, 19 – 44. Jeffreys et al. (trans.) (1986): E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys and R. Scott, The Chronicle of John Malalas, Melbourne: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies. Johnson (trans.) (1909): T. Johnson, Proclus’ Metaphysical Elements. Osceola: Press of the Republican. Johnson (2013): A. Johnson, Religion and Identity in Porphyry of Tyre. The Limits of Hellenism in Late Antiquity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johnson/Tarrant (2012): M. Johnson and H. Tarrant (eds.), Alcibiades and the Socratic Lover-Educator London: Bristol Classical Press. Jolivet (2000): J. Jolivet, “Al-Šahrastānī Critique d’Avicenne dans la lute contre les philosophes (Quelques aspects)”, in: Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 10, 275 – 292. Jolivet/Monnot (1993): J. Jolivet and G. Monnot (trans./intro./notes), Shahrastani, Livre des religions et des sects, Tome II: Traduction avec introduction et notes, Leuven: Peeters/UNESCO. Joly (2003), “Le temps n’est pas un produit de l’âme: Proclus contre Plotin”, in: Laval théologique et philosophique 59.2, 225 – 234. Jones (1999): A. Jones, “The Horoscope of Proclus”, in: Classical Philology 94, 81 – 88. Jones (1996): J. D. Jones, “Sculpting God. The Logic of Dionysian Theology”, in: The Harvard Theological Review 89, 355 – 37. — (2000): “The Status of the Trinity in Dionysian Thought”, in: The Journal of Religion, 645 – 657. — (2005): “An Absolutely Simple God? Frameworks for Reading Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagite”, in: The Thomist, 371 – 406. — (2009) Pythagoras and Renaissance Europe: Finding Heaven, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kambylis/Reinsch (2001): A. Kambylis and D. R. Reinsch, Annae Comnenae Alexias, Berlin: de Gruyter. Karamanolis (2006): G. Karamanolis, Plato and Aristotle in Agreement, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Karfíková et al. (2007): L. Karfíková, S. Douglass and J. Zachhuber (eds.), Gregory of Nyssa: Contra Eunomium II, Leiden: Brill. Karivieri (1994): A. Karivieri, “The ’House of Proclus’ on the Southern Slope of the Acropolis: A Contribution”, in: P. Castrén (ed.), Post-Herulian Athens, Helsinki: The Finnish Institute at Athens 1994, 115 – 139. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 Bibliography 431 Karpozilos (1990): A. Karpozilos, The Letters of Ioannes Mauropous Metropolitan of Euchaita, Thessalonica: Association for Byzantine Research. Kaukchishvili/Nutsubidze (1937): S. Kaukchishvili and Sh. Nutsubidze (eds.), Ioane Petritsi, Commentaries on Proclus Diadochus, a Platonic Philosopher’s Elements of Theology, Tbilisi. Kelly (2004): C. Kelly, Ruling the Later Roman Empire, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Kettler (1979): F. H. Kettler, “Origenes, Ammonios Sakkas und Porphyrius”, in: Kerygma und Logos: Festschrift C. Andresen, Göttingen: Vandenhoek und Ruprecht, 322–328. Khan (1964): M. S. Khan (ed./trans.), An Unpublished Treatise of Miskawayh on Justice; or, Risāla fī māhiyyat al-ʿadl lī Miskawayh, Leiden: Brill. Kirby (1998): W. J. T. Kirby, “The Neoplatonic Logic of ‘Procession and Return’ in the First Book of Hooker’s Lawes”, in: Renaissance and Reformation 22.4, 49 – 67. — (2003a): “Angels descending and ascending: Richard Hooker’s discourse on the ‘double motion’ of Common Prayer”, in: W. J. T. Kirby (ed.), Richard Hooker and the English Reformation. Studies in Early Modern Religious Reforms, vol. 2. Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 111 – 130. — (2003b): “Grace and Hierarchy: Richard Hooker’s Two Platonisms”, in: W. J. T. Kirby (ed.), Richard Hooker and the English Reformation. Studies in Early Modern Religious Reforms, vol. 2, Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 25 – 40. — (2003c): “‘The Charge of Religion belongeth unto Princes’: Peter Martyr Vermigli on the Unity of Civil and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction”, in: Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 94, 131 – 145. — (2005): Richard Hooker, Reformer and Platonist: A Reassessment of his Thought, Aldershot: Ashgate. — (2007): “Creation and Government: Eternal Law as the fountain of laws in Richard Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity”, in: W. Otten, W. Hannam and M. Treschow (eds.), Divine Creation in Ancient, Medieval, and Early Modern Thought: Essays Presented to the Rev’d Dr Robert D. Crouse. Studies in Intellectual History 151, Leiden: Brill, 405 – 423. — (2008): (ed.), A Companion to Richard Hooker, Leiden: Brill. — (2011): “‘Between the throne of God in heaven and his church upon earth here militant’: Instruction and Prayer in the Fifth Book of Hooker’s Lawes”, in: Dionysius 29, 247 – 258. — (2015): “”Divine Offspring: Richard Hooker’s Neoplatonic Account of Law and Causality”, in: Perichoresis, vol. 13:1, 2015. Knorr von Rosenroth (1684): C. Knorr von Rosenroth, Kabbala denudata (Tom I Sluzbaci, Tom II Francofvrti, 1684) http://www.billheidrick.com/Orpd/KRKD/. Koch (1895a): H. Koch, “Proklus als Quelle des Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom Bösen”, in: Philologus 54, 438 – 454. — (1895b): “Der pseudepigraphische Charakter der dionysischen Schriften”, in: Theologische Quartalschrift 77, 353 – 420. — (1900): Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita in seinen Beziehungen zum Neuplatonismus und Mysterienwesen, Mainz: F. Kirchheim. Köhler (1974): F. W. Köhler (ed.), Hieroclis in aureum Pythagoreorum carmen commentarius, Stuttgart: Teubner. Kojève (1973): A. Kojève, Essai d’une histoire raisonée de la philosophie païenne, vol. 3, Paris: Gallimard. Krabbenhoft (1982): K. Krabbenhoft, “Structure and Meaning of Herrera’s Puerta del Cielo,” in: Studia Rosenthalia 16, 1 – 20. — (2002): (trans.), , Abraham Cohen de Herrera, Gate of Heaven, Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill. Kraut (1973): R. Kraut, “Love, Egoism and Political Office in Plato”, in: The Philosophical Review 82, no.3, 330 – 344. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 432 Bibliography — (1992): “The defense of justice in Plato’s Republic”, in: The Cambridge Companion to Plato, R. Kraut (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 311 – 337. Kristeller (1939): P. O. Kristeller, “Florentine Platonism and Its Relations with Humanism and Scholasticism”, in: Church History 8, 201 – 211. — (1944): “The Scholastic Background of Marsilio Ficino”, in: Traditio II, 257 – 318. — (1944 – 1945): “Humanism and Scholasticism in the Italian Renaissance”, in: Byzantion 17, 346 – 74. — (1964): Eight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance, Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. — (1984): “Stoic and Neoplatonic Sources of Spinoza’s Ethics,” in: Studies in Renaissance Thought and Letters Vol. 5. 1, 1 – 15. — (1987): “Proclus as a Reader of Plato and Plotinus and His Influence in the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance”, in: Proclus, lecteur and interprète des Anciens, Paris: CNRS, 191 – 211. — (1993): “Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and His Sources”, in: Studies in Renaissance Thought and Letters, Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, V. III, 227 – 304. Kroll (ed.) (1899 – 1901/1965): W. Kroll (ed.), Procli Diadochi in Platonis rem publicam commentarii, 2 vols (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana), Leipzig: Teubner, reprint Amsterdam: Hakkert. Krueger (1954): P. Krueger (ed.), Corpus Iuris Civilis II, Codex Iustinianus, Berlin: Weidmann. Lang (1994): H. S. Lang, “On Aristotle’s Categories”, Review of Metaphysics 48.2, 422 – 423. — (1994/19992): “Why The Elements Imitate The Heavens: Metaphysics IX, 8, 1050b28 – 34”, in: Ancient Philosophy 14, 335 – 354. Reprint in: L. P. Gerson (ed.) Aristotle: Critical Assessments Vol. 1, London: Routledge, 318 – 338. Lang/Macro (2001): H. S. Lang and A. D. Macro (eds./trans.), Proclus On the Eternity of the World (De Aeternitate Mundi), Greek Text with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, Argument I translated from the Arabic by Jon McGinnis, Berkeley: University of California Press. Langermann (2012): Y. Tz. Langermann, “No Reagent, No Reaction: The Barren Transmission of Avicennan Dynamics to Hasdai Crescas”, in: Aleph: Historical Studies in Science & Judaism 12.1, 161 – 188. — (2013): “An Alchemical Treatise Attributed to Joseph Solomon Delmedigo”, in: Aleph: Historical Studies in Science & Judaism 13:1, 77 – 94. — (2014): “Yosef Shlomo Delmedigo’s Engagement with Atomism: Some Further Explorations into a Knotty Problem”, in: R. I. Cohen, N. B. Dohrmann, A. Shear and E. Reiner (eds.), Jewish Culture in Early Modern Europe. Essays in Honor of David B. Ruderman, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 124 – 133. Lankila (2008): T. Lankila, “Proclus’ Art of Referring with a Scale of Epithets”, in: Arctos 42, 121 – 133. — (2010): “Henadology in the Two Theologies of Proclus”, in: Dionysius 28, 63 – 76. — (2011): “The Corpus Areopagiticum as a crypto-pagan project”, in: The Journal for Late Antique Religion and Culture 5, 14 – 40. Larchet (2010): J. C. Larchet, La théologie des énergies divines. Des origines à saint Jean Damascène, Paris: Cerf. Lauritzen (2009): F. Lauritzen, “Psellos’ early career at court”, in: Vizantijskij Vremennik 68, 135 – 143. — (2012): “Psellos the Hesychast: a Neoplatonic Reading of the Transfiguration on Mt. Tabor (Theologica I.11 Gautier)”, Byzantinoslavica 70, 167 – 180. — (2014a): “Areopagitica in Stethatos: a chronology of an interest”, in: Vizantijskij Vremennik 73, 199 – 215. — (2014b): “Psellos and Plotinus”, in: Byzantinische Zeitschrift 107.2, 711 – 724. Lautner (2009): “On the Different Kinds of Λόγοι and their Place in Empirical Knowledge and Noetic Understanding in Syrianus”, Ancient Philosophy 29, 373 – 390. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 Bibliography 433 Lawee (2002): E. Lawee, Isaac Abarbanel’s Stance towards Tradition, Albany: SUNY Press. Layne (2013): “Philosophical Prayer in Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus”, Review of Metaphysics 67.2, 345 – 368. — (2014): “A Fatal Affair? Socrates’ Foreknowledge and Alcibiades’ Freedom in Proclus”, in: P. d’Hoine and G. Van Riel (eds.), Fate, Providence and Moral Responsibility in Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern Thought, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 267 – 290. — (2016): “Cosmic Etiology and Demiurgic Mimesis in the Ascent of the Soul”, in: J. Dillon and A. Timotin (eds.), Platonic Theories of Prayer, Leiden: Brill. Layne/Tarrant (2014): D. A. Layne and H. Tarrant (eds.), The Neoplatonic Socrates, Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press. Lefort (1976): J. Lefort, “Rhétorique et politique. Trois discours de Jean Mauropous en 1047”, in: Travaux et mémoires 6, 265 – 303. LeBuffe (2010): M. LeBuffe, From Bondage to Freedom. Spinoza on Human Excellence, Oxford University Press. — (2015): “Spinoza’s Psychological Theory”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, E. N. Zalta (ed.), <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/spinoza-psychological/>. Last accessed 6/30/16. Leinkauf (1990): T. Leinkauf, Il neoplatonismo di Francesco Patrizi da Cherso come presupposto della sua critica ad Aristotele, Florence: La Nuova Italia. — (2014b): “Francesco Patrizi,” in: Gersh (2014b), 380 – 402. Lelli (2008): F. Lelli, “Poetic Theology and Jewish Kabbalah in Fifteenth – Century Florentine Speculation: Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and Elijah Hayyim ben Benjamin of Genazzano”, in: Studia Judaica 16, 144 – 152. Lernould (1981): A. Lernould, “La dialectique comme science première chez Proclus”, in: Revue des sciences philosophique et théologiques 71, 509 – 536. — (2012): “Nature in Proclus: From irrational immanent principle to goddess”, in: J. Wilberding and C. Horn (eds.), Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 68 – 102. Levi della Vida (1910): G. Levi della Vida, “Sentenze pitagoriche in versione siriaca”, in: Rivista degli studi orientali 3, 595 – 610. Lewis (1954): C. S. Lewis, English Literature in the Sixteenth Century, excluding drama, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Levy (ed.) / Ludovici (trans.) (1911): O. Levy (ed.) and A. Ludovici (trans.), The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche, Volume 17, New York: The MacMillan Company. Lilla (1973): S. Lilla, “Terminologia trinitaria nello Pseudo-Dionigi l’Areopagíta. Suoi antecdenti e sua influenza sugli autori sucessivi”, in: Augustiniaum 121, 609 – 623. — (1997): “Pseudo-Denys l’Aréopagite, Porphyre et Damascius”, in Y. De Andia (ed.) (1997), 117 – 152. Linley (1984): N. Linley (ed./trans.), Ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib: Proclus’ Commentary on the Pythagorean Golden Verses, Arethusa Monographs X, Buffalo: Department of Classics, State University of New York at Buffalo. Lloyd (1976): A. C. Lloyd, “The Principle That the Cause is Greater than Its Effect”, in: Phronesis 21, 146 – 156. Loewenstamm (1972): A. Loewenstamm, “Baba Rabbah” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem: Keter. Logan (2004): A. Logan, Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy, London: T & T Clark International. Lohr (2000): C. H. Lohr, “Renaissance Latin Translations of the Greek Commentators on Aristotle”, in: M. W. F. Stone and J. Kraye (eds.), Humanism and Early Modern Philosophy, London: Routledge. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 434 Bibliography Longo (2001). A. Longo, “Le sostanze intermedie e le dimostrazioni astronomiche nel prologo del commento di Siriano sui libri M e N della “Metafisica” di Aristotele”, in: Documenti E Studi Sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale 12, 85 – 124. — (2005): Siriano e i principi della scienza. Elenchos 41, Naples: Bibliopolis. — (2009): Syrianus et la métaphysique de l’antiquité tardive. Actes du colloque international, université de Genève, 29 septembre-1er octobre 2006. Elenchos 51. Naples: Bibliopolis. — (2010a): “L’elogio di Siriano e i proemi dottrinali procliani”, in: Ktema 35, 137 – 144. — (2010b): “Plutarch of Athens”, in: Gerson, L.P. (ed.), The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. II, 608 – 615. Lossky (1931): V. Lossky, “La notion des ‘Analogies’ chez le Denys le Pseudo-Aréopagite”, in: Archives d’Histoire Doctrinale et Littéraire du Moyen-Âge 5, 279 – 309. Lourié (2011): B. Lourié, “Peter the Iberian and Dionysius the Areopagite: Honigmann – Van Esbroeck’s Thesis Revisited”, in: Scrinium 6, 143 – 212. Louth (1980): A. Louth, The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Repr. 2007. — (1986): “Pagan Theurgy and Christian Sacramentalism in Denys the Areopagite”, in: Journal of Theological Studies 37, 432 – 438. — (1989/20012): Denys the Areopagite, London: Geoffrey Chapman, reissued London/New York: Continuum. — (1993): “The Mysticism of Dionysius Areopagita: Platonist or Christian?”, in: Mystics Quarterly 19, 98 – 114. Lowry (1980): J.M. P. Lowry, The Logical Principles of Proclus’ ΣΤΟΙΧΩΣΙΣ ΘΕΟΛΟΓΙΚΗ as Systematic Ground of the Cosmos, Amsterdam: Rodopi. Luibhéid/Rorem (1987): C. Luibhéid and P. Rorem (trans.), Pseudo-Dionysius, The Complete Works, Mahwah: Paulist Press. Luna/Segonds (2007 – 2014): C. Luna and A.-Ph. Segonds (eds.), Proclus Commentaire sur le Parménide de Platon, 5 vols., Paris: Les Belles Lettres. — (2012): “Proclus de Lycie”, in: R. Goulet (ed.) (2011/12), 1546 – 1657. Luther (1888): M. Luther, “De captivitate Babylonica ecclesiae praeludium”, in: D. Martin Luthers Werke, 6. Band, Weimar: Herman Bohlau. Luz (1990): M. Luz, “Marinus: an Eretz-Israel Neoplatonist at Athens”, in: A. Kasher, U. Rappaport and G. Fuchs (eds.), Greece and Rome in Eretz-Israel: Collected Essays, Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 92 – 104. Maas (1992): M. Maas, John Lydus and the Roman Past: Antiquarianism and Politics in the Age of Justinian, London: Taylor and Francis. MacIsaac (2002): D. G. MacIsaac, “Projection and Time in Proclus”, in: John Inglis (ed.), Medieval Philosophy and the Classical Tradition in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, London: Curzon Press, 83 – 105. — (2007) “The Origin of Determination in the Neoplatonism of Proclus,” in: M. Treschow, W. Otten and W. Hannam (eds.), Divine Creation in Ancient, Medieval, and Early Modern Thought: Essays Presented to the Rev’d Dr. Robert Crouse. Leiden: Brill, 141 – 72. — (2011): “The Nous of the Partial Soul in Proclus’ Commentary on the First Alcibiades of Plato”, in: Dionysius 29, 209 – 60. Madelung/Mayer (2001): W. Madelung and T. Mayer (ed./trans.), Struggling with the Philosopher: A Refutation of Avicenna’s Metaphysics. A New Arabic edition and English Translation of … al-Shahrastānī’s Kitāb al-Muṣāraʽa (Ismaili Texts and Translations Series 2), London: I. B. Tauris. Mahdi (1967): M. Mahdi, “Alfarabi against Philoponus”, in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 26, 233 – 60. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 Bibliography 435 — (1972): (ed.), “The Arabic Text of Alfarabi’s Against John the Grammarian”, in: S. A. Hanna (ed.), Medieval and Middle Eastern Studies in Honour of A. S. Atiya, Leiden: Brill, 268 – 284. Mahoney (1992): E. P. Mahoney, “Pico, Plato, and Albert the Great: The Testimony and Evaluation of Agostino Nifo”, in: Medieval Philosophy and Theology 2, 165 – 192. — (1997): “Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and Elia del Medigo, Nicoletto Vernia and Agostino Nifo”, in: G. C. Garfagnini (ed.), Giovanni Pico della Mirandola: Convegno internazionale di studi nel cinquecentesimo anniversario della morte (1494 – 1994), Florence: Olschki, 27 – 156. Mahoney (1996): T. A. Mahoney, “Is Socratic erōs in the Symposium Egoistic?”, in: Apeiron 29.1, 1 – 18. Mainoldi (2008): E. S. Mainoldi, “Il non essere volontario: la concezione del male nella tradizione teologica e ascetica bizantina”, in: χώρα 6, 195 – 197. Malalas (1831): John Malalas, Chronographia XVIII, 30: Dindorf, 444. Manolea (1998): Ch. P. Manolea, “Iamblichus on reason-principles”, Parnassos 40, 163 – 170. Manuel (1992): F. Manuel, The Broken Staff: Judaism Through Christian Eyes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Manuppella (1983): G. Manuppella (ed.), Abravanel, Judah. Dialoghi d’Amore. Instituto Nacional de Investigacao Cientifica. Marenbon (2002): J. Marenbon, Early Medieval Philosophy (480 – 1150), London: Routledge. Marion (1972): J.-L. Marion, “Distance et louange. Du concept de réquisit (aitia) au statut trinitaire de langue théologique selon Denys le mystique”, in: Résurrection 38, 89 – 118. Marmura (1997): M. Marmura (trans.), Al-Ghazālī, The Incoherence of the Philosophers, Provo: Brigham Young University Press. Maróth (1988): M. Maróth, “Der erste Beweis des Proklos für die Ewigkeit der Welt”, in: Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungarica, Budapest 30, 181 – 189. Marshall (1963): J. S. Marshall, Hooker and the Anglican Tradition: An Historical and Theological Study of Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, London: A. C. Black. Martin (2008): J. N. Martin, “The Lover of the Beautiful and the Good: Platonic Foundations of Aesthetic and Moral Value”, in: Synthese 165, 31 – 51. Mazzucchi (2006): C. M. Mazzucchi, “Damascio, autore del Corpus Dionysiacum, e il dialogo Περὶ πολιτικῆς ἐπιστήμης”, in: Aevum 80, 299 – 334. McGinnis (2001): J. McGinnis, in Lang/Macro (2001). McGrade (1997): A. S. McGrade (ed.), Richard Hooker and the Construction of Christian Community. Tempe: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies. Meijer (2003): P. A. Meijer, “Proclus’ Introduction of the One in his Theologia Platonica: Some Unorthodox Views on the Nature of the One”, in: Ancient Philosophy 23, 395 – 414. Merlan (1965): P. Merlan, “Zur Zahlenlehre im Platonismus (Neuplatonismus) und im Sefer Yezira,” Journal of the History of Philosophy, vol. III, 2, 167 – 179; and 181. Menn (2012): S. Menn, “Self-motion and Reflection: Hermias and Proclus on the harmony of Plato and Aristotle on the Soul” in: J. Wilberding and C. Horn (eds.), Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 44 – 67. — (2013): “Plato’s Soteriology?”, in: V. Adluri (ed.), Greek Religion: Philosophy and Salvation, Berlin: de Gruyter. Meyendorff (1975): J. Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. Migne (1844): J. P. Migne (ed.), Arnobius, “Disputationum Adversus Gentes”, in Patrologia Latina, vol. 5, Paris: Garnier. — (1857 – 1866): (ed.) Dionysii Areopagitae De divinis nominibus and Dionysii Areopagitae De mystica theologia, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 3, Paris: Garnier. — (1883): (ed.) Jerome, “Apologia adversus libros Rufini”, in Patrologia Latina, vol. 23, Paris: Garnier. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 436 Bibliography Miller (2007): M. Miller, “Beginning the ‘Longer Way’”, in: G.R.F. Ferrari (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Plato’s Republic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 310 – 344. Mohler (1923): L. Mohler, Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist und Staatsmann, Funde und Forschungen. Bd. 3 = Aus Bessarions Gelehrtenkreis, Abhandlungen, Reden, Briefe, Paderborn: Schöningh. Mojsisch (1977): B. Mojsisch, Die Theorie des Intellekts bei Dietrich von Freiberg, Hamburg: F. Meiner. Monfasani (2002): J. Monfasani, “Marsilio Ficino and the Plato-Aristotle Controversy”, in: M. J. Allen and V. Rees (eds.), Marsilio Ficino: His Philosophy, His Theology, His Legacy, Leiden: Brill, 179 – 202. — (2008): “Criticism of Biblical Humanists in Quattrocento Italy”, in: E. Rummel (ed.), Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus, Leiden: Brill, 15 – 38. Montenot (2008): J. Montenot, “De l’élémentaire en philosophe”, in: Revue Philosophique de Louvain 106, 77 – 89. Mor (1989): M. Mor, “The Samaritans and the Bar-Kokhbah Revolt”, in: A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen: Mohr, 19 – 31. — (2003): From Samaria to Shechem The Samaritan Community in Antiquity (me-Shomeron le-Shechem), Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Institute. Morrow (1970/19922): G. R. Morrow (trans./intro./notes), Proclus: A Commentary on the First Book of Euclid’s Elements, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Morrow/Dillon (1987): G. R. Morrow and J. M. Dillon (trans.), Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mtchedlidze (2002): M. Mtchedlidze, “L’explication de la théorie platonicienne de l’amour par Ioané Petritsi”, in: Phasis: Greek and Roman Studies 2 – 3, 295 – 299. Mueller (1969): I. Mueller, “Euclid’s Elements and the Axiomatic Method”, in: The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 20, 289 – 309. Müller/Lippert (1903): A. Müller and J. Lippert (ed.), al-Qifṭī, Jamāl al-Dīn ʽAlī b. Yūsuf, Kitāb Ikhbār al-ʽulamāʼ bi-akhbār al-ḥukamāʼ [epitome of Muḥammad b. ʽAlī al-Zauzanī], Leipzig: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlun. Munk (1856 – 1866/19642): S. Munk (ed./trans.), Maїmonide, Le guide des égarés. Traité de Théologie et de Philosophie par Moїse ben Maimoun dit Maїmonide, 3 vols. Paris: A. Franck, repr. Osnabrück: Otto Zeller. Munz (1952): P. Munz, The place of Hooker in the history of thought, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Muth (1993): N. S. Muth, Proclo negli ultimi quarant’ anni: Bibliografia ragionata della letteratura primaria e secondaria riguardante il pensiero procliano e i suoi influssi storici (anni 1949 – 1992), introduction by W. Beierwaltes, Milano: Vita et Pensiero. Nadler (1999): S. Nadler, Spinoza: A Life, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Najjar/Mallet (1999): F. M. Najjar and D. Mallet (trans.), Al-Fārābī (ps.–?), L’harmonie entre les opinions de Platon et Aristote: Kitāb al-ğam‛ bayna ra’yay al-h͎akīmayn Aflātūn al-ilāhī wa Arist͎ut͎alīs, Damascus: Institut Français de Damas. Napoli (2008): V. Napoli, Ἐπέκεινα τοῦ ἑνός. Il principio totalmente ineffabile tra dialettica ed esegesi in Damascio, Catania-Palermo: CUECM-Officina di Studi Medievali. Nash (2008): J. Nash, Christianity: the One, the Many: What Christianity Might Have Been and Could Still Become, Xlibris Corporation. Nasta (1997): M. Nasta, “Quatre états de la textualité dans l’histoire du Corpus dionysien” in: Y. De Andia (ed.) (1997), 31 – 65. — (2011): Humanistische Kabbala im Barock. Leben und Werk des Abraham Cohen de Herrera. Studia Judaica. Forschungen zur Wissenschaft des Judentums. Bd. 58, Berlin: De Gruyter. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 Bibliography 437 Necker (2011): G. Necker, Humanistische Kabbala im Barock. Leben und Werk des Abraham Cohen de Herrera. Studia Judaica. Forschungen zur Wissenschaft des Judentums. Bd. 58, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. Neelands (1997): W.D. Neelands, “Hooker on Scripture, Reason, and ‘Tradition’”, in: A. S. McGrade (ed.), Richard Hooker and the Construction of Christian Community, Arizona State University, Tempe, 75 – 84. Niccoli (1987): S. Niccoli (ed./trans.), Marsilio Ficino, El libro dell’ amore, Florence: Olschki. Norris (2011): C. Norris, “Spinoza and the Conflict of Interpretations,” in: D. Vardoulakis (ed.), Spinoza Now, 3 – 37. Nygren (11932): A. Nygren, Agape and Eros. Part I, A Study of the Christian Idea of Love, London: SPCK. — (11938 – 1939): Part II, The History of the Christian Idea of Love, London: SPCK. — (1953/1982): Agape and Eros: The Christian Idea of Love, (trans.) P. Watson, London: SPCK and Chicago: University of Chicago Press. O’Brien (2010): C. O’Brien, “Eternity: (I.) Ramelli, (D.) Konstan Terms for Eternity: Aiônios and Aïdios in Classical and Christian Authors”, in: The Classical Review 60.2, 390 – 391. Offenberg (1973): A. K. Offenberg, “Spinoza’s library. The story of a reconstruction.” Quaerendo, Volume 3, Number 4, (13), 309 – 321. Ogren (2009a): B. Ogren, Renaissance and Rebirth: Reincarnation in Early Modern Italian Kaballah, Leiden: Brill. — (2009b): “The Forty-Nine Gates of Wisdom as Forty-Nine Ways to Christ: Giovanni Pico della Mirandola’s Heptaplus and Nahmanidean Kabbalah”, in: Rinascimento 49, 27 – 43. O’Meara (1986): D. J. O’Meara, “Le problème de la métaphysique dans l’antiquité tardive”, Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 33, 3 – 22. — (1989): Michaelis Pselli philosophica minora, Vol. II, Leipzig: Teubner. — (1990): Pythagoras Revived: Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Oxford: Oxford University Press. — (2000): “La science métaphysique (ou théologie) de Proclus comme exercice spirituel”, in: Segonds/Steel (eds.) (2000), 279 – 290. — (2003): Platonopolis: Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Oxford: Oxford University Press. — (2014): “Michael Psellos,” in Gersh (2014b), 165 – 181. O’Neill (1962): W. O’Neill, “Time and Eternity in Proclus,” Phronesis 7, 161 – 165. Onnasch/Schomakers (2015): E. O. Onnasch and B. Schomakers (trans./intro./comm.), Proklos. Theologische Grundlegung. Griechisch-deutsch, Hamburg: F. Meiner. Opsomer (2000): J. Opsomer, “Proclus on demiurgy and procession: a Neoplatonic reading of the Timaeus”, in: M. R. Wright (ed.), Reason and Necessity: Essays on Plato’s Timaeus, London: Duckworth, 113 – 145. — (2001): “Proclus and Plotinus on Matter (de mal. subs. 30 – 7)” in: Phronesis 46.2, 154 – 188. — (2006): “Proclus et le statut ontologique de l’âme plotinienne” in: Études platoniciennes 3, 195 – 207. Opsomer/Steel (trans.) (2003): J. Opsomer and C. Steel (trans.), Proclus: On the Existence of Evils (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle), Ithaca: Cornell University Press. — (2012): J. Opsomer and C. Steel (trans.), Proclus: Ten Problems Concerning Providence (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle), London: Bristol Classical Press. Pagnoni-Sturlese/Sturlese (1984): M. R. Pagnoni-Sturlese and L. Sturlese (eds.), Expositio super Elementationem Theologicam Procli. Prologus, Propositiones 1 – 13, Corpus Philosophorum Teutonicorum Medii Aevii VI, 1, Hamburg: F. Meiner. Osborn (1997): E. Osborn, Tertullian, First Theologian of the West, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 438 Bibliography Panizza (2000): L. Panizza, “Pico della Mirandola’s 1485 Parody of Scholastic Barbarians,” in: J. Everson and D. Zancani (eds.), Italy in Crisis: 1494, Oxford: Legenda, 152 – 74. Pappa (2002): E. Pappa (ed.), Georgios Pachymeres, Philosophia, Buch 10 Kommentar zur Metaphysik des Aristoteles, Editio princeps, Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi, Commentaria in Aristotelem Byzantina, vol. 2, Athens: The Academy of Athens. Pasquali (1908): G. Pasquali (ed.), Procli Diadochi in Platonis Cratylum Commentaria, Leipzig: Teubner. Pate (2011): C. M. Pate, From Plato to Jesus: What Does Philosophy Have to Do with Theology?, Grand Rapids: Kregel. Pavlos (2013): P. Pavlos “Aspects of Plato’s Political Thinking in Timaeus and the 10th Book of Laws”, in: Πλατωνόπολις: Philosophy of Antiquity as an interdisciplinary synthesis of philosophical, historical and philological studies. Proceedings of the VIIIth Summer school of yourng scientists 25.08 – 28.08 and scientific reports of Saint-Petersburg’s Plato Society, Saint-Petersburg: Skifia-Print, 40 – 44. Pera (1936): C. Pera, “Denys le mystique et la Theomachia”, in: Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 25, 1 – 75 Perczel (2000): I. Perczel, “Pseudo-Dionysius and the Platonic Theology. A Preliminary Study”, in: Segonds/Steel (eds.) (2000), 492 – 530. — (2001), “Pseudo-Dionysius and Palestinian Origenism”, in J. Patrich (ed.), The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to the Present, Leuven, 261 – 282. — (2003a): “God as Monad and Henad: Dionysius the Areopagite and the Peri Archon” in: Origeniana Octava. Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition/Origene e la tradizione Alessandrina, papers of the 8th International Origen Congress, Pisa, 27 – 31 August 2001, L. Perrone (ed.), Leuven: Leuven University Press, vol. II, 1193 – 1209. — (2003b): “‘Suddenly, Christ’: The Place of Negative Theology in the Mystagogy of Dionysius Areopagites”, in: M. Kessler and C. Sheppard (ed.), Mystics: Presence and Aporia, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 8 – 37. — (2004): “The Christology of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite: The Fourth Letter in its Indirect and Direct Text Traditions”, in: Le Muséon 117, 409 – 446. — (2008): “The Earliest Syriac Reception of Dionysius”, in: Modern Theology 24.4, 35 – 48. — (2012): “Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and the Pseudo-Dormition of the Holy Virgin”, in: Le Muséon 125, 55 – 97. Perkams (2006): M. Perkams, “An Innovation by Proclus. The Theory of the Substantial Diversity of the Human Soul”, in: M. Perkams and R. M. Piccione (eds.), Proklos: Method, Seelenlehre, Metaphysik, Leiden: Brill, 167 – 185. Perl (2007): E. D. Perl, Theophany: The Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite, Albany: SUNY Press. — (2008): (ed.), Dionysius, special issue of American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 82.4. Perreiah (1982): A. Perreiah, “Humanistic Critiques of Scholastic Dialectic,” in The Sixteenth Century Journal 13.3, 3 – 22. Perrone (2014): L. Perrone, “The Find of the Munich Codex: A Collection of 29 Homilies of Origen on the Psalms,” in: Anders-Christian Lund-Jacobsen (ed.), Colloquium Origenianum Undecimum, Aarhus, 26 – 31 August 2013, Leuven: Peeters. Pico della Mirandola (1557): G. Pico della Mirandola, “Apologia”, in Opera Omnia, Hildesheim: Olms, 114 – 240. Pinès (1963): S. Pinès, “Translator’s Introduction”. Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, S. Pines (trans.), Chicago: University of Chicago. — (1972): “An Arabic Summary of a Lost Work of John Philoponus”, in: Israel Oriental Studies II, 320 – 352. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 Bibliography 439 Podskalsky (1977): G. Podskalsky, Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz, Byzantinisches Archiv, Heft 15, Munich: C. H. Beck. Pompa (2008): L. Pompa, “Introduction”, in: Garin (2008), xxi-xxxiii. Popkin (1992): Richard Popkin, “Spinoza, Neoplatonic Kabbalist?” in: L. Goodmann, (ed.), Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought. Albany: SUNY Press, 387 – 409. Porro (2014): P. Porro, “The University of Paris in the Thirteenth Century,” in: Gersh (2014b), 264 – 298. Pummer (1987): R. Pummer, “The Samaritans”, in: Iconography of Religions, Leiden: Brill. — (1989): “Samaritan Material Remains”, in: A. D. Crown, R. Pummer and A. Tal (eds.), A Companion to Samaritan Studies, Tübingen: Mohr, 168 – 175. — (1993a): “Circumcision”, in: A. D. Crown, R. Pummer and A. Tal (eds.), A Companion to Samaritan Studies, Tübingen: Mohr. — (1993b): “Sacred Sites” in: A. D. Crown, R. Pummer and A. Tal (eds.), A Companion to Samaritan Studies, Tübingen: Mohr. — (2002): “Baba Rabbah” in: R. Pummer (ed.), Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism, Tübingen: Mohr. Purnell (1986): F. Jr. Purnell, “The Theme of Philosophic Concord and the Sources of Ficino’s Platonism”, in: G. C. Carfagnini (ed.), Marsilio Ficino e il ritorno di Platone, Florence: Olschki, v. 2, 397 – 415. Quartus (1888 – 1889): T. Quartus (ed.), Thomas Aquinas, XIII P. M. edita, t. 4 – 5: Pars prima Summae theologiae, Rome: Ex Typografia Polyglotta S. C. de Propaganda Fide. Rabe (1899): H. Rabe (ed.), Ioannes Philoponus De Aeternitate Mundi contra Proclum (Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana) Leipzig: Teubner. Rabin (2011): S. Rabin, “Whither Kabbalah? Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Kabbalah, and the Disputations Agaist Judicial Astrology”, in: I. Zinguer, A. Melamed and Z. Shalev (eds.), Hebraic Aspects of the Renaissance: Sources and Encounters, Leiden: Brill, 43 – 52. Rabouin (2010): D. Rabouin, “Le rôle de Proclus dans les débats sur la ‘mathémathique universelle’ à la Renaissance”, in: A. Lernould (ed.), .Études sure le Commentaire de Proclus au premier livre des Éléments d’Euclide, Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion. Radde-Gallwitz (2010): A. Radde-Gallwitz, “Pseudo-Dionysius, the Parmenides, and the Problem of Contradiction,” in: K. Corrigan and J. D. Turner (eds.), Plato’s Parmenides and its Heritage: Vol. 2. Its Reception in Neoplatonic, Jewish and Christian Texts, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 243 – 54. Ramelli/Konstan (2011): I. Ramelli and D. Konstan, Terms for Eternity: Aἰώνιος and ἀΐδιος in Classical and Christian Authors, Piscataway: Gorgias. Ramelli (2007a): I. Ramelli, “Christian Soteriology and Christian Platonism. Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Biblical and Philosophical Basis of the Doctrine of Apokatastasis”, in: Vigiliae Christianae 61.3, 313 – 356. — (2007b): Gregorio di Nissa sull’anima e la resurrezione, Milan: Bompiani. — (2008a): “Origen’s Exegesis of Jeremiah: Resurrection Announced throughout the Bible and its Twofold Conception”, in: Augustinianum 48, 59 – 78. — (2008b): “Origene ed il lessico dell’eternità”, in: Adamantius 14, 100 – 129. — (2009): “Origen, Patristic Philosophy, and Christian Platonism: Re-Thinking the Christianisation of Hellenism”, in: Vigiliae Christianae 63, 217–263. — (2011a): “Origen the Christian Middle/Neoplatonist”, in: Journal of Early Christian History 1, 98–130. — (2011b): “The Birth of the Rome-Alexandria Connection: The Early Sources on Mark and Philo, and the Petrine Tradition”, in: The Studia Philonica Annual 23, 69 – 95. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 440 Bibliography — (2011c): “The Philosophical Stance of Allegory in Stoicism and its Reception in Platonism, Pagan and Christian: Origen in Dialogue with the Stoics and Plato”, in: International Journal of the Classical Tradition 18.3, 335 – 371. — (2013a): “Origen and Augustine: A Paradoxical Reception”, in: Numen 60, 280 – 307. — (2013b): “‘Preexistence of Souls’? The ἀρχή and τέλος of Rational Creatures in Some Origenian Authors,” in: Studia Patristica LVI, vol. 4, ed. Markus Vinzent, Leuven: Peeters, 167 – 226. — (2013c): The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis. A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena, Leiden: Brill. — (2013d): “The Stoic Doctrine of Oikeiōsis and its Transformation in Christian Platonism,” in: Apeiron 64, 1 – 25. — (2014): “Iamblichus, De anima 38 (66, 12 – 15 Finamore-Dillon): A Resolving Conjecture?”, in: Rheinisches Museum 157, 106 – 111. — (2015): Evagrius’s Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from the Syriac, Atlanta: SBL. — (forthcoming): “Gregory Nyssen’s and Evagrius’s Biographical and Theological Relations: Origen’s Heritage and Neoplatonism”, forthcoming in Studia Patristica. — (in preparation): Origen of Alexandria Philosopher and Theologian: A Chapter in the History of Platonism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rashed (2009): M. Rashed, “On the Authorship of the Treatise On the Harmonization of the Opinions of the Two Sages attributed to al-Fārābī”, in: Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 19, 43 – 82. Rashed/Morelon (2000): R. Rashed and R. Morelon, ‘Thābit b. Ḳurra,’ in: P. J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W. P. Heinrichs (eds.), The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, 12 vols., Leiden: Brill. Rebhorn (2000): W. Rebhorn (ed./trans.), Renaissance Debates on Rhetoric, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Renaud (2012): F. Renaud, “Socrates’ Divine Sign: From Alcibiades to Olympiodorus”, in: M. Johnson and H. Tarrant (eds.), Alcibiades and the Socratic Lover-Educator, London: Bloomsbury. Renaud/Tarrant (2015): F. Renaud and H. Tarrant (eds.), The Platonic Alcibiades I. The Dialogue and its Ancient Reception, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retucci (2016): F. Retucci, “Sententia Procli alti philosophi. Notes on an Anonymous Commentary on Proclus’ Elementatio theological”, in: D. Calma (ed.), Neoplatonism in the Middle Ages. New Commentaries on ’Liber de Causis’ and ’Elementatio Theologica’, 2 vols., Turnhout: Brepols, vol. 2, 99 – 179. Riedinger (1961 – 1962): U. Riedinger, “Petros der Walker von Antiocheia als Verfasser der ps.-dionysischen Schriften”, in: Salzburger Jahrbuch für Philosophie 5 – 6, 135 – 156. Riggs, (2011): T. Riggs, “Elements of the Authentic Self in Fārābī: Between Alexander and Proclus,” Dionysius 29, 61 – 80. — (2015): “Authentic Selfhood in the Philosophy of Proclus: Rational Soul and its Significance for the Individual”, in: The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 9.2, 177 – 204. Riordan (2008): W. Riordan, Divine Light: The Theology of Denys the Areopagite, San Francisco: Ignatius Press. Robinson (1953): R. Robinson, Plato’s Earlier Dialectic, Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1941, Repr. Oxford: Clarendon. Roques: (1954/1983): R. Roques, L’univers dionysien. Structure hierarchique du monde selon le Pseudo-Denys, Theologie 29, Paris: Aubier – Montagne. Repr. Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Rorem (1984): P. Rorem, Biblical and Liturgical Symbols within the Pseudo-Dionysian Synthesis, Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 Bibliography 441 — (1993): Pseudo-Dionysius. A Commentary on the Texts and an Introduction to Their Influence, New York: Oxford University Press. Rorem/Lamoureaux (1998): P. Rorem and J. Lamoureaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rosán (1949): L. J. Rosán, The Philosophy of Proclus, New York: Cosmos. Rosenthal (1961): F. Rosenthal, “From Arabic Books and Manuscripts VII: Some Graeco-Arabica in Istanbul”, in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 81, 7 – 12. — (1965): Das Fortleben der Antike im Islam, Zurich/Stuttgart: Artemis Verlag. — (1975): The Classical Heritage in Islam, E. and J. Marmorstein (trans.), Berkeley: University of California Press. — (1978): “The Symbolism of the Tabula Cebetis according to Abu l-Faraj Ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib”, in: Recherches d’Islamologie, Recueil d’articles offert à Georges C. Anawati et Louis Gardet par leurs collègues et amis (Bibliothèque philosophique de Louvain, 26), Leuven: Peeters, 273 – 283. — (1990): Greek Philosophy in the Arab World: A Collection of Essays, Variorum Collected Studies Series, CS 322, Aldershot: Ashgate. Ross (1950/1956): W. D. Ross (ed.) Aristotelis Physica, Oxford: Clarendon Press. — (1955): (ed.), Aristotelis fragmenta selecta, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ross (2011): J. Ross, “Elijah Delmedigo”, E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/delmedigo/>. Rothschild (1994): J. P. Rothschild, “Les traductions du Livre des causes et leurs copies”, in: Revue d’Histoire des Textes 24, 393 – 484. Roueché (2004): C. Roueché, Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity: The Late Roman and Byzantine Inscriptions, revised second edition, <http://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/ala2004>. Rowe (1986/19882): C. J. Rowe (ed./trans./comm.), Plato. Phaedrus, Oxford: Aris & Phillips. Ruelle (1889/1964): C. É. Ruelle , (ed.) Damascii successoris dubitationes et solutiones de principiis, Paris: Klincksieck. Ruffini (2004): G. Ruffini, “Late Antique Pagan Networks from Athens to the Thebaid”, in: W.V. Harris and G. Ruffini (eds.), Ancient Alexandria between Egypt and Greece, Leiden: Brill, 241 – 257. Runia/Share (2008): D. T. Runia and M. Share (trans.), Proclus: Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, Vol. II, Book 2: Proclus on the Causes of the Cosmos and its Creation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Russi (2009): C. Russi, “Causality and Sensible Objects: A comparison Between Plotinus and Proclus”, in: R. Chiaradonna and F. Trabattoni (eds.), Physics and Philosophy of Nature in Greek Neoplatonism: Proceedings of the European Science Foundation Exploratory Workshop, Leiden: Brill, 145 – 171. Saccaro del Buffa (1996): G. Saccaro del Buffa, “Il ’Rinascimento’ nell’interpretazione degli storici della filosofija tra Cinquecento e Seicento. La nuova periodizzazione storica alla luce di teologia, filosofia, scienza”, in: G. Coccoli, C. Marrone, F. Ratto, G. Santese (eds.), Natura e storia. Saggi di filosofia, Ripatransone: Sestante, 55 – 98. — (2002): (ed.) Abraham Cohen Herrera, Epitome y Compendio de la Logica o Dialectic, Instrumenta Rationis; Sources for the History of Logic in the Modern Age 9, Bologna: CLUEB. — (2004): Alle Origini Del Panteismo. Genesi Dell’ethica Di Spinoza E Delle Sue Forme Di Argomentazione, Franco Angeli Editore. Saffrey (1959): H. D. Saffrey, “Notes platoniciennes de Marsile Ficin dans un manuscript de Proclus”, in: Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et de Renaissance 21, 161 – 184. — (1966/1990): “Un lien objectif entre le pseudo-Denys et Proclus”, in: Studia Patristica 9, Berlin, 98 – 105. Reprinted in: Saffrey (1990), 227 – 234. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 442 Bibliography — (1975): “Allusions antichrétiennes chez Proclus, le diadoque platonicien”, in: Revue de Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques, 553 – 563. — (1979) “Pietro Balbi et la première traduction latine de la Théologie Platonicienne de Proclus,” in: P. Cockshaw, M. C. Garand and P. Jodogne (eds.), Miscellanea codicologica F. Masai dicata, 2 vols., Ghent: Story-Scientia, 425 – 437. — (1979b/1990): “Nouveaux liens objectifs entre le pseudo-Denys et Proclus”, in: Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 63, 2 – 16. Reprinted in Saffrey (1990), 235 – 248. — (1981): “L’hymne IV de Proclus prière aux dieux des oracles chaldaïques”, in: Neoplatonisme : Mélanges offerts à Jean Trouillard, Fontenay-aux-Roses: Les Cahiers de Fontenay, 297 – 312. — (1984): “‘Le philosophe de Rhodes’, est-il Thédore d’Asiné? Sur un poin obscur de l’ histoire de l’exégèse du Parménide”, in: E. Lucchesi and H. D. Saffrey (eds.), Mémorial André-Jean Festugière: antiquité païenne et chrétienne: vingt-cinq études, Geneva: P. Cramer. — (1990): Recherches sur le Néoplatonisme après Plotin, Paris: J. Vrin. — (1998/2000): “Le lien le plus objectif entre le Pseudo-Denys et Proclus”, in: J. Hamesse (ed.), Roma, magistra mundi. Itineraria culturae medievalis. Mélanges offerts au Père L. E. Boyle à l’occasion de son 75e anniversaire, Louvain-la-Neuve: Fédération des Instituts d’Etudes Médiévales, 791 – 810. Reprint in: Saffrey (2000), 239 – 252. — (2000): Le néoplatonisme après Plotin, Historie des doctrines de l’Antiquité classique, 24, vol. 1, Paris: Vrin. Saffrey/Segonds (2012): H. D. Saffrey and A.-Ph. Segonds, Porphyre: Lettre à Anébon l’Égyptien, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Saffrey et al. (2002): H. D. Saffrey, A.-Ph. Segonds and C. Luna, Marinus: Proclus, ou sur le Bonheur, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Saffrey/Westerink (1968 – 1997): H. D. Saffrey and L. G. Westerink, (eds./trans.), Proclus: Théologie platonicienne, 6 vol. (Collection des universités de France), Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Sambursky (1986): S. Sambursky, “Proklos ve-yoresho Marinos ha-shomroni”, in: Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities vii/5, 143 – 159. Schadewaldt (1973): W. Schadewaldt, “Humanitas Romana”, in: H. Temporini and W. Haase (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt I.4, 43 – 62. Schäfer (2006a): C. Schäfer, The Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite, Leiden: Brill. — (2006b): “Μονή, πρόοδος und ἐπιστροφή in der Philosophie des Proklos und des Areopagiten Dionysius”, in: M. Perkams & R. M. Piccione (eds.), Proklos, Methode, Seelenlehre, Metaphysik, Leiden: Brill, 340 – 362. Schissel (1928): O. Schissel von Fleschenberg, Marinos von Neapolis und die Neuplatonischen Tugendgrade, Athens: P. D. Sakellarios. — (1930) in Pauly’s Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaften, neue Bearbeitung, Vol. XIV 2 s.v. ’Marinos Neuplat.’, 1759 – 1767. Scholem, G., (1974): G. Scholem, introduction to Abraham Cohen Herrera, Das Buch [Ša’ar haš-šamayim] oder die Pforte des Himmels, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. — (1987): Origins of the Kabbalah, J. Zwi Werblowsky (ed.) and Allan Arkush (trans.), Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press. Scholten (2009 – 2011): C. Scholten, Johannes Philoponos. De aeternitate mundi /Über die Ewigkeit der Welt, 5 vols., Turnhout: Brepols. Schomakers (2001): B. Schomakers, “Knowing through Unknowing: Some Elements for a History of a Mystical Formula”, in: Issues in Medieval Philosophy: Essays in Honor of Richard C. Dales, Ottawa: Institute of Mediaeval Music, 31 – 61. — (2008): “The Nature of Distance. Neoplatonic and Dionysian Versions of Negative Theology”, in: American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 82, 593 – 618. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 Bibliography 443 — (2016): “An Eternal Incorrigible Metaphysician. Decoding the Christology of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite”, in Studies in Spirituality 26, 1 – 53. Scott (1995): W. Scott, Hermetica Part 1: The Ancient Greek and Latin Writings Which Contain Religious or Philosophic Teachings Ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus, Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing. Sedley (1999): D. Sedley, “The Ideal of Godlikeness,” in: G. Fine (ed.), Plato: Ethics, Politics, Religion, and the Soul. Vol. 2, Oxford Readings in Philosophy, New York: Oxford University Press,. 309 – 28. Segel (2013): A. Segel, Temples and Sanctuaries in the Roman East: Religious Architecture in Syria, Iudaea/Palaestina and Provincia Arabia, Oxford: Oxbow Books Segonds (1985 – 1986): A.-Ph. Segonds (ed./trans./comm.), Proclus: Sur le Premier Alcibiade de Platon, 2 vol. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Segonds/Steel (2000): A.-Ph. Segonds and C. Steel (eds.), Proclus et la Théologie Platonicienne, Paris: Leuven University Press/Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Sells (1994): M. Sells, Mystical Languages of Unsaying, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Senger (1986): H. G. Senger (ed.), Cusanus-Texte III, Marginalien, 2. Proclus Latinus, Die Exzerpte und Randnoten des Nikolaus von Kues zu den lateinischen Űbersetzungen der Proclus-Schriften, 2.1 Theologia Platonis, Elementatio Theologica, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Senger (1986): H. G. Senger (ed.), Cusanus-Texte III, Marginalien, 2. Proclus Latinus, Die Exzerpte und Randnoten des Nikolaus von Kues zu den lateinischen Űbersetzungen der Proclus-Schriften, 2.1 Theologia Platonis, Elementatio Theologica, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Shafīʽ (1935): M. Shafīʽ (ed.), Ẓahīr al-Dīn Abu ‘l-Ḥasan ‘Alī b. Zayd b. Funduq al-Bayhaqī, Tatimmat ṣiwān al-ḥikma, Lahore: Panjab University. Share (2004): M. Share (trans.), Philoponus Against Proclus On the Eternity of the World 1 – 5 (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle), London: Duckworth. — (2005): (trans.), Philoponus Against Proclus On the Eternity of the World 6 – 8 (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle), London: Duckworth. — (2010): (trans.), Philoponus Against Proclus On the Eternity of the World 9 – 11 (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle), London: Duckworth. Shaw (1995): G. Shaw, Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus, University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. — (1999): “Neoplatonic Theurgy and Dionysius Areopagite”, in: Journal for Early Christian Studies 7, 573 – 599. Sheldon-Williams (1966): I. P. Sheldon-Williams, “The Pseudo-Dionysius and the Holy Hierotheus”, in: Studia Patristica 8.2, 108 – 117. Sheppard (1980): A. Sheppard, Studies on the 5th and 6th Essays of Proclus’ Commentary on the Republic, Hypomnemata, Untersuchungen zur Antike und zu Ihrem Nachleben 61, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. — (1982): “Monad and Dyad as Cosmic Principles in Syrianus”, in: H. Blumenthal and A. Lloyd (eds.), Soul and the Structure of Being in Late Neoplatonism, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1 – 14. Shirley (2002): S. Shirley (trans.), Spinoza. Complete Works. Indianapolis/Cambridge. Sinkewicz (1981): R. E. Sinkewicz, “The Solutions Addressed by Barlaam the Calabrian to George Lapithes and their Philosophical Context”, in: Mediaeval Studies 4, 151 – 217. Siniossoglou (2005): N. Siniossoglou, “Time, Perpetuity and Eternity in Late Antique Platonism”, in: KronoScope 5, 213 – 235. — (2008): Plato and Theodoret: The Christian Appropriation of Platonic Philosophy and the Hellenic Intellectual Resistance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 444 Bibliography Simmons (2006): M. B. Simmons, “Via universalis animae liberandae: The Pagan-Christian Debate on Universalism in the Later Roman Empire”, in: Studia Patristica 42, Leuven: Peeters, 319 – 324. — (2009): “Porphyrian Universalism: A Tripartite Soteriology and Eusebius’s Response”, in: Harvard Theological Review 102, 169 – 192. Siorvanes (1996): L. Siorvanes, Proclus: Neo-Platonic Philosophy and Science, New Haven: Yale University Press. Smith (1974): A. Smith, Porphyry’s Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition: A Study in Post-Plotinian Neoplatonism, The Hague: M. Nijhoff. — (1993) Porphyrii Philosophi Fragmenta, Stuttgart: Teubner. — (2012): “The Significance of ‘Physics’ in Porphyry”, in: J. Wilberding and C. Horn (eds.), Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 30 – 43. Sorabji (1983): R. Sorabji, Time, Creation and the Continuum. Theories in Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. — (2006): Self: Ancient and Modern Insights about Individuality, Life, and Death, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stamatelos (2007): G. Stamatelos, Plotinus and the Presocratics, A Philosophical Study of Presocratic Influences in Plotinus’ Enneads, New York: SUNY Press. Stang (2010): M. C. Stang, “Anthropology of Dionysius the Areopagite”, in: C. Keller and C. Boesel (ed.), Apophatic Bodies. Negative Theology, Incarnation and Relationality, New York: Fordham University Press, 59 – 75. — (2011): “From the Chaldean Oracles to the Corpus Dionysiacum: Theurgy between the Third and Sixth Centuries”, in: Journal for Late Antique Religion and Culture 5, 1 – 13. — (2012): Apophasis and Pseudonymity in Dionysius the Areopagite: “No Longer I”, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stanley (1701): T. Stanley, The History of Philosophy (1701), Repr. 1975, Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag. Steel (1978): C. Steel, The Changing Self: A Study on the Soul in Later Neoplatonism: Iamblichus, Damascius and Priscianus, Brussels: Paleis der Academiën. — (1982 – 1985): C. Steel (ed.), Proclus, Commentaire sur le Parménide de Platon, Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke, I-II, Leuven: Presses universitaires de Louvain. — (1993): “L’âme: modèle et image,” in: H. Blumenthal and E. Clark (eds.), The Divine Iamblichus: Philosopher and Man of Gods, Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 14 – 29. — (1996): “Puissance active et puissance réceptive chez Proclus”, in: F. Romano and R. L. Cardullo (eds.), Dunamis nel Neoplatonismo: atti del II Colloquio internazionale del Centro di ricerca sul neoplatonismo, Università degli studi di Catania, 6 – 8 ottobre 1994, Florence: Olschki, 121 – 137. — (1997a): “Denys et Proclus: l’existence du mal”, in: Y. De Andia (ed.) (1997), 89 – 108. — (1997b): “Proclus et l’interprétation ‘logique’ du Parménide”, in: L. Benakis (ed.), Néoplatonism et la philosophie médiaeval, Turnhout: Brepols, 67 – 92. — (2002): “Neoplatonic Sources in the Commentaries on the Nicomachean Ethics by Eustratius and Michael of Ephesus”, in: Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 44, 51 – 57. — (2003): “Beyond the Principle of Contradiction? Proclus’ Parmenides and the Origin of Negative Theology”, in: M. Pickavé (ed.), Die Logik des Transzendentalen: Festschrift für Jan A. Aertsen zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 581 – 99. — (2004): “‘Au-delà de tout nom’. Parménide 142a3 – 4 dans l’interprétation de Proclus et de Denys” in: B. Janssens, B. Roosen and P. Van Deun (eds.) Philomathestatos: Studies in Greek and Byzantine Texts Presented to Jacques Noret for his Sixty-fifth Birthday, Leuven: Peeters, 603 – 624. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 Bibliography 445 — (2006): “Proklos über Selbstreflexion und Selfstbegründung”, in: M. Perkams and R. M. Piccione (eds.), Proklos: method, seelenlehre, Metaphysik, Leiden: Brill, 230 – 55. — (2007): (trans.), Proclus: On Providence, London: Duckworth/Ithaca: Cornell University Press. — (2007 – 2009): (ed.), Procli In Platonis Parmenidem Commentaria, 3 vols, Oxford: Oxford University Press. — (2014): “William of Moerbeke, Translator of Proclus,” in: Gersh (2014b), 247 – 263. Steel/Macé (2006): C. Steel and C. Macé, “Georges Pachymère Philologue: le Commentaire de Proclus au Parménide dans le manuscrit Parisinus gr. 1810”, in: M. Cacouros and M.H. Congordeau (eds.), Philosophie et science à Byzance de 1204 à 1453. Les textes, les doctrines et leur transmission, Leuven: Peeters, 77 – 100. Steel/Opsomer (2012): C. Steel and J. Opsomer (trans.), Proclus: Ten Questions on Providence, London: Bloomsbury Academic. Steel/van de Vyver (1994): C. Steel and E. van de Vyver (eds.), Henricus Bate, Speculum Divinorum et Quorundam Naturalium, VI-VII: On the Unity of Intellect; On the Platonic Doctrine of the Ideas, Leuven: Leuven University Press. Steinschneider (1893): M. Steinschneider, Die hebraeischen Uebersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher. Ein Beitrag zur Literaturgeschichte des Mittelalters, meist nach handschriftlichen Quellen, Berlin: Kommissionsverlag des Bibliographischen Bureaus. Stern (1980): M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism: Vol.II, From Tacitus to Simplicius, Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Stiglmayr (1895a): J. Stiglmayr, “Der neuplatoniker Proclus als Vorlage des sogen. Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom Uebel”, in: Historisches Jahrbuch 16, 253 – 73. — (1895b): “Das Aufkommen der Pseudo-Dionysischen Schriften und ihr Eindringen in die christliche Literatur bis zum Lateranconcil 649. Ein Zweiter Beitrag zur Dionysios-Frage”, in: IV. Jahresbericht des öffentlichen Privatgymnasiums an der Stella matitutina zu Feldkirch, 1 – 96. — (1909): “Eine syrische Liturgie als Vorlage des Ps.-Areopagiten”, in: Zeitschrift fü r katholische Theologie 33, 383 – 385. Stock (2008): W. M. Stock, Theurgisches Denken. Zur Kirchlichen Hierarchie des Dionysius Areopagita, Berlin: de Gruyter. Stover (2016): J. Stover, A New Work by Apuleius: The Lost Third Book of the De Platone, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sturlese (1986): L. Sturlese, “Der Prokloskommentar Bertholds von Moosburg und die philosophische Probleme der Nacheckhartschen Zeit”, in: K. Ruh (ed.), Abendländische Mystik im Mittelalter, Symposium Kloster Engelberg 1984, Stuttgart, 145 – 161. Reprinted in Sturlese (2007), 137 – 154. — (1987): “Il dibattito sul Proclo Latino nel medioevo fra Università di Parigi e lo studium di Colonia”, in: Boss/Seel (eds.) (1987), 261 – 285. — (2007): Homo Divinus: Philosophische Projekte in Deutschland zwischen Meister Eckhart und Heinrich Seuse, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. Suchla (1990): B. R. Suchla (ed.), Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De divinis nominibus, in: Corpus dionysiacum I, Berlin: de Gruyter. — (2008): Dionysius Areopagita: Leben, Werk, Wirkung, Freiburg: Herder. Sudduth (2008): M. Sudduth, “Pico della Mirandola’s Philosophy of Religion”, in: M. V. Dougherty (ed.), Pico della Mirandola: New Essays, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 61 – 80. Sykoutris (1949): I. Sykoutris (ed. / modern-Greek trans. / comm.), Πλάτωνος Συμπόσιον, Athens: Academy of Athens, Hellenic Library no.1, Bookshop of “Hestia”. Tambrun (2006): B. Tambrun, Pléthon, Le retour de Platon, Paris: J. Vrin. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 446 Bibliography Taormina (2012): D. P. Taormina, “Iamblichus: The Two-Fold Nature of the Soul and the Causes of Human Agency”, in: E. Afonasin, J. Dillon, and J. F. Finamore (eds.), Iamblichus and the Foundations of Late Platonism, Leiden: Brill, 63 – 73. Tarrant (2007a): H. Tarrant (trans.), Proclus. Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus. Vol. I, Book 1: Proclus on the Socratic State and Atlantis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. — (2007b): “Olympiodorus and Proclus on the Climax of the Alcibiades”, in: International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 1, 3 – 29. Tarrant et al. (1998): H. Tarrant, R. Jackson and K. Lycos (trans./intro.), Olympiodorus: Commentary on Plato’s Gorgias, Leiden: Brill. Tarrant et al. (2011): H. Tarrant, E. E. Benitez and T. Roberts, “The Mythical Voice of the Timaeus-Critias: Stylometric Indicators”, in: Ancient Philosophy 31, 95 – 120. Taylor (1986): R. C. Taylor, “The Kalam fi mahd al-khair (Liber de causis) in the Islamic Philosophical Milieu”, in: J. Kraye et al. (eds.), Pseudo-Aristotle in the Middle Ages, London: The Warburg Institute, University of London, 37 – 52. Taylor (1804/1995): T. Taylor, Proclus on the Theology of Plato, Third Book, London: R. Wilkes. Repr. in: The Theology of Plato, Wiltshire: Prometheus Trust. — (1820/1998): Proclus: Proclus’ Commentary on the Timaeus of Plato (The Thomas Taylor series 15 – 16), Frome: Prometheus Trust. Repr. The Commentaries of Proclus on the Timaeus of Plato in Five Books, London: Valpy. — (1825): The Fragments that Remain of the Lost Writings of Proclus, London: Black, Young, and Young. Tempelis (1997): E. Tempelis, “The School of Ammonius on Logoi in the Human Intellect”, in Cleary (ed.) (1997), 310 – 327. te Velde (1995): R. te Velde, Participation and Substantiality in Thomas Aquinas, Leiden: Brill. Thacker (2010): E. Thacker, After Life, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Theiler (1966): W. Theiler, Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus, Berlin: de Gruyter. Theodorakopoulos (1971): I.Ν. Theodorakopoulos (ed. / modern-Greek trans. / comm.), Πλάτωνος Φαῖδρος, Athens: Βιβλιοπωλεῖον τῆς Ἑστίας [or Bookshop of Hestia], (repr. 2000). Thillet/Oudaimah (2001 – 2002): P. Thillet and S. Oudaimah, “Proclus Arabe. Un nouveau Liber de Causis?”, in: Bulletins d’Études Orientales LIII-LIV, Damascus: IFEAD, 293 – 367. Thom (1995): J. C. Thom (ed./trans.), The Pythagorean “Golden Verses” With Introduction and Commentary, Leiden: E. J. Brill. Thurn (1973): J. Thurn, Ioannis Scylitzae synopsis historiarum, Berlin: de Gruyter. Todd (2005): R. B. Todd, “‘His Own Side–Show’: E.R. Dodds and Neoplatonic Studies in Britain, 1835 – 1940”, in: Dionysius 23, 139 – 160. Toussaint (2010): S. Toussaint, “Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463 – 1494): The Synthetic Reconciliations of All Philosophies”, in: P. R. Blum (ed.), Philosophers of the Renaissance, Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 69 – 81. Trabattoni (1985): F. Trabattoni, “Per una biografia di Damascio”, in: Rivista di storia della filosofia 40, 179 – 201. Trizio (2014): M. Trizio, “Eleventh to Twelfth-Century Byzantium”, in Gersh: (2014b), 182 – 215. Trouillard (1953): J. Trouillard, “La méthode de Plotin”, Actes du Xième Congrès International de Philosophie, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 128 – 132. — (1972): L’Un et l’âme selon Proclos, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. — (1977): “Les degrés du ποιεῖν chez Proclus”, Dionysius 1, 69 – 84. — (1982): La Mystagogie de Proclus, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Turner (2005): D. Turner, “How to Read the pseudo-Denys Today?”, in: International Journal of Systematic Theology 7, 428 – 440. Ullmann (1959): M. Ullmann, Griechische Spruchdichtung in Arabischen, Unpublished Dissertation, Tübingen. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 Bibliography 447 Van Campe (2009): L. Van Campe, “Syrianus and Proclus on the Attributes of the One in Plato’s Parmenides”, in: A. Longo (ed.) (2009), 247 – 280. Van den Bergh (1954): S. Van den Bergh (trans.), Averroes’ Tahafut al-Tahafut (The IncoherenceOf the Incoherence), 2 vols, London: The Trustees of the ‘E. J. W. Gibb Memorial’. Van den Berg (2000): R. M. Van den Berg, “Towards the Paternal Harbour”, in: A.-Ph. Segonds and C. Steel (eds.) (2000), 434 – 436. — (2001): Proclus’ Hymns: Essays, Translations, Commentary, Leiden: Brill. Van der Burg (2007): F. Van der Burg, Davidson and Spinoza. Mind, Matter and Reality. Aldershot / Burlington VT : Ashgate. Vanneste (1959): J. Vanneste, Le mystère de Dieu. Essai sur la structure rationelle de la doctrine mystique de Pseudo-Denys l’Aréopagite, Paris: Desclée de Brouwer. Van Riel (2001): G. Van Riel, “Horizontalism or Verticalism? Proclus vs. Plotinus on the Procession of Matter”, in: Phronesis 46, 129 – 153. — (2001a): “Les hénades de Proclus sont-elles composées de limite et d’illimité?”, in: Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 85.3, 417 – 432. — (2010): “Damascius”, in: L. P. Gerson (ed.), The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 667 – 696. Vasilakis (2014): D. A. Vasilakis, (2014) Neoplatonic Love: the Metaphysics of Eros in Plotinus, Proclus and the pseudo-Dionysius, PhD Thesis submitted in London, King’s College. Vernet (19862): J. Vernet, “Abū al-Farağ ibn al-Ṭayyib”, in: B. Lewis, V. L. Ménage, Ch. Pellat and J. Schacht (eds.), The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, 12 vols., Leiden: Brill, III, 955. Vila-Chã (2006/1999): J. J. Vila-Chã, Amor intellectualis? Leone Ebreo (Judah Abravanel) and the Intelligibility of Love, Braga: Publicaçóes de Faculdade de Filosofia de Braga. Vlastos (1973): G. Vlastos, “The Individual as an Object of Love in Plato”, in: Platonic Studies, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 3 – 34. Voemel (1825): J. Th. Voemel (ed.), Nicolai Methonensis Refutatio institutionis theologicae Procli Platonici, in Initia Philosophiae ac Theologiae ex platonicis fontibus ducta: Pars Quarta, Frankfurt: Broenneriana. von Stuckrad (2007): K. von Stuckrad, “Christian Kabbalah and Anti-Jewish Polemics: Pico in Context”, in: O. Hammerand K. von Stuckrad (ed.), Polemical Encounters: Esoteric Discourse and Its Others, Leiden: Brill, 3 – 23. Wachter (2010): J. Wachter, Der Spinozismus im Jüdenthumb, oder die von dem heutigen Jüdenthumb und dessen Geheimen Kabbala Vergötterte Welt, Whitefish, MO: Kessinger Publishing. Wakelnig (2012): E. Wakelnig, “The Other Arabic Version of Proclus’ De Aeternitate mundi. The Surviving First Eight Arguments”, in: Oriens 40, 51 – 95. — (2013): “Al-Anṭākī’s Use of the Lost Arabic Version of Philoponus’ Contra Proclum”, in: Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 23, 291 – 317. Wallis et al. (1998): C. G. Wallis, P. Miller and D. Carmichael (trans.), Pico della Mirandola, On the Dignity of Man, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. Walzer (1962): R. Walzer, Greek into Arabic: Essays on Islamic Philosophy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. — (1986): “Buruḳlus”, in: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth and E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Leiden: Brill, 1339 – 1340. Watts (2004): E. J. Watts, “Justinian, Malalas, and the End of Athenian Philosophical Teaching in A.D. 529”, in: Journal of Roman Studies 94, 168 – 182. — (2006): City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria, Berkeley: University of California Press. Wear (2011): S. K. Wear, The Teachings of Syrianus on Plato’s Timaeus and Parmenides, Leiden: Brill. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 448 Bibliography — (2014): “Syrianus the Platonist on Aristotle’s Categories 8a13-b24: The Ontological Place of Skhesis in Later Platonic Metaphysics”, in: Quaestiones Disputatae 4.2, 58 – 72. Wear/Dillon (2007): S. K. Wear and J. Dillon, Dionysius the Areopagite and the Neoplatonist Tradition: Despoiling the Hellenes, Aldershot: Ashgate. Westerink (1987): L. G. Westerink, “Proclus commentateur des Vers d’or?”, in: Boss/Seel (eds.) (1987), 61 – 78. Westerink/O’Neill (2011): L. G. Westerink (ed.) and W. O’Neill (trans.), Proclus’ Commentary on the First Alcibiades, Westbury: The Prometheus Trust. Westerink et al. (1989): L. G. Westerink, T. A. Gadra, S. M. Honea, P. M. Stinger and G. Umholtz (eds./trans.), George Pachymeres, Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides [Anonymous Sequel to Proclus’ Commentary], Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi: Philosophi Byzantini, vol. 4, Athens: Academy of Athens/Paris: J. Vrin/Brussels: Ousia. Westerink et al. (1990): L. G. Westerink, J. Trouillard and A. Ph. Segonds (ed./trans.), Prolégomènes à la philosophie de Platon, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Weil (1956): S. Weil, The Iliad or Poem of Force, Wallingford: Pendle Hill. West (1999): M. L. West, “Towards Monotheism”, in: P. Athanassiadi and M. Frede (eds.), Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 21 – 40. Whittaker (1901/1918/1928/1987), T. Whittaker, The Neo-Platonists: A Study in the History of Hellenism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press/Hildesheim: Georg Olms. Wilberding (2006): J. Wilberding (trans.), Philoponus Against Proclus On the Eternity of the World 12 – 18 (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle), London: Duckworth. Wildberg (1987): C. Wildberg, “Prolegomena to the Study of Philoponus’ Contra Aristotelem”, in R. Sorabji (ed.), Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science, London: Duckworth, 197 – 209. Williams (1999): B. Williams, “The analogy of city and soul in Plato’s Republic”, in: G. Fine (ed.), Plato, vol.2: Ethics, Politics, Religion, and the Soul, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 255 – 264. Winkler (1999): N. Winkler, “Dietrich von Freiberg und Meister Eckhart in der Kontroverse mit Thomas von Aquin. Intellektnatur und Gnade in der Schrift Von der wirkenden und der vermögenden Vernunft, die Eckhart von Gründig zugeschrieben wird”, in: K. H. Kandler, B. Mojsisch and F. B. Stammkötter (eds.), Dietrich von Freiberg: neue Perspektiven seiner Philosophie, Theologie, und Naturwissenschaft: Freiberger Symposion, 10 – 13 März 1997, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Grüner, 189 – 266. Wippel (1984): J. Wippel, Metaphysical Themes in Thomas Aquinas, Washington: Catholic University of America Press. Wissink (1990): J. Wissink (ed.), The Eternity of the World in the Thought of Thomas Aquinas and His Contemporaries, Leiden, Brill. Wirszubski (1989): C. Wirszubski, Pico della Mirandola’s Encounter with Jewish Mysticism, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wisnovsky (2005): R. Wisnovsky, “Avicenna and the Avicennian Tradition”, in: P. Adamson and R.C. Taylor (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 92 – 136. Wolfson (1934/1962): H.A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of Spinoza. Tracing the Latent Processes of His Reasoning, Vols. I, II, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Yaqub (2012): A. Yaqub, “Al-Ghazālī’s Ethical Egoism and Divine Will”, in: Y. Tz. Langermann (ed.), Monotheism & Ethics: Historical and Contemporary Intersections among Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Leiden: Brill. Yates (1964): F. Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, Chicago: Chicago University Press. Yosha (1994): N. Yosha, Mitos u met’ aforah: ha-paršanut ha-filosofi šel R. Abraham Cohen Herrera le qabbalat ha-’Ari. Jerusalem: Y. L. Magnes-Hebrew University. Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 Bibliography 449 — (2001): “The Impact of Renaissance Writings on 17th Century Kabbalist Herrera”, Accademia 3, 113 – 129. — (2002) Abraham Cohen de Herrera. House of Divinity (Casa de la Divinidad), Gate of Heaven (Puerta del Cielo), annotated translation from Spanish into Hebrew with introduction, Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute. Yasher (1631): Joseph Solomon Delmedigo, Novelot Ḥokhmah, Basel. Youpa (2007): A. Youpa, “Spinoza’s Theory of Motivation”, in: Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88, 375 – 390. — (2010): “Spinoza’s Model of Human Nature”, in: Journal of the History of Philosophy 48.1, 61 – 76. Zintzen (1967): C. Zintzen (ed.), Damascii Vitae Isidori Reliquiae, Hildesheim: Olms. Zimmerman (1994): F. W. Zimmerman, “Proclus Arabus Rides Again”, in: Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 4, 9 – 51. Zovko (2008): M. E. Zovko, “The Way Up and the Way Back is the Same. The Ascent of Cognition in Plato’s Analogies of the Sun, the Line and the Cave and the Path Intelligence Takes”, in: J. Dillon and M. E. Zovko (eds.), Platonism and Forms of Intelligence, Berlin: Akademie Verlag. — (2012): “Naturalism and Intellectualism in Plato and Spinoza”, in: A. Arndt and J. Zovko (eds.), Freiheit und Determinismus. Hanover: Wehrhahn. — (2014): “Impassioned by Passion: Knowledge and Love in Plato and Spinoza”, in: Dionysius 32, 140 – 171. Zovko/Zovko (2012): M. E. Zovko and J. Zovko, “The Metaphysical Character of Philosophy”, in: Metaphysics, Rijeka: InTech (http://www.intechopen.com/books/metaphysics/metaphysicalcharacter-of-philosophy). Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46 Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.17 09:46