Желающие подискутировать могут почитать довольно свежую статью, в которой разбирается не столь давняя попытка Мазукки атрибутировать Корпус Дамаскию. эта попытка (а заодно взгляды Иштвана Перцеля) опровергаются, но базовая интуиция Маззукки о том, что автор Корпуса -- замаскированный язычник, -- доказывается иным способом.
мою статью про ДА автор прочитал уже только после издания этой своей статьи :-) с моей критикой Перцеля он согласен, а со всем остальным -- видимо, нет... но мы с ним еще побеседуем.
Every scholarly work in our field consists from facts and interpretations. As to the facts (parallels between DA and Proclus etc.), I consider your paper very interesting (and, moreover, your criticisms of Mazzucchi as filling some gape in the current scholarship). Of course, I disagree with your interpretation of your own observations.
The main problem is methodological one (I think).
When we deal with philosophy and theology (and I should add, philology/stylistics, too), we still are in the world of pure ideas, whereas our authors are (were) on the earth. One-to-one relation between these ideas and specific spots on the earth (not to say, specific persons) are impossible to establish--not because of difficulty but because of the non-existence of such on-to-one relations.
In fact, there is no possibility to exclude in a *logical* way that it is X that influenced Y and not vice versa or that the phrase ABC is used here in the meaning J and not H. Thus, in such ways (of classical studies in the history of theology/philosophy/philology) the "authentic" (author's own) sense of his work is inaccessible without some additional data.
I don't know your background, and so, I clarify my thought with two different examples:
1. in archaeology, it is very difficult to date an artefact if it is found not in situ (without knowing its layer in the stratigraphy of the excavation);
2. in analytical philosophy, it is proven (especially by Hilary Putnam) that the reference must be causal, that is--let us use an ecclesiastical term--depending on the tradition.
In the case of DA, we know a priori neither his "strategraphy" nor "tradition". His text is only a number of phrases whose meaning can (and, in fact, was) read in different, even mutually excluding but still consistent manners.
You write that DA replaced Proclean "gods" by Christian personalities, divine or holy. Ok, but this fact proves nothing: in the same manner, Jewish apocalyptic authors replaced the gods of Babylonian cosmological treatises in 1Enoch (and in other similar literature) by angels, without becoming pagan at all.
In the similar situation with "Byzantine Aristotle" we say that the genuine Aristotle is absolutely useless to us because we deal with the Aristotle of Porphyrius etc. In the same manner, we are not interested in the "genuine DA" when we read some later Byzantine authors (instead, we must be interested in "DA of Maximus the Confessor", "DA of John of Scythopolis" etc.). But if we need to access the "genuine DA" we have to find out some equivalence of archaelogical stratigraphy or Putnam's causality.
Indeed, it is difficult because DA does not mention historical facts relevant to his date. Therefore, all the usual tools of historians are powerless.
Only Nutsubidze-Honigmann-van Esbroeck's approach pays due attention to the problem and provided an adequate methodology. This is the method of critical hagiography.
Indeed, although the Corpus is not a piece of hagiography, it nevertheless contains an important hagiographical legend (Dormition scene: such a content immediately puts the whole Corpus in the very midst of the Church quarrels of the 5th and the early 6th cent.). But all the hagiographic legends bear the hallmark of their creators. So, to attribute the Corpus, we need to decipher its hagiographic contents. All the other approaches (theological, philosophical, philological) are necessary, too, but all of them must be applied in the second turn; they are tools of a coarse tuning of the apparatus of critical hagiography.