In the past it has been tempting for scholars to present (pseudo-) Dionysius
the Areopagite more or less as a Christian plagiarizer of Proclus. Recent
literature has defied this uncharitable verdict and the present paper aims to
give further support to a reading of Dionysius that shows his innovations
against the Neoplatonic background due to his Christian presuppositions. More
specifically I attempt a comparison between Dionysius and Proclus, and the topic
in question is the juxtaposition between undefiled providence and incarnation. I
illustrate undefiled providence from Proclus’ Elements of Theology,
according to which the divine principles exercise providence without any
intermingling with or embodiment in the recipient of providence. As is evident
from Proclus’ Commentary on the First Alcibiades the best exemplification
of undefiled providence in our intramundane realm is Socrates, who thereby forms
the counterpoint to Dionysius’ Christ, who is incarnated due to his manic
philanthropy. Although, as acknowledged by Dionysius, Christ is perfect God and
perfect man (cf. e.g. DN §2.10), while Socrates is not a God, but lower
in the scala of being, Dionysius’ enunciations of God’s undefiled providence may
lead one to underestimate the importance of Christ’s incarnation for Dionysius,
a conclusion that make the latter an imitator of Proclus. In this paper I show
how an attentive reader can opt for an alternative interpretation that helps us
understand the subtle but crucial distinction between undefiled providence and
incarnation within a Christian framework and can thus feature Dionysius’ dynamic
and critical relation with his Neoplatonic milieu.
No comments:
Post a Comment