La notion de « triàs » chez Proclus et Pseudo-Denys l'Aréopagite : une comparaison

This paper aims to examine the notion of τριάς in Proclus and in the Corpus Areopagiticum. as is well known, in Proclus’ metaphysical‐theological system the concept of «triad» plays a central role. In his philosophical perspective, triadic structures pervade the totality of reality in all its different levels and articulations, based on the fundamental triad consisting of remaining-pro- cession-reversion. at the same time, the First Principle, also conceived as One‐good and First god, due to its original simplicity, transcends all triadic structures, while simultaneously constituting their original foundation. On its turn, Pseudo‐Dionysius’ theological thought shows several points of contact with Proclus’ metaphysical‐theological perspective, including the overall conception of the universe as ordered in triadic structures. However, while in Proclus the term τριάς can only refer to the triadic metaphysical structures permeating the totality of reality, in Pseudo‐Dionysius it most often designates the Trinity, that is, the three hypostases Father – Son – Holy Spirit. Moreover, whereas in Proclus the notion of «triad» cannot in any way be referred to the First Principle, which, due to its originality and absolutely transcendent simplicity, is released from all forms of relationality, in the Corpus Areopagiticum, especially in De divinis nominibus, the Trinity and god’s triune nature provide the foundation for the essential and inalienable relationship between god and the whole of creation. Nevertheless, for Pseudo‐Dionysius, just as in Proclus, god in his absolute transcendence with respect to all things appears, in a paradoxical way, placed above all forms of relatedness. Consequently, as the conclusion of this essay aims to show, an unsolvable tension emerges in the Corpus Areopagiticum between the nature of the Trinity and the absolute otherness of god. The mystical outcome of pseudo‐Dionysian theology, as shown especially in the final section of De mystica theologia, thus comes to represent the inescapable conclusion reached by theological reflection once it has realised the inability of thinking to admit the paradoxical coexistence in god of relation and absolute unrelatedness.