Είναι και λόγος. Μονή και ίδρυσις των υποστάσεων: σπουδή στον Ιωάννη Δαμασκηνό

Abstract

Our choice to study the meaning of hypostasis in the work of Saint John of Damascus, is not accidental. The hypostasis, which is assimilated with the person and the individual, constitutes the cornerstone of the holy author’s tuition. Before we proceed to the formulation of the conclusions in which our inquiry was led, we are obliged to make a short reference to the interpretative method we pursued in order to approach the flowing material.We chose consciously to confine to the minimum the bibliographical data, in order to allow the text to speak for itself, revealing to us its intimate truth. Additionally, we adopted two fundamental principles of reading. The first one is related with the entire reading of the flowing material. The entire reading presumes the study of a whole specific work, for example the work of Dialectica, but it is also necessary to study all the books of the specific writer. The second principle refers to the structural reading, which is the greatest development of the textual connections and which helps us to achieve the inner connection of the treatise’s sections. The restriction of the bibliographical data does not indicate imperfect informing on the particular bibliography. Very important studies about John of Damascus, like the studies of B. Studer and G. Richter were utilized but their role is purely subsidiary.As we have already said, our inquiry exhibited the conception of hypostasis into a basic conception, on which the theological edifice of Damascene was structured. John of Damascus identifies the meanings of hypostasis, person, individual and attributes to them the sense of the exact human being. Oppositely to the meaning of the person (hypostasis, individual), we can find the meaning of essence. It is identified with the notion of nature and the notion of form. We observed the passage from the essence, that is the final result of a rational subtractive proceeding, to the hypostasis, which is the only factual. We attended this passage in the thought of the out wise and in the thought of the Church’ s Fathers. Moreover, we searched for the role of the unseparated accidents (external corporal features) and the separated (wishes-actions) in the proceeding of the hypostasis’ formation.Afterwards, we examined the role of the accidents into Christ’s hypostasis. We perceived that Christ had only one face and not two. We examined the possibility of the existence of a sententious wish a possibility, which we rejected. Finally, we mentioned Christ’s example as a human being’s icon.We scrutinized the acceptation of the Triadic hypostasis. We investigated the resembalncies and differences which exist between the human and the divine hypostasis. We denied the adjustment of Aristotle’s denominations related to God’s case, and we were restricted to talk about the relative character that we can gave comparatively to God’s existence.Finally, we referred to the inner of human’ s existence and we sought the soul’ s forces that can help us be aware of the prudent proceeding.We discussed especially the role of fantasy that is able to create images composing pieces of the real, according to John of Damascus. These images are presented to be real. Fantasy can offer to mind a false reality, preventing it from distinguishing the real and the untrue.Damascene’s phrase: «I will not say something that is mine» (έρώ έμόν ούδέν), which is found almost in all his works, became the body of this project. We followed roads which were engraved by the predecessors of our tradition concerning our apprenticeship on the texts. We were subjected to them, while listening and taking all these edifying elemets they can give.