The goal of this study was to offer a wide-ranging treatment of Proclus’ engagement with Aristotle and his criticism of Plato by focusing on the concept of motion. Thematically, my results can be summed up in six areas.

(1) My main conclusion is that Proclus does not share the view of an essential agreement between Aristotle and Plato – contrary to what is sometimes assumed in scholarship. This emerges most clearly in Proclus’ discussion of Aristotle’s metaphysical system and specifically Aristotle’s rejection of the One as well as deficient understanding of the intellect’s causality (Chapter 4). Proclus regards Aristotle as a defective imitator and epigone of Plato. Aristotelian and Platonic metaphysics do not agree on the types of principles they recognise. As I argued, Proclus’ interpretation of Aristotelian metaphysics is more sensible than Ammonius’ et al. who vainly strive to find the Aristotelian equivalent to the Platonic One. Crucially, this insight has implications for the historiography of late antique philosophy: not all post-Porphyrian Neoplatonists adhere to the harmony-doctrine.

The fourth chapter examines the problem of the causality of the unmoved mover. This issue is central in scholarship on Aristotle and goes back to late antiquity. I argue that here Proclus’ non-harmonist stance towards Aristotle emerges most strongly: not only did Aristotle fail to make the intellect an efficient cause of the cosmos’ being but his metaphysics generally is deficient, since he did not recognise the Platonic One as the highest principle. I contrast Proclus’ view with the position of Ammonius and Simplicius who see a complete agreement between Plato and Aristotle.

Investigates how social memory and composition-in-performance contributed to the formation of the epics, culminating in a nuanced understanding of the processes that led to the emergence of the Homeric epics.

In this introduction, I outline Proclus’ relationship with Aristotle and provide an overview of the state of the art. I discuss Proclus’ views on the so-called harmony of Plato and Aristotle and contrast it with the views of other, contemporary Neoplatonists, showing that Proclus stands out as more critical of Aristotle. I show that the concept of motion provides a perfect avenue for understanding how Proclus sees the tension between Plato and Aristotle. Lastly, I explain how Proclus differentiates distinct levels of motion which also structure my discussion in the monograph.

Reviews the economic dimensions of the Homeric world, examining the agropastoral practices, industry, and trade depicted in the epics. Archaeological evidence is used to contextualize these activities, revealing their role in the broader socioeconomic framework of the Mycenaean and Early Iron Age societies.

The field of Homeric studies is vast, marked by heated debates and unresolved issues. One of the most contentious issues is the authorship of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Some of the pieces of this puzzle relate to the identity of the creator(s) of the poems and the place and date of composition. Others pertain to the ways in which the Homeric epics are connected with oral tradition, literacy, and other early Greek epics. And other pieces concern the degree to which the epic portrayal of objects, sociopolitical norms, economic activities, religious beliefs, and geography reflect historical realities.

Analyzes the geographical descriptions in the Homeric epics, correlating them with archaeological sites from the Mycenaean period and the Early Iron Age. It explores the connections between the literary landscape and historical topography, offering insights into the geographical accuracy and symbolic significance of the epics.