st. john of damascus (676-749 - Cristo Raul
st. john of damascus (676-749 - Cristo Raul
st. john of damascus (676-749 - Cristo Raul
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 />
"<br />
"<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>, "Capita Philosophica<br />
^(Kephalaia Philosophica), or<br />
u Heads <strong>of</strong> Philo<br />
sophy," 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," 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 "Fons Scientise." 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>