30.12.2013 Views

st. john of damascus (676-749 - Cristo Raul

st. john of damascus (676-749 - Cristo Raul

st. john of damascus (676-749 - Cristo Raul

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

.<br />

series<br />

&quot;<br />

&quot;<br />

66 ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS.<br />

Bishop <strong>of</strong> Maiuma, it would seem that the collective<br />

work was not finished, at lea<strong>st</strong> in its present form,<br />

before the year 743 ; that being the date assigned to<br />

Cosmas s consecration. We propose to give a short<br />

analysis <strong>of</strong> each <strong>of</strong> these three treatises.<br />

The title <strong>of</strong> the fir<strong>st</strong>, &quot;Capita Philosophica<br />

^(Kephalaia Philosophica), or<br />

u Heads <strong>of</strong> Philo<br />

sophy,&quot; appears to indicate a wider scope than the<br />

extant treatise takes in. As it actually <strong>st</strong>ands, the<br />

current heading, Dialectica,&quot; really answers more<br />

accurately to it,<br />

as it consi<strong>st</strong>s <strong>of</strong> little more than a<br />

<strong>of</strong> short chapters on the Categories <strong>of</strong> Ari<strong>st</strong>otle,<br />

and on the Universals <strong>of</strong> Porphyry. If it is not to be<br />

regarded as one section or in<strong>st</strong>alment <strong>of</strong> a larger work,<br />

we mu<strong>st</strong> conclude that Damascenus was content with<br />

so much only <strong>of</strong> philosophic introduction, as would<br />

fit his readers to judge the better between what was<br />

false and what was true the subject matter <strong>of</strong> his<br />

next two divisions <strong>of</strong> the &quot;Fons Scientise.&quot; For he<br />

says plainly enough (cap. iii.) that logic, or dialectic,<br />

is rather an in<strong>st</strong>rument <strong>of</strong> philosophy than a division<br />

<strong>of</strong> it itself. And that he took no narrow view <strong>of</strong> the<br />

field <strong>of</strong> philosophy, is clear from the fanciful six<br />

fold definition <strong>of</strong> it which he gives at the outset, and<br />

<strong>st</strong>ill more from his division <strong>of</strong> it into (i) Speculative,<br />

(2) Practical; these again being subdivided respectively<br />

into (i) Theology, Physiology (or Natural Science), and<br />

Mathematics ; (2) Ethics, Economics, and Politics.<br />

It is obvious, therefore, that by the title <strong>of</strong> this piece,<br />

assuming it to be complete, he can only have meant<br />

to give a summary <strong>of</strong> one department <strong>of</strong> philo<br />

sophy. This is further evident from the contents <strong>of</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!