Born at Damascus, about 676; died some time between 754 and 787. The
only extant life of the saint is that by John, Patriarch of Jerusalem,
which dates from the tenth century (P.G. XCIV, 429-90). This life is the
single source from which have been drawn the materials of all his
biographical notices. It is extremely unsatisfactory from the standpoint
of historical criticism. An exasperating lack of detail, a pronounced
legendary tendency, and a turgid style are its chief characteristics.
Mansur was probably the name of John's father. What little is known of
him indicates that he was a sterling Christian whose infidel environment
made no impression on his religious fervour. Apparently his adhesion to
Christian truth constituted no offence in the eyes of his Saracen
countrymen, for he seems to have enjoyed their esteem in an eminent
degree, and discharged the duties of chief financial officer for the
caliph, Abdul Malek. The author of the life records the names of but two
of his children, John and his half-brother Cosmas. When the future
apologist had reached the age of twenty-three his father cast about for a
Christian tutor capable of giving his sons the best education the age
afforded. In this he was singularly fortunate. Standing one day in the
market-place he discovered among the captives taken in a recent raid on
the shores of Italy a Sicilian monk named Cosmas. Investigation proved
him to be a man of deep and broad erudition. Through the influence of
the caliph, Mansur secured the captive's liberty and appointed him tutor
to his sons. Under the tutelage of Cosmas, John made such rapid
progress that, in the enthusiastic language of his biographer, he soon
equalled Diophantus in algebra and Euclid in geometry. Equal progress
was made in music, astronomy, and theology.
On the death of his father, John Damascene was made protosymbulus,
or chief councillor, of Damascus. It was during his incumbency of this
office that the Church in the East began to be agitated by the first
mutterings of the Iconoclast heresy. In 726, despite the protests of
Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, Leo the Isaurian issued his first
edict against the veneration of images. From his secure refuge in the
caliph's court, John Damascene immediately entered the lists against
him, in defence of this ancient usage of the Christians. Not only did he
himself oppose the Byzantine monarch, but he also stirred the people to
resistance. In 730 the Isaurian issued a second edict, in which he not
only forbade the veneration of images, but even inhibited their
exhibition in public places. To this royal decree the Damascene replied
with even greater vigour than before, and by the adoption of a simpler
style brought the Christian side of the controversy within the grasp of
the common people. A third letter emphasized what he had already said
and warned the emperor to beware of the consequences of this unlawful
action. Naturally, these powerful apologies aroused the anger of the
Byzantine emperor. Unable to reach the writer with physical force, he
sought to encompass his destruction by strategy. Having secured an
autograph letter written by John Damascene, he forged a letter, exactly
similar in chirography, purporting to have been written by John to the
Isaurian, and offering to betray into his hands the city of Damascus.
The letter he sent to the caliph. Notwithstanding his councillor's
earnest avowal of innocence, the latter accepted it as genuine and
ordered that the hand that wrote it be severed at the wrist. The
sentence was executed, but, according to his biographer, through the
intervention of the Blessed Virgin, the amputated hand was miraculously
restored.
The caliph, now convinced of John's innocence, would fain have
reinstated him in his former office, but the Damascene had heard a call
to a higher life, and with his foster-brother entered the monastery of
St. Sabas, some eighteen miles south-east of Jerusalem. After the usual
probation, John V, Patriarch of Jerusalem, conferred on him the office
of the priesthood. In 754 the pseudo-Synod of Constantinople, convened
at the command of Constantine Copronymus, the successor of Leo,
confirmed the principles of the Iconoclasts and anathematized by name
those who had conspicuously opposed them. But the largest measure of the
council's spleen was reserved for John of Damascus. He was called a
"cursed favourer of Saracens", a "traitorous worshipper of images", a
"wronger of Jesus Christ", a "teacher of impiety", and a "bad
interpreter of the Scriptures". At the emperor's command his name was
written "Manzer" (Manzeros, a bastard). But the Seventh General
Council of Nicea (787) made ample amends for the insults of his enemies,
and Theophanes, writing in 813, tells us that he was surnamed
Chrysorrhoas (golden stream) by his friends on account of his oratorical
gifts. In the pontificate of Leo XIII he was enrolled among the doctors
of the Church. His feast is celebrated on 27 March.
John of Damascus was the last of the Greek Fathers. His genius
was not for original theological development, but for compilation of an
encyclopedic character. In fact, the state of full development to which
theological thought had been brought by the great Greek writers and
councils left him little else than the work of an encyclopedist; and
this work he performed in such manner as to merit the gratitude of all
succeeding ages. Some consider him the precursor of the Scholastics,
whilst others regard him as the first Scholastic, and his "De fide
orthodoxa" as the first work of Scholasticism. The Arabians too, owe not
a little of the fame of their philosophy to his inspiration. The most
important and best known of all his works is that to which the author
himself gave the name of "Fountain of Wisdom" (pege gnoseos).
This work has always been held in the highest esteem in both the
Catholic and Greek Churches. Its merit is not that of originality, for
the author asserts, at the end of the second chapter of the "Dialectic",
that it is not his purpose to set forth his own views, but rather to
collate and epitomize in a single work the opinions of the great
ecclesiastical writers who have gone before him. A special interest
attaches to it for the reason that it is the first attempt at a summa theologica that has come down to us.
The "Fountain of Wisdom" is divided into three parts, namely, "Philosophical Chapters" (Kephalaia philosophika), "Concerning Heresy" (peri aipeseon), and "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" (Ikdosis akribes tes orthodoxou pisteos).
The title of the first book is somewhat too comprehensive for its
contents and consequently is more commonly called "Dialectic". With the
exception of the fifteen chapters that deal exclusively with logic, it
has mostly to do with the ontology of Aristotle. It is largely a summary
of the Categories of Aristotle with Porphyry's "Isagoge" (Eisagoge eis tas kategorias).
It seems to have been John Damascene's purpose to give his readers only
such philosophical knowledge as was necessary for understanding the
subsequent parts of the "Fountain of Wisdom". For more than one reason
the "Dialectic" is a work of unusual interest. In the first place, it is
a record of the technical terminology used by the Greek Fathers, not
only against the heretics, but also in the exposition of the Faith for
the benefit of Christians. It is interesting, too, for the reason that
it is a partial exposition of the "Organon", and the application of its
methods to Catholic theology a century before the first Arabic
translation of Aristotle made its appearance. The second part,
"Concerning Heresy", is little more than a copy of a similar work by
Epiphanius, brought up to date by John Damascene. The author indeed
expressly disclaims originality except in the chapters devoted to
Islamism, Iconoclasm, and Aposchitae. To the list of eighty heresies
that constitute the "Panarion" of Epiphanius, he added twenty heresies
that had sprung up since his time. In treating of Islamism he vigorously
assails the immoral practices of Mohammed and the corrupt teachings
inserted in the Koran to legalize the delinquencies of the prophet. Like
Epiphanius, he brings the work to a close with a fervent profession of
Faith. John's authorship of this book has been challenged, for the
reason that the writer, in treating of Arianism, speaks of Arius, who
died four centuries before the time of Damascene, as still living and
working spiritual ruin among his people. The solution of the difficulty
is to be found in the fact that John of Damascene did not epitomize the
contents of the "Panarion", but copied it verbatim. Hence the passage
referred to is in the exact words of Epiphanius himself, who was a
contemporary of Arius.
"Concerning the Orthodox Faith", the third book of the "Fountain
of Wisdom", is the most important of John Damascene's writings and one
of the most notable works of Christian antiquity. Its authority has
always been great among the theologians of the East and West. Here,
again, the author modestly disavows any claim of originality — any
purpose to essay a new exposition of doctrinal truth. He assigns himself
the less pretentious task of collecting in a single work the opinions
of the ancient writers scattered through many volumes, and of
systematizing and connecting them in a logical whole. It is no small
credit to John of Damascus that he was able to give to the Church in the
eighth century its first summary of connected theological opinions. At
the command of Eugenius III it was rendered into Latin by Burgundio of
Pisa, in 1150, shortly before Peter Lombard's "Book of Sentences"
appeared. This translation was used by Peter Lombard and St. Thomas
Aquinas, as well as by other theologians, till the Humanists rejected it
for a more elegant one. The author follows the same order as does
Theodoret of Cyrus in his "Epitome of Christian Doctrine". But, while he
imitates the general plan of Theodoret, he does not make use of his
method. He quotes, not only form the pages of Holy Writ, but also from
the writings of the Fathers. As a result, his work is an inexhaustible
thesaurus of tradition which became the standard for the great
Scholastics who followed. In particular, he draws generously from
Gregory of Nazianzus, whose works he seems to have absorbed, from Basil,
Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the Great, Athanasius, John
Chrysostum, and Epiphanius. The work is divided into four books. This
division, however, is an arbitrary one neither contemplated by the
author nor justified by the Greek manuscript. It is probably the work of
a Latin translator seeking to accommodate it to the style of the four
books of Lombard's "Sentences".
The first book of "The Orthodox Faith" treats of the essence and
existence of God, the Divine nature, and the Trinity. As evidence of the
existence of God he cites the concurrence of opinion among those
enlightened by Revelation and those who have only the light of reason to
guide them. To the same end he employs the argument drawn from the
mutability of created things and that from design. Treating, in the
second book, of the physical world, he summarizes all the views of his
times, without, however, committing himself to any of them. In the same
treatise he discloses a comprehensive knowledge of the astronomy of his
day. Here, also, place is given to the consideration of the nature of
angels and demons, the terrestrial paradise, the properties of human
nature, the foreknowledge of God, and predestination. Treating of man
(c.xxvii), he gives what has been aptly called a "psychology in nuce".
Contrary to the teachings of Plotinus, the master of Porphyry, he
identifies mind and soul. In the third book the personality and two-fold
nature of Christ are discussed with great ability. This leads up to the
consideration of the Monophysite heresy. In this connexion he deals
with Peter the Fuller's addition to the "Trisagion", and combats
Anastasius's interpretation of this ancient hymn. The latter, who was
Abbot of the monastery of St. Euthymius in Palestine, referred the
"Trisagion" only to the Second Person of the Trinity. In his letter
"Concerning the Trisagion" John Damascene contends that the hymn applies
not to the Son alone, but to each Person of the Blessed Trinity. This
book also contains a spirited defence of the Blessed Virgin's claim to
the tile of "Theotokos." Nestorius is vigorously dealt with for trying
to substitute the title of "Mother of Christ" for "Mother of God". The
Scriptures are discussed in the fourth book. In assigning twenty-two
books to the Old Testament Canon he is treating of the Hebrew, and not
the Christian, Canon, as he finds it in a work of Epiphanius, "De
ponderibus et mensuris". His treatment in this book of the Real Presence
is especially satisfactory. The nineteenth chapter contains a powerful
plea for the veneration of images.
The treatise, "Against the Jacobites", was written at the request
of Peter, Metropolitan of Damascus, who imposed on him the task of
reconciling to the Faith the Jacobite bishop. It is a strong polemic
against the Jacobites, as the Monophysites in Syria were called. He also
wrote against the Manicheans and Monothelites. The "Booklet Concerning
Right Judgment" is little more than a profession of Faith, confirmed by
arguments setting forth the mysteries of the Faith, especially the
Trinity and the Incarnation. Though John of Damascus wrote voluminously
on the Scriptures, as in the case of so much of his writing, his work
bears little of the stamp of originality. His "Select Passages" (Loci
Selecti), as he himself admits, are taken largely from the homilies of
St. John Chrysostom and appended as commentaries to texts from the
Epistles of St. Paul. The commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians,
Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians is taken from Cyril of
Alexandria. The "Sacred Parallels" (Sacra parallela) is a kind of
topical concordance, treating principally of God, man, virtues, and
vices.
Under the general title of "Homilies" he wrote fourteen
discourses. The sermon on the Transfiguration, which Lequien asserts was
delivered in the church on Mt. Tabor, is of more than usual excellence.
It is characterized by dramatic eloquence, vivid description, and a
wealth of imagery. In it he discourses on his favorite topic, the
twofold nature of Christ, quotes the classic text of Scripture in
testimony of the primacy of Peter, and witnesses the Catholic doctrine
of sacramental Penance. In his sermon on Holy Saturday he descants on
the Easter duty and on the Real Presence. The Annunciation is the text
of a sermon, now extant only in a Latin version of an Arabic text, in
which he attributes various blessings to the intercession of the Blessed
Virgin. The second of his three sermons on the Assumption is especially
notable for its detailed account of the translation of the body of the
Blessed Virgin into heaven, an account, he avers, that is based on the
most reliable and ancient tradition. Both Liddledale and Neale regard
John of Damascus as the prince of Greek hymnodists. His hymns are
contained in the "Carmina" of the Lequien edition. The "canons" on the
Nativity, Epiphany, and Pentecost are written in iambic trimeters. Three
of his hymns have become widely known and admired in their English
version — "Those eternal bowers", "Come ye faithful raise the strain",
and "Tis the Day of Resurrection". The most famous of the "canons" is
that on Easter. It is a song of triumph and thanksgiving — the "Te Deum"
of the Greek Church. It is a traditional opinion, lately controverted,
that John Damascene composed the "Octoëchos", which contains the
liturgical hymns used by the Greek Church in its Sunday services.
Gerbet, in his "History of Sacred Music", credits him with doing for the
East what Gregory the Great accomplished for the West — substitution of
notes and other musical characters for the letters of the alphabet to
indicate musical quantities. It is certain he adapted choral music to
the purposes of the Liturgy.
Among the several works that are dubiously attributed to John
Damascene the most important is the romance entitled "Barlaam and
Josaphat". Throughout the Middle Ages it enjoyed the widest popularity
in all languages. It is not regarded as authentic by Lequien, and the
discovery of a Syriac version of the "Apology of Aristides" shows that
what amounts to sixteen printed pages of it was taken directly from
Aristides. The panegyric of St. Barbara, while accepted as genuine by
Lequien, is rejected by many others. The treatise entitled "Concerning
those who have died in the Faith" is rejected as spurious by Suarez,
Bellarmine, and Lequien, not only on account of its doctrinal
discrepancies, but for its fabulous character as well. The first Greek
edition of any of the works of John Damascene was that of the "Exact
Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" brought out at Verona (1531) under the
auspices of John Matthew Gibertus, Bishop of Verona. Another Greek
edition of the same work was published at Moldavia (1715) by John
Epnesinus. It was also printed in a Latin edition at Paris (1507), by
James Faber. Henry Gravius, O.P., published a Latin edition at Cologne
(1546) which contained the following works: "Dialectic", "Elementary and
Dogmatic Instruction", "Concerning the two Wills and Operations", and
"Concerning Heresy". A Greek-Latin edition with an introduction by Mark
Hopper made its appearance at Basle (1548). A similar edition, but much
more complete was published at the same place in 1575. Another Latin
edition, constituting a partial collection of the author's works is that
by Michael Lequien, O.P., published at Paris (1717) and Venice (1748).
To the reprint of this edition, P.G., XCIV-XCVI (Paris, 1864), Migne has
added a supplement of works attributed by some to the authorship of
John Damascene.
John B. O'Connor (Catholic Encyclopedia)
No comments:
Post a Comment