ABSTRACT
After a survey of the Dionysian corpus and the history of its reception, this chapter will concentrate on its alleged borrowings from Proclus, arguing that, while the author certainly draws on this author, the aims of his theodicy are not those of a Neoplatonist, and his coupling of apophatic with cataphatic discourse about God entails striking differences in the application of shared terms, especially those formed with the prefixes auto- and hyper-. In the epilogue, it is suggested that affinities with Damascius should also be explored.
