Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy

Living Edition
| Editors: Marco Sgarbi

Proclus in the Renaissance

  • Guy ClaessensEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02848-4_412-1

Abstract

From the beginning of the fifteenth century onwards, Greek manuscripts of the works of the fifth-century Neoplatonist Proclus start to circulate among humanists such as Cusanus, Bessarion, Ficino, and Pico, although some of the medieval Latin translations by William of Moerbeke continue to play an important role as well. Proclus’ metaphysical interpretation of Plato’s Parmenides, and especially its theory of the One, i.e., the first principle of reality, had a major impact on the thought of Cusanus, Ficino, and Patrizi. Cusanus follows Proclus’ sharp distinction between the first One – which transcends being – and the second One – which is – and he uses Proclus’ qualification of the One as “not other” (non aliud) as a name to express both God’s transcendence and immanence. Ficino makes extensive use of Proclus’ commentaries in his own exegesis of Plato’s Parmenides and Timaeus. Like Cusanus, he appears to adopt Proclus’ distinction between the first two principles, although he mainly uses Proclus as a doxographical source. Patrizi provides us with one of the most comprehensive receptions of Proclean metaphysics in the Renaissance. His discussion of the first principle, where he distinguishes between the absolute One and the essential One, is clearly based on the Neoplatonic interpretation of the first hypothesis of the Parmenides. In the sixteenth century, the rediscovery of Proclus’ commentary on Euclid’s Elements sparked off an intense debate on the certainty of mathematics, whereas its central claim, namely, that mathematical concepts are innate, was adopted by Kepler at the beginning of the seventeenth century.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adamson, Peter, and Filip Karfík. 2017. Proclus’ legacy. In All from one. A guide to Proclus, ed. Pieter d’Hoine and Marije Martijn, 290–321. Oxford: Oxford University Press [This text was written before the publication of this chapter by Adamson and Karfík, which also pays attention to the Renaissance reception of Proclus’ thought.].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, Michael J. 1982. Ficino’s theory of the five substances and the Neo-Platonists’ Parmenides. The Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 12: 19–44.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, Michael J. 2014. Marsilio Ficino. In Interpreting Proclus. From antiquity to the Renaissance, ed. Stephen Gersh, 353–379. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beierwaltes, Walter. 1987. Das seiende Eine. Zur neuplatonischen Interpretation der zweiten Hypothesis des platonischen Parmenides: das Beispiel Cusanus. In Proclus et son influence. Actes du colloque de Neuchâtel juin 1985, ed. Gilbert Boss and Carlos Steel, 287–297. Zürich: Éditions du Grand Midi.Google Scholar
  5. Claessens, Guy. 2011. Imagination as self-knowledge: Kepler on Proclus’ Commentary on the first book of Euclid’s elements. Early Science and Medicine 16: 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Pace, Anna. 1993. Le matematiche e il mondo. Ricerche su un dibattito in Italia nella seconda metà del Cinquecento. Milan: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
  7. Gersh, Stephen. 2014a. One thousand years of Proclus. An introduction to his reception. In Interpreting Proclus. From antiquity to the Renaissance, ed. Stephen Gersh, 1–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gersh, Stephen. 2014b. Nicholas of Cusa. In Interpreting Proclus. From antiquity to the Renaissance, ed. Stephen Gersh, 318–349. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Helbing, Mario Otto. 2000. La fortune des commentaires de Proclus sur le premier livre des Eléments d’Euclide à l’époque Galilée. In La philosophie des mathématiques de l’Antiquité tardive. Actes du colloque international Fribourg, Suisse, 24–26 septembre 1998, ed. Gerald Bechtle and Dominic J. O’Meara, 173–193. Fribourg: Éditions universitaires.Google Scholar
  10. Kristeller, Paul Oskar. 1987. Proclus as a reader of Plato and Plotinus, and his influence in the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance. In Proclus. Lecteur et interprète des anciens. Actes du colloque international du C.N.R.S., Paris 2–4 octobre 1985, ed. Jean Pépin and Henri Dominique Saffrey, 191–211. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
  11. Leinkauf, Thomas. 2014. Francesco Patrizi. In Interpreting Proclus. From antiquity to the Renaissance, ed. Stephen Gersh, 380–402. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Megna, Paola. 2003. Marsilio Ficino e il commento al Timeo di Proclo. Studi medievali e umanistici 1: 93–135.Google Scholar
  13. Rabouin, David. 2010. Le rôle de Proclus dans les débats sur la ‘mathématique universelle’ à la Renaissance. In Études sur le Commentaire de Proclus au premier livre des Éléments d’Euclide, ed. Alain Lernould, 217–234. Lille: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar
  14. Santinello, Giovanni. 1993. Il neoplatonismo di Nicolò Cusano. In Il Neoplatonismo nel Rinascimento, ed. Pietro Prini, 103–115. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Philosophy (HIW)KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Section editors and affiliations

  • Anna Laura Puliafito
    • 1
  1. 1.Universität BaselBaselSwitzerland