| Abstract (croatian) | S djelom Liber de causis Zapad se upoznaje u dvanaestom stoljeću i pogrešno ga, sve do točne atribucije Tome Akvinskoga u trinaestom stoljeću, pripisuje Aristotelu. Toma Akvinski će u tezama nepoznata autora prepoznati temeljne postavke Proklova djela Elementatio theologica. Djelo osim postavki o uzrocima sadrži komentar čije autorstvo do danas nije precizno utvrđeno. Gučetićev komentar spomenutog djela nastao sredinom šesnaestog stoljeća imade za predložak samo teze o uzrocima, s tim da je očito da komentar teza, koji neposredno iza teza donosi Toma Akvinski, a koji Gučetić ne navodi, ipak poznaje, jer ponegdje u svom komentaru preuzima iz njega i čitave rečenice.
Za taj Gučetićev renesansni komentar djela izrazito neoplatoničke orijentacije značajno je prije svega da omogućava uvid u gotovo sve slojeve ne duhovne tradicije, što će Platonovu filozofiju posredovati Zapadu šesnaestog stoljeća. Stoga je u komentaru nadasve od interesa bilo vidjeti kako se Gučetić, kršćanski orijentirani platoničar renesanse, određuje ponajprije spram neoplatoničkih teza u izlaganju koncepcije uzroka i uzročnosti, a zatim i naspram specifičnih interpretacija arapskih filozofa (djela kojih dobro poznaje), i to napose s obzirom na njegovo primarno kršćansko polazište.
Pritom je u analizi Gučetićeva komentara naglasak stavljen na njegove interpretacije Platonove filozofije (jer se analiza i poduzima iz okvira istraživanja renesansnog platonizma).
Iz komentara se Gučetićeva kao temeljni dojam nameće izrazito koncilijatorno nastojanje oko usklađivanja različitih tradicija tumačenja uzroka i uzročnosti, te različitih stavova u okviru iste tradicije, s naglaskom na jednoj »dionizijevskoj« varijanti hijerarhijskog ustrojstva uzroka, što znači takovoj po kojoj su sve teze o uzrocima te o stupnjevanju uzroka/bića kao samostalnih činilaca u procesu stvaranja ipak podređene temeljnoj tezi o Bogu kao jedinom uzroku stvaranja, o kojem apsolutno sve ovisi, a kojemu su inteligencije i duše, niži uzroci tek pomagači u vladanju i upravljanju svim nižim. |
| Abstract (english) | The West became acquainted with Liber de causis in the 12th century, which it had erroneously attributed to Aristotle up to the time of Thomas Aquinas' correct attribution in the 13th century. In the theses set down by an unknown author Thomas Aquinas recognized fundamental precepts of Proclus' work Elementatio theologica. In addition to theses concerning causes the work contains a commentary whose authorship has not been precisely ascertained so far. Gučetić's commentary of the mentioned work, written in the mid-16th century, was based only on the theses on causes, and it is obvious that Gučetić was familiar with the commentary of the theses given by Thomas Aquinas immediately following the theses themselves, although Gučetić does not refer to them in his commentary, since he sometimes takes whole sentences from this source.
It is important that this Renaissance commentary written by Gučetić about the work which is expressly Neo-Platonist in its orientation enables us to gain insight into almost all strata of the intellectual tradition which mediated Plato's philosophy to the 16th century West. Therefore it is interesting to see how Gučetić, as a Renaissance Platonist of the Christian orientation, defines his position in his commentary primarily with regard to Neo-Platonist theses in the exposition of the conception of causes and causality, and also with regard to specific interpretations given by Arabic philosophers (whose works he is well acquainted with), especially with respect to his primarily Christian starting-point.
In the analysis of Gučetić's commentaries the emphasis is placed upon his interpretations of Plato's philosophy (since the analysis has been undertaken within the framework of the exploration of Renaissance Platonism).
Gučetić's commentary leaves the basic impression of being essentially an effort to reconcile diverse traditions in the interpretation of causes and causality, as well as divers e attitudes within the same tradition, with a special emphasis on the »Dionysian« variant in the hierarchical system of causes within which all the theses on causes and on the gradation of cause/ /beings as independent factors in the process of creation are still subordinated to the fundamental concept of God as the only cause of creation on which absolutely everything depends, and to whom intelligencies, souls and lower causes serve as mere expedients in the government and rule over the lower world. |
