The Perception of God through Light in Plato and Dionysius the Areopagite
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a very well-written article. The Introductory paragraphs are very clear; the objectives are sufficiently outlined and the reader can easily navigate. Also, complicated terms (upward movement, downward movement) referring to Dionysius's thoughts are very well explained. Moreover, the author(s) present and outline key concepts of Dionysus's philosophy (the meaning of darkness and light, for example) in a very clear way. The comparative aspects between Dionysus and Plato are very well addressed and explained. The whole analysis is sound.
Some notes for further improvement: a) the author(s) quote(s) Dionysus and Plato. However, most of these quotations are in ancient Greek. It would certainly help non-Greek speakers to add the English version of the text (without omitting the Greek of course); b) the author(s) could add subtitles by breaking the text into different parts. In the Introduction, we see the author(s) explaining what each section will be. However, we do not see different sections but the entire text united as one.
The improvements are suggest are of minor significance (although I consider them important). However, I do not need to read the text again, since I am only requesting amendments that could be implemented within a few minutes, and do not require further review or proofreading. I entirely trust the judgment of the author(s). Thus, I am accepting the text in its present form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. I have added the Greek quotations, I have added some clarifications that are in yellow, I gave titles in the different sections.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article seeks to compare and contrast Plato’s and Ps-Dionysius’ views on the soul’s ability to see God. The article focuses on two notions: the light metaphor and the unification with God. It is pointed out that Plato and Ps-Dionysius agree in using the metaphor of light to characterize God and in identifying God with the Good. In general, the author attempts to connect key Platonic concepts, such the Good, love, and virtue, and to discuss Ps-Dionysius’ philosophical system by touching cursorily on epistemology (cataphatic/apophatic knowledge), psychology (the soul’s movement), ethics (virtue). The author’s aim is ambitious but largely fails due to the lack of serious engagement with the sources. As a result, no new insights are presented.
On the whole, the article reads like an essay that randomly highlights aspects of Platonic philosophy without engaging critically and comprehensively either with the sources or with secondary literature. With regard to the primary sources, the author quotes a few Platonic and Ps-Dionysian text passages but refrains from discussing them in depth. It should be noted that the Greek citations contain numerous typos, esp. in the diacritical marks (e.g., l.93: ὃ ειδεν; l.214: Ειτα πῶς; l.350: τι ταῶν ὄντων). Occasionally, references are made to other philosophers, Eriugena (p.6) and Aquinas (p.7), but the relevance of those references is not explained and remains unclear. Furthermore, the author makes a number of generalizing statements without substantiating them. Three examples should suffice. 1) It is pointed out that Ps-Dionysius identified God with the Good, but no reference is given (p.4). Moreover, this identification is a commonplace among Platonists, and it is not clear why it is any more relevant to Ps-Dionysius than to other (Neo-)Platonists. 2) The author asserts that the Good is an efficient (rather than a final) cause (l.289). No explanation is given, so that it remains unclear why this is relevant for the discussion. 3) The article closes with the statement that Ps-Dionysius “managed to combine Neoplatonic elements with the Christian orthodox tradition” (ll.361f). This statement repeats a scholarly commonplace without any comment by the author; it hangs in the air, as the Christian tradition is not talked about anywhere in the essay.
With regard to secondary scholarship, the author makes sure to cite the editors of the special volume (Georgios Steiris, Dimitrios Vasilakis) but refrains from discussing them critically. The few intermittent references to scholarship are not carefully chosen, as they have little bearing on the author’s discussion. The literature of Plato and Ps-Dionysius is immense, and it is not clear why the author avoids to engage with it. If this neglect is a deliberate approach, then this should have been made explicit and justified.
In sum, the article is an ambitious attempt to produce a comparative study on Plato and Ps-Dionysius. Many such studies already exist, and the present article does not seem to contribute anything new. It is advisable that the author engages more critically with the sources and with the secondary literature on Ps-Dionysius’ Platonism.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author makes a useful contribution in comparing Plato's use of light imagery in relation to the First Principle with that of Dionysius, though I am not sure that it told me much that I did not already know. His exposition of Dionysius's use of 'darkness' is useful, but he might also have mentioned the remarkable formulation 'hyperphotos gnophos' at the beginning of the Mystical Theology! It also seems a little odd to omit the use of light-imagery in the whole later Platonist tradition, beginning with Plotinus (e.g. the later chapters of Ennead VI 7 such as 22 or 35), since Dionysius is more immediately influenced by them, I should say. However, the author's chosen topic is a perfectly valid one.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The English is perfectly comprehensible, but idiomatically it leaves something to be desired -- from the first line on: 'capable of seeing...', not ''to see'. It could do with reading over by a friendly English speaker. I have just corrected a few details of the Greek.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author added section headings, translations to the quoted Greek passages, and a few new paragraphs in the attempt to address our previous criticism. The section headings and the addition on the identification of God with the Good (pp.4-6) are valuable additions, but they do not remedy the general shortcomings of the essay. Most of our previous criticism remains unaddressed. The essay still lacks a serious engagement with the sources, which is needed to shed new light on resemblances (and divergences) between Plato and Ps-Dionysius. For instance, the generalizing statements regarding the identification of God with an efficient (rather than a final) cause (p.10) has been supplementary with a few new sentences, which are largely impressionistic; they lack argumentative depth as well as references to primary sources. With regard to the long addition on ll.215-233, it should be noted that the name of God as ὁ ὤν was largely justified (in the Christian context) by Exod. 3:14. I mention this because the author appears interested in the Christian context of Ps-Dionysios, as suggested by the final sentences of the essay. Moreover, the author fails to specify the provenance of newly added translations. It seems that they have been lifted from online accessible sources (e.g., ll.68-75 - cf. https://home.csulb.edu/~cwallis/382/readings/ascent.html; ll.142-150 - cf. http://www.ldysinger.com/@texts/0500_dion_aer/05_letters.htm); it is improper to use someone else’s translation without acknowledgement. Also, the Greek quotations still contain numerous mistakes in the diacritical marks, and the Latin transliterations of Greek terms are inconsistent (e.g., l.231: “tas holas” - l.244: “yperphotos gnofos”, l.433: “oran”). Finally, the bibliographical item “Re-thinking Dionysius the Areopagite” is listed twice (ll.533f, 566f).
Author Response
Please see the attachment. I have noticed with blue all the new elements. The Greek quotations are drawn from the books. I wrote the diacritical marks as I have seen them.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
