The Adaptation and Development of the Proclean Notion of Κατάβασις: From Proclus to Maximus the Confessor

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is well done!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I am grateful for engaging with my material and for the warm encouragement. I have now addressed all of the comments by making the relevant corrections and incorporating the suggested bibliography in my revision. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review-comments on the paper
“The Adaptation and Development of the Proclean notion of Κατάβασις: From Proclus to Maximus the Confessor”
(submitted in Religions)

The paper under review has a very interesting subject, the topic of descent (κατάβασις) in three seminal authors of pagan Neoplatonism and Christianity, Proclus, Dionysius and Maximus the Confessor. The interrelations between these authors are complicate, and so the present paper positively contributes in this narrative. Basis of the argument is the importance of Christ, incarnation and materiality/corporeality as corner-stones in order to make comparisons between the three thinkers. It happens that quite recently Religions published another paper of a similar topic that could be taken also into account: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/9/726 . As was said, the paper contains many interesting observations, but I believe it can be improved. I suggest acceptance after minor revisions. Here are some comments that can be taken into consideration:

p.1

• “Alcibiades I” (in the Abstract) should be italicized.
• “Thus my article … Confessor” (in the Introduction) is not clear; it needs to be rewritten . There are also other minor issues with English that will be noted in the following comments.
• “Opera Platonis”: it is as if Plato wrote a work with this title. I would not italicize, and actually would opt for a different name (e.g. Platonic dialogues)
• 3: it would be good to add lineation in the references to Proclus’ Alcibiades Comm. on the basis of Westerink’s text (available in TLG).
• 3: “Proclus stressed more the dominant role of the κατάβασις of gods for human perfection than human ἀνάβασις.” Add “that of the” before “human”.
  • Moreover, here we have a very important issue, but in order for the author to show that the divine κατάβασις is more crucial than human ascent, (s)he would need to explicate the matter a bit more. Further, what does Proclean descent entail and imply? Is there not a contradiction with n.11 (in p.3)? Once again, in p.4 it is said: “Proclus argued  that  participation  in  the  perfection  was  given  to  Alcibiades through an asymmetrical union between the κατάβασις of Socrates and the ἀνάβασις of Alcibiades in the course of their exchange of arguments: Although Proclus accentuated the reciprocal relation between the two dialogicians, he put more emphasis on the dominant role of Socrates for human perfection.” Can the author explain, perhaps cite also a Proclean passage, in order to understand why Socrates (the agent) has this superiority? What does “asymmetrical union” (cf. also p.11) mean? Usually, in Neoplatonism we speak of asymmetry in the case of lower entities that are dependent upon higher ones, while the higher entities do not depend on their inferiors. N.32 (p.6) is relevant to this question and should be placed in the main text, accompanied with the clarifications needed.
  • When the author speaks of the κατάβασις of the gods in Proclus (cf. also p.5), to which divinities of the Proclean universe does he refer to? Vasilakis 2021 (Eros in Neoplatonism…), to which the author refers once, has things to say on this general topic. See e.g. chs 2.1.4. and 2.1.5. The same scholar has also authored the following article: Vasilakis, D.A. (2019), ‘Neoplatonic Providence and Descent: A Test-Case from Proclus’ Alcibiades Commentary’, The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition, 13 (2): 153–71.

p.2

• As the author presents the issue, it is not clear whether Alcibiades was converted by Socrates or not.
• with respect to the “Platonic anthropology that defined humans  as  intellectual  souls  tragically  embodied  in  the  ” Yes, this comes from the Phaedrus, and has affinities with Origen’s doctrine, but the Republic does not have such a view of tripartition.
• 9: add a “the” before “Phaedo”.

p.3

• regarding the translation of Proclus’ «ἀφανιζούσης»: I wonder about the author’s “makes… unseen”. Does the author imply that although unseen, it still exists? This is not what Proclus states. Dodds has “annuls”; another alternative could be “destroy”. In general, the translations the author uses need check; see other instances below.

p.4

• “dialogicians”?? Participants in the dialogue/discussion could be an alternative
• 25: the Proclean text referred to in the note is in the focus of the abovementioned article of Vasilakis (2019) in the Int. Journal of the Plat. Trad.

p.5

• Delete the dash in “Socrates-himself”
• the number for n.29 in the main text should not be italicized.
• “Still, therefore”: something needs to be deleted here

p.6

• “Christrianized”: as verb, the participle does not need capital “c”. It reappears many times; check also with the editor of the journal.
• the notion of “economy” needs to be explained. (Usually, it is connected with the incarnation).
• 34: I don’t understand why the author has not used/referred to the standard critical edition of Dionysius by Suchla and Heil-Ritter. NB the there is also another critical edition (with English translation) of the Divine Names by Lilla and Moreschini.
• in the translation of the Dionysian passage (first line) the second “the” should be replaced by “every”.
• “outside of His transcendence” ? What does the author mean? Rewrite/spell out. (+here “His” has capital ‘h’, but I think there is no consistency regarding this orthography throughout the article).
• “Following Proclus, Dionysius believed human perfection is dependent upon the enlightenment of the human mind, which enables humans to free themselves from corporeality and invites them to the eternal contemplation of God. Therefore, Dionysius interpreted God’s κατάβασις as an intellectual revelation…” I disagree with both points. See also Vasilakis, D.A. (2017), ‘Dionysius versus Proclus on Undefiled Providence and Its Byzantine Echoes in Nicholas of Methone’, Studia Patristica, XCVI (22): 407–18, as well as Perl, E.J.D. (1994), “Symbol, Sacrament, and Hierarchy in Saint Dionysios the Areopagite,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 39 (3-4): 311-356. If things are as the author (along with other interpreters) assume(s), then why does Dionysius confess to the resurrection of bodies? Cf. DN 6.2,192,1-5 (Suchla)/856D (PG). I understand that there exists the intellectualistic interpretation of Dionysius (cf. also p.9 with respect to “knowledge of God”) which juxtaposes him from Maximus, as also the author does in the following pages (cf. e.g. mention of Maximus’ “holistic anthropology” in pp.9-11 passim.). However, on the basis of the literature mentioned above, I think it would be good, at least, to record that there other possible interpretations of Dionysius, according to which Maximus does not correct or reorientate Dionysius, but develops Dionysius’ insights. See also Vasilakis, D.A. (2019), ‘On the Meaning of Hierarchy in Dionysius the Areopagite’, in P.G. Pavlos, L.F. Janby, E.K. Emilsson and T.T. Tollefsen (eds), Platonism and Christian Thought in Late Antiquity, 181–200, London and New York: Routledge, pp.186-187, as well as the literature in Vasilakis, D.A. (2016), ‘Maximus as a Philosophical Interpreter of Dionysius: The Case of Christ as Manic Lover’, Θεολογία, 87 (2): 103–12. For instance, the liturgical dimension, mentioned by the author in p.8 (esp. n.46) is crucial toward such a direction (pace the conclusion in p.12).

p.7

• “not allowing the lovers to be in love with themselves but with the beloved.”: I don’t think Dionysius’ Greek can be read in this way. ἑαυτῶν means that the lovers do not belong to themselves, but rather to the beloved. The same also occurs in p.9.
• “According to Dionysius, this ecstatic love is clearly revealed in the Incarnation of Christ,”: I agree, but I think the reader needs to do some work in order to reach this conclusion (see also Vasilakis 2017). Ecstasy in §4 of DN is not explicitly connected with Christ’s “philanthropy” (e.g. in §2).
• “It is because, as it was in Christ,”? Rewrite/explain
• I don’t think hierarchy in Proclus and Dionysius works in exactly the same way. There are two dimensions: the ontological and the epistemological; I believe that in Dionysius prevails the epistemological side without the ontological ramifications of Proclus’ system. See also in the paper of Perl I mentioned before. Once again I note: the author might not be persuaded, but it is good to report alternative interpretation in such crucial matters.
• Regarding the first instance of “angels”: they are meant not in the strict sense to follow in the text (Dionysius’ terminology); watch out for confusions (also in p.8).

p.8

• “in the Dionysian tenet”: the word tenet is frequently used in the article (e.g. also in n.45), but I don’t think it is appropriate in all the contexts. Check it out. Perhaps as alternative the author could use “doctrine” or “theory”?
• 45: “Unorderly”?: replace with “disorderly” or “unordered”
  • “unstable Origen’s cosmology” should be “Origen’s unstable cosmology”
• an alternative of “liturgies” in the main text would be “sacraments”.

p.9

• “following God”? rewrite
• “directly”: why italicized?

p.10

• “expound on”: not very appropriate; perhaps “write on”?
• “60which”: need of a gap between
• “gnomic pleasure”: need for explanation
• “as the expectant form of human consummation in its entirety”: not so clear; rephrase. + The word “consummation” is frequently used henceforth; perhaps also an alternative could be found, like “fulfilment” and/or a short explanation is needed.
• “Thus, He (Christ) glorified the humanity He assumed as He was seen while under going transformation on His passible body on the mountain. Likewise, we will be in the resurrection when we receive an incorruptible body.63”: Please check the translation. Here is a proposal: “For in this way He glorified the humanity he had assumed; because as He was seen transfigured on the mountain, while being in a passible body, so we will be in the resurrection receiving an incorruptible body”.
• “He endeavored to eliminate any notion of the requirement of the human persistence from human perfection”: unclear-rephrase.
• “he intended to rule out any possibility that humans affect the efficacy of the κατάβασις.” I wonder whether this is accurate, esp. with view to what is stated in the main text in the next page (p.11). Perhaps it should not be put in absolute terms?

p.11

• 64: “endless repetition of satiety of beings and their fall”: it should be better: “an endless repetition of the beings’ satiety and their Fall”.
• (main text:) “of human movement upward”: should be better : “of the upward human movement”
• “the divine movement downward”: should be better: “the downward divine movement”
• “bestows his fulfillment to the human body”: watch out again whether “his” for Christ should have capital “H”, but in any case I wonder whether Christ bestows His own fulfilment (or rather enables the fulfilment of the receiver)+ it should be: “bestows… on the human body…”
• “more rigid framework”: rigid is usually a negative ascription; better to find an alternative; perhaps “austere”?
• instead of “centring” write “focusing”
• “κατἀβασις” should be “κατάβασις”
• “mainly through philosophical dialogue”: insert a “the” before “philosophical”
• “contemplation on”: better “contemplation of”

p.12

• “Under Proclean influence, Dionysius”: see my disagreement and comments above
• “like Proclean inspired lover”: insert “the” after “like”
• “followed Dionysian definition on the κατάβασις of God by literally using Dionysian dictum in his corpus”: rewrite a bit; insert “the” before “Dionysian” + does the author mean “definition” or “description”? + “on the κατάβασις of God” should be “of God’s κατάβασις” + why do we need “literally? + why again “dictum” (without italics)? An alternative could be “language”
• In the Bibliography section (till end of paper):
  • The year of Vasilakis, Eros in Neoplatonism… is 2021 (not 2020). Change also in notes.
  • Harvard University Press: whenever it appears should have upper case U.
  • In Vasilakis “Proclus on the First Alcibiades:…” (2019) the “First Alcibiades” should be italicized.
  • In Constas 2018: insert colon ( : ) between Scripture and The Responses.

Please, bear in mind that the above comments have been proposed with a view to improve an already interesting paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I am grateful for engaging with my material and especially for the detailed comments. I have now addressed all of the comments by making the relevant corrections and incorporating the suggested bibliography in my revision.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

A very original and well-written paper!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I am grateful for engaging with my material and for the warm encouragement. I have now addressed all of the comments by making the relevant corrections and incorporating the suggested bibliography in my revision. Thank you very much.