{"slug":"khazarzar-john-of-damascus-de-partibus-animae","id":"greek:khazarzar:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-de-partibus-animae","title":"De partibus animae","title_source":"De partibus animae","author":"John of Damascus","genre":"other","date":"","tradition":"greek","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T06:26:26Z","cost_usd":0.001179},"source":{"registry_id":"greek:khazarzar:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-de-partibus-animae","work_id":"khazarzar-john-of-damascus-de-partibus-animae","edition":"khazarzar","language":"","license":"Migne PG text (public domain); khazarzar host and the digitising project state no licence for this layer","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/De%20partibus%20animae.pdf"},"stats":{"passages":1,"english_words":254,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":1096,"commentary_units":6,"commentary_kinds":5,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":2,"work_notes":6,"external_links":0,"timeline":5},"summary":{"work":"khazarzar-john-of-damascus-de-partibus-animae","abstract":"De partibus animae is a philosophical treatise by John of Damascus (c. 675–749) that analyzes the faculties of the soul, drawing on Aristotle and Neoplatonic sources. The work divides the soul into desiderative, irascible, and rational parts, and discusses cardinal virtues, threefold law, and the body. It survives in Greek manuscripts, though the modern edition lacks critical apparatus. The text is part of John's philosophical corpus, but its attribution is not universally secure, and its exact date is unknown. It was influential in later Byzantine and Latin scholastic psychology, but not in liturgical contexts.","historical_context":"John of Damascus (c. 675–749) was a Greek monk and theologian active in the Umayyad Caliphate, likely at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem. De partibus animae was probably written in the early 8th century, though the exact date is unknown. The work reflects the intellectual milieu of late antique Christian philosophy, which synthesized Aristotelian logic and Neoplatonic psychology with patristic theology. It belongs to John's broader philosophical corpus, which includes the Dialectica and other treatises. The text survives in Greek manuscripts, but its transmission history is unclear; the modern edition used (khazarzar) is a digital compilation without specified manuscript basis. The work was later translated into Latin and influenced medieval scholastic psychology, but its reception was primarily academic rather than liturgical.","significance":"De partibus animae is significant as a key example of Byzantine philosophical psychology, bridging late antique Neoplatonism and Aristotelianism with Christian theology. It influenced later Byzantine thinkers and, through Latin translations, contributed to medieval scholastic discussions of the soul. The work also illustrates the composite, doxographical method of patristic philosophy, drawing on multiple sources.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 675–749","event":"Life of John of Damascus"},{"date":"early 8th c.","event":"Probable composition of De partibus animae"},{"date":"8th–9th c.","event":"Transmission of Greek manuscripts"},{"date":"12th–13th c.","event":"Latin translations and influence on scholasticism"},{"date":"modern","event":"Digital edition by khazarzar"}],"relations":[{"work":"De anima (Aristotle)","relation":"Source for tripartite soul and faculties","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Republic (Plato)","relation":"Source for cardinal virtues","key":"wikipedia:Republic (Plato)","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Dialectica (John of Damascus)","relation":"Part of same philosophical corpus","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"De fide orthodoxa (John of Damascus)","relation":"Theological counterpart","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["Exact date of composition is unknown; only a general early 8th-century range is plausible.","Attribution to John of Damascus is traditional but not universally secure; some parts of his philosophical corpus are questioned.","The modern edition (khazarzar) lacks critical apparatus, manuscript sigla, and stemmatic information, limiting textual-critical use.","The work's survival in Greek manuscripts is not fully documented; the edition's manuscript basis is unspecified."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000383,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:26:25Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Patrologia Graeca text (khazarzar mirror)","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/De%20partibus%20animae.pdf"}],"checks":{"work":"khazarzar-john-of-damascus-de-partibus-animae","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":1,"translated":1,"commentary_passages":1,"commentary_units":6,"english_words":254,"source_letters":1095,"commentary_kinds":5},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The work is a philosophical treatise on the faculties of the soul, drawing on Aristotle and Neoplatonic sources, not a devotional or liturgical text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"John of Damascus (c. 675–749) wrote this work likely in the early 8th century, but the exact date is unknown; it belongs to his corpus of philosophical writings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The text survives in Greek manuscripts, but the edition used (khazarzar) is a modern digital compilation; its manuscript basis is not specified.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This work influenced later Byzantine and Latin scholastic psychology, but was not widely cited in liturgy; its reception is primarily academic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The edition lacks critical apparatus; variant readings, manuscript sigla, and stemmatic relationships are absent, limiting textual-critical use.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"Attribution to John of Damascus is traditional but not universally secure; some scholars question the authenticity of parts of his philosophical corpus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: other in ancient Greek; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 1 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: khazarzar — Migne PG text (public domain); khazarzar host and the digitising project state no licence for this layer"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":1},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"Τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς μέρη γʹ. Ἐπιθυμητικὸν, θυμικὸν, λογιστικόν. Ἀρεταῖς δὲ τέσσαρσι τεθρόνισται ὁ ἱερώτατος νοῦς· φρονήσεως, ἀνδρείας, δικαιοσύνης, σωφροσύνης. Τρισσὸς ὁ νόμος. Φυσικὸς, γραπτὸς, καὶ ὁ ἐν χάριτι πνευματικός. Τετραμερές ἐστι τὸ σῶμα, ὥσπερ τις κόσμος συνιστάμενον· τριμερὴς δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ ἡ ψυχὴ, προτυποῦσα τὴν ἁγίαν Τριάδα, καὶ τοῦτο ταῖς ἐνεργείαις ζωοποιοῦσα. Τριμερῆ δὲ λέγομεν τὴν ψυχὴν, ἔχουσαν λογικὸν, θυμικὸν, καὶ ἐπιθυμητικόν· ἵνα διὰ μὲν τοῦ λογικοῦ λογίζηται· διὰ δὲ τοῦ θυμικοῦ ὀργίζηται τοῖς δαίμοσιν, ἀνδριζομένη κατ' αὐτῶν· διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἐπιθυμητικοῦ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Θεόν. Τοῦτο δὲ τὸ ἐπιθυμητικὸν διαιρεῖται εἰς τρία· εἰς θεϊκὸν, φυσικὸν, καὶ μέσον τὸ σαρκικὸν, ὅπερ ἐστὶ τὸ διαβολικόν. Θεϊκὸν μὲν, τὸ ἀγαπᾷν τὸν Θεόν· φυσικὸν δὲ, τὸ ἀγαπᾷν τὰ κατὰ φύσιν· σαρκικὸν δὲ τὸ ἀγαπᾷν τὰ παρὰ φύσιν· οἷον, κατὰ φύσιν μὲν ὁ γάμος· παρὰ φύσιν δὲ, ἡ πορνεία, καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα. Ἐν ἄλλῳ εὗρον. Τῆς ψυχῆς εἰσι δυνάμεις πέντε· νοῦς, διάνοια, δόξα, φαντασία, αἴσθησις. Νοῦς ἐστι νοερὰ αἴσθησις τῆς ψυχῆς, καθ' ἣν δύναται αὐτοπτικῶς ὁρᾷν τὰ πράγματα, καὶ δίχα ζητήσεων. Διάνοιά ἐστι δύναμις τῆς ψυχῆς, καθ' ἣν μετὰ συλλογισμοῦ δύναται γινώσκειν τὰ πράγματα· διὸ καὶ λέγεται διάνοια, παρὰ τὸ ὁδόν τινα διανοίγειν. Δόξα ἐστὶ δύναμις τῆς ψυχῆς, καθ' ἣν ἄνευ αἰτίας γινώσκει τὸ πράγματα. Φαντασία δύναμίς ἐστι τῆς ἀλόγου ψυχῆς. Αἴσθησίς ἐστι δύναμις τῆς ψυχῆς, ἀντιληπτικὴ τῶν ὑλῶν.","english":"The parts of the soul are three: the desiderative, the irascible, and the rational. The most sacred intellect is enthroned by four virtues: prudence, courage, justice, and temperance. The law is threefold: natural, written, and spiritual in grace. The body is fourfold, composed like a cosmos; the soul in it is threefold, prefiguring the holy Trinity, and it animates this by its activities. We call the soul threefold, having the rational, the irascible, and the desiderative: so that through the rational it reasons; through the irascible it becomes angry at demons, taking courage against them; through the desiderative it loves God. This desiderative part is divided into three: the divine, the natural, and the carnal middle, which is the diabolical. The divine is to love God; the natural is to love things according to nature; the carnal is to love things contrary to nature: for example, marriage is according to nature; fornication and such things are contrary to nature. I found in another work: The powers of the soul are five: intellect, discursive thought, opinion, imagination, sensation. Intellect is a noetic sensation of the soul, by which it can see things intuitively and without inquiry. Discursive thought is a power of the soul, by which it can know things with reasoning; hence it is called discursive thought, from opening a path. Opinion is a power of the soul, by which it knows things without cause. Imagination is a power of the irrational soul. Sensation is a power of the soul, perceptive of material things.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς μέρη γʹ","severity":"info","text":"The passage opens with a tripartite division of the soul (desiderative, irascible, rational), then moves to a fourfold set of virtues, a threefold law, and a fourfold body, before returning to the soul's three parts and their subdivisions. The final section introduces an alternative five-power scheme, introduced by 'Ἐν ἄλλῳ εὗρον' ('I found in another work').","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"Ἐπιθυμητικὸν, θυμικὸν, λογιστικόν","severity":"info","text":"These three terms—desiderative, irascible, rational—are standard in Platonic and Stoic psychology, adopted by Christian authors. John of Damascus reinterprets the irascible as directed against demons and the desiderative as love for God.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Ἀρεταῖς δὲ τέσσαρσι τεθρόνισται ὁ ἱερώτατος νοῦς","severity":"info","text":"The four cardinal virtues (prudence, courage, justice, temperance) are a Platonic inheritance (Republic 427e) and were adopted by patristic authors. The image of the intellect 'enthroned' by them is a metaphor for their foundational role.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἐν ἄλλῳ εὗρον","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Ἐν ἄλλῳ εὗρον' signals that John is citing a source, likely a doxographical compilation or another patristic work. This indicates the composite nature of the text, drawing on multiple traditions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"νοῦς, διάνοια, δόξα, φαντασία, αἴσθησις","severity":"info","text":"These five powers (intellect, discursive thought, opinion, imagination, sensation) are a standard list in Neoplatonic psychology (e.g., Porphyry, Sententiae). John defines each with a brief functional description, distinguishing intuitive from discursive knowledge.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Τρισσὸς ὁ νόμος. Φυσικὸς, γραπτὸς, καὶ ὁ ἐν χάριτι πνευματικός","severity":"caution","text":"The threefold law (natural, written, spiritual) is a theological scheme, but its placement here—between virtues and body—is abrupt. The connection to the soul's parts is not explicit, and the passage may be a compilation of disparate notes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'Ἐν ἄλλῳ εὗρον' leaves unclear whether John is quoting a specific source or summarizing a known tradition. The five-power list may derive from Nemesius of Emesa or a doxography.","The relation of the threefold law to the soul's tripartition is not explained; the text may be a patchwork of excerpts."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}