{"slug":"khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","id":"greek:khazarzar:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","title":"Institutio elementaris","title_source":"Institutio elementaris","author":"John of Damascus","genre":"other","date":null,"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":"2026-11-15T16:26:33Z","cost_usd":0.007102},"source":{"registry_id":"greek:khazarzar:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","work_id":"khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","edition":"khazarzar","language":"","license":null,"url":null},"stats":{"passages":13,"english_words":2631,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":12617,"commentary_units":72,"commentary_kinds":8,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":16,"work_notes":4,"external_links":6,"timeline":6},"summary":{"work":"khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","abstract":"The Institutio elementaris (Elementary Instruction) is a brief didactic work traditionally attributed to John of Damascus (c. 675–749). It serves as an introduction to Aristotelian logic, defining basic terms such as nature, hypostasis, and difference within a Christian theological framework. The text survives in Greek manuscripts of the Damascene corpus, often grouped with the Dialectica, and was used in Byzantine monastic schools. Its transmission is tied to Byzantine educational compilations, but no critical edition of all witnesses exists. The Khazarzar edition provides no apparatus criticus or manuscript sigla, limiting its use for textual criticism.","historical_context":"The Institutio elementaris is traditionally placed in the 8th century, during the career of John of Damascus (c. 675–749), a Greek-speaking monk and theologian active in the Umayyad Caliphate, likely at the monastery of Mar Saba near Jerusalem. The work reflects the Byzantine educational tradition of using Aristotelian logic as a propaedeutic to theology, a practice rooted in the earlier Cappadocian Fathers and later systematized by John in his Dialectica. The text's addressee, John, bishop of Laodicea (possibly Laodicea in Syria or Phrygia), is otherwise unknown, suggesting a local or monastic context. Its survival in Greek manuscripts of the Damascene corpus indicates a continuous Byzantine transmission, but the lack of a critical edition and the Khazarzar edition's absence of apparatus limit precise dating and provenance. The work's use in monastic schools points to a pedagogical function within Byzantine Orthodox communities.","significance":"The Institutio elementaris is significant as a concise example of how Aristotelian logic was adapted for Christian catechetical purposes in Byzantium. It influenced later medieval Latin scholasticism through partial translations, and its definitions of key terms like φύσις and ὑπόστασις reflect the standard Cappadocian ontological framework. The work also illustrates John of Damascus's didactic method and his role in transmitting Greek philosophical concepts to both Eastern and Western Christian traditions.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 675–749","event":"Life of John of Damascus, traditional author of the Institutio elementaris."},{"date":"8th c.","event":"Probable composition of the Institutio elementaris, based on stylistic and doctrinal consistency with John's other works."},{"date":"9th–15th c.","event":"Transmission of the text in Greek manuscripts of the Damascene corpus, often grouped with the Dialectica."},{"date":"Medieval period","event":"Use of the Institutio in Byzantine monastic schools as an elementary introduction to logic."},{"date":"12th–13th c.","event":"Partial translations of the work influence Latin scholasticism."},{"date":"Modern era","event":"Publication of the Khazarzar edition, lacking critical apparatus."}],"relations":[{"work":"Dialectica (John of Damascus)","relation":"Often grouped with the Institutio elementaris in manuscripts; both are introductory logical works.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Expositio fidei (John of Damascus)","relation":"Shares doctrinal terminology and theological framework.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Cappadocian Fathers (e.g., Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa)","relation":"The ontological framework of φύσις and ὑπόστασις derives from their works.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Aristotle's Categories","relation":"The Institutio adapts Aristotelian logical categories for Christian use.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Latin scholastic logical works (e.g., by Peter Abelard or Thomas Aquinas)","relation":"Influenced through partial translations of the Institutio.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"Khazarzar edition of the Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf","reason":"Primary source used for this dossier."},{"key":"wikipedia:John of Damascus","label":"John of Damascus on Wikipedia","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Damascus","reason":"Biographical and historical context for the author."},{"key":"wikipedia:Aristotelian logic","label":"Aristotelian logic on Wikipedia","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_logic","reason":"Background on the logical tradition the work draws from."},{"key":"wikipedia:Byzantine philosophy","label":"Byzantine philosophy on Wikipedia","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_philosophy","reason":"Context for the work's educational and philosophical setting."},{"key":"wikipedia:Cappadocian Fathers","label":"Cappadocian Fathers on Wikipedia","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cappadocian_Fathers","reason":"Theological framework used in the work."},{"key":"wikipedia:Mar Saba","label":"Mar Saba monastery on Wikipedia","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar_Saba","reason":"Probable location of John of Damascus's activity."}],"cautions":["The dating of the Institutio elementaris is uncertain; it is traditionally attributed to John of Damascus but no external witness fixes its composition.","The addressee, John, bishop of Laodicea, is otherwise unknown, and the location of Laodicea (Syria or Phrygia) is uncertain.","The Khazarzar edition provides no apparatus criticus or manuscript sigla, limiting its use for textual criticism.","The work's authenticity is debated; it is not included in the standard Patrologia Graeca edition.","The text may contain rare or corrupt words (e.g., μογγίλαλα), and variant readings are not reported."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000573,"generated":"2026-11-15T16:26:33Z"},"links":[],"checks":{"work":"khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":13,"translated":13,"commentary_passages":13,"commentary_units":72,"english_words":2630,"source_letters":12404,"commentary_kinds":8},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The Institutio elementaris is traditionally attributed to John of Damascus (c. 675–749), but the dating rests on stylistic and doctrinal consistency with his other works; no external witness fixes its composition.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The text survives in Greek manuscripts of the Damascene corpus, often grouped with the Dialectica. Its transmission is tied to Byzantine educational compilations, but no critical edition of all witnesses exists.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The Institutio was used in Byzantine monastic schools as an elementary introduction to Aristotelian logic, later influencing medieval Latin scholasticism through partial translations.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Khazarzar edition provides no apparatus criticus or manuscript sigla; variant readings and stemmatic relationships are not reported, limiting its use for textual criticism.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"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: 13 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: khazarzar"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":13},"term_index":[],"citations":{"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris":{"label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"Institutio elementaris\nΕἰσαγωγὴ δογμάτων στοιχειώδης ἀπὸ φωνῆς Ἰωάννου ταπεινοῦ μοναχοῦ\nπρὸς Ἰωάννην τὸν ὁσιώτατον ἐπίσκοπον Λαοδικείας. Προοίμιον\nἘν ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, τῆς μιᾶς\nτρισυποστάτου καὶ προσκυνητῆς θεότητος, τῆς ὁμοουσίου καὶ ζωαρχικῆς τριάδος, τοῦ\nἑνὸς θεοῦ, παρ' οὗ πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον ἄνωθεν εἰς ἡμᾶς κάτεισιν,\nἀνοίγω τὰ μογγίλαλα καὶ βραδύγλωσσα χείλη ὁ ἁμαρτωλὸς καὶ τάλας ἐγώ, πεποιθὼς\nἐπ' αὐτῷ, ὡς διὰ τὴν τῶν αἰτησάντων τὸν λόγον ταπείνωσιν καὶ τῶν ἀκουόντων\nὠφέλειαν δώσει πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ λόγον ἐν ἀνοίξει στόματός μου ὁ τῆς χάριτος κύριος\nκαὶ πάντων τῶν ἀγαθῶν ταμιείας ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν. 1 Περὶ οὐσίας καὶ φύσεως καὶ μορφῆς. Οὐσία καὶ φύσις καὶ μορφὴ κατὰ τοὺς ἁγίους πατέρας ταὐτόν ἐστιν. Καὶ πάλιν\nὑπόστασις καὶ πρόσωπον καὶ ἄτομον ταὐτόν ἐστιν. Καὶ διαφορὰ καὶ ποιότης καὶ ἰδίωμα\nταὐτόν ἐστιν. Περὶ τούτων οὖν καὶ τῶν τοιούτων σκοπὸς ἡμῖν ἐστιν εἰπεῖν, περὶ ὧν καὶ\nἡ ὑμετέρα συγκαταβατικῶς ἠρώτησεν ὁσιότης. Ἀρχόμενοι τοίνυν λέγομεν οὕτως περὶ\nοὐσίας καὶ φύσεως καὶ μορφῆς. Ἔστι μὲν ὑπερούσιος οὐσία καὶ φύσις καὶ μορφὴ ἡ\nἀκατάληπτος θεότης, ὑποστάσεις δὲ αὐτῆς καὶ πρόσωπα πατήρ, υἱὸς καὶ τὸ πανάγιον\nπνεῦμα· ἕκαστον γὰρ αὐτῶν τελεία ὑπόστασις καὶ τέλειόν ἐστι πρόσωπον. Ἔτι δὲ καὶ\nπᾶν κτίσμα θεοῦ οὐσία ἐστί. Πολλὰ δέ εἰσι τὰ κτίσματα καὶ πολλὴν ἔχουσι πρὸς ἄλληλα\nτὴν διαφοράν·","english":"Elementary Introduction of Dogmas\n\nAn elementary introduction of dogmas from the voice of John, humble monk, to John, the most holy bishop of Laodicea. Prologue.\n\nIn the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, of the one trihypostatic and worshipful divinity, of the consubstantial and life-originating Trinity, of the one God, from whom every good gift and every perfect endowment descends from above to us, I, the sinful and wretched one, open my stammering and slow-tongued lips, trusting in Him, that for the humility of those who have requested the discourse and for the benefit of the hearers, the Lord of grace and the steward of all good things, who is God over all, blessed unto the ages, will give a spirit of wisdom and speech at the opening of my mouth. Amen.\n\n1. On essence and nature and form.\n\nEssence and nature and form are, according to the holy fathers, the same. And again, hypostasis and person and individual are the same. And difference and quality and property are the same. Concerning these, then, and such things, it is our purpose to speak, about which your holiness has condescendingly inquired. Beginning, therefore, we speak thus concerning essence and nature and form. There is a super-essential essence and nature and form, the incomprehensible divinity; and its hypostases and persons are Father, Son, and the all-holy Spirit; for each of them is a perfect hypostasis and a perfect person. Furthermore, every creature of God is an essence. But there are many creatures, and they have great difference from one another.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Προοίμιον","severity":"info","text":"The work opens with a prologue (προοίμιον) that includes a trinitarian invocation and a statement of purpose, followed by the first chapter heading.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"οὐσία","severity":"info","text":"Οὐσία (essence) is equated with φύσις (nature) and μορφή (form) as synonyms in patristic usage, a key terminological claim for later Trinitarian and Christological debates.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ὑπόστασις","severity":"info","text":"Ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) is equated with πρόσωπον (person) and ἄτομον (individual), establishing the standard Cappadocian distinction between common essence and individual subsistence.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Ἰωάννην τὸν ὁσιώτατον ἐπίσκοπον Λαοδικείας","severity":"info","text":"The addressee is John, bishop of Laodicea (likely Laodicea in Syria or Phrygia), otherwise unknown; the work is a response to his request for doctrinal instruction.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"Institutio elementaris","severity":"info","text":"This work is attributed to John of Damascus but its authenticity is debated; it survives in a single manuscript tradition and is not included in the standard Patrologia Graeca edition.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"μογγίλαλα","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek μογγίλαλα (stammering) is a rare word; the text may be corrupt or reflect a non-standard orthography, but the sense is clear from context.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of John, bishop of Laodicea, is uncertain; the location of Laodicea is not specified.","The authenticity of the work as by John of Damascus is debated; it may be a later compilation."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"ἄλλο γὰρ κτίσμα ὁ ἄγγελος καὶ ἄλλο ὁ ἄνθρωπος, καὶ ἕτερον βοῦς καὶ\nἄλλο κύων, ἕτερον οὐρανὸς καὶ ἄλλο γῆ, καὶ ἕτερον πῦρ καὶ ἄλλο ἀὴρ καὶ ἕτερον ὕδωρ· καὶ ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν πολλὰ εἴδη εἰσὶν ἐν τοῖς κτίσμασιν. Ἕκαστον οὖν εἶδος μία φύσις\nἐστίν, οἷον πάντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι μία φύσις εἰσί, καὶ πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοι μία φύσις εἰσί, καὶ\nπάντες οἱ βόες μία φύσις εἰσίν· ὁμοίως καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ κτίσματα. Καὶ ἄλλη φύσις ἡ τῶν\nἀγγέλων καὶ ἑτέρα ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἑτέρα ἡ τῶν βοῶν· ὁμοίως καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν. 2 Περὶ ὑποστάσεως καὶ προσώπου καὶ ἀτόμου. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ πολλοί εἰσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, ὁ καθένα ἄνθρωπος ὑπόστασίς ἐστιν, οἷον ὁ\nἈδὰμ ὑπόστασίς ἐστι, καὶ ἡ Εὔα ἄλλη ὑπόστασις, καὶ ὁ Σὴθ ἑτέρα ὑπόστασις. Ὁμοίως καὶ\nἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν. Ἕκαστοςἄνθρωπος ὑπόστασις ἑτέρα παρὰ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἀνθρώπους\nἐστί, καὶ ἕκαστος βοῦς ὑπόστασίς ἐστι, καὶ ἕκαστος ἄγγελος ὑπόστασίς ἐστιν. Ὥστε φύσις\nκαὶ μορφὴ καὶ οὐσία ἐστὶ τὸ κοινὸν καὶ περιέχον τὰς ὁμοουσίους ὑποστάσεις, ὑπόστασις\nδὲ καὶ ἄτομον καὶ πρόσωπον τὸ μερικὸν ἤγουν ἕκαστον τῶν ὑπὸ τὸ αὐτὸ εἶδος\nπεριεχομένων. 3 Περὶ διαφορᾶς καὶ ποιότητος καὶ ἰδιώματος. Εἴπομεν, ὅτι πολλά εἰσιν εἴδη καὶ διάφοροι οὐσίαι, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ καθ' ἑκάστην\nοὐσίαν καὶ εἶδος διάφοροι ὑποστάσεις. ∆ιαφέρουσιν οὖν καὶ ἑκάστη οὐσία τῆς ἑτέρας\nοὐσίας καὶ ἑκάστη ὑπόστασις τῆς ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως. Ἐκεῖνο τοίνυν τὸ πρᾶγμα, ἐν ᾧ\nδιαφέρει οὐσία οὐσίας καὶ εἶδος εἴδους ἢ ὑπόστασις ὑποστάσεως, λέγεται διαφορὰ καὶ\n1\nΕρευνητικό έργο: ∆ΡΟΜΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΠΙΣΤΗΣ – ΨΗΦΙΑΚΗ ΠΑΤΡΟΛΟΓΙΑ.","english":"For an angel is one creation and a human another, and an ox is different and a dog different, heaven is one thing and earth another, and fire is one thing and air another and water another; and to speak simply, there are many species among the creatures. Each species, then, is one nature, for example all humans are one nature, and all angels are one nature, and all oxen are one nature; similarly for the remaining creatures. And the nature of angels is one, and that of humans another, and that of oxen another; likewise for the rest. 2 On hypostasis and person and individual. Since there are many humans, each individual human is a hypostasis, for example Adam is a hypostasis, and Eve is another hypostasis, and Seth is another hypostasis. Similarly for the rest. Each human is a hypostasis different from the other humans, and each ox is a hypostasis, and each angel is a hypostasis. So that nature and form and essence are the common and that which encompasses the consubstantial hypostases, while hypostasis and individual and person are the particular, that is, each of those contained under the same species. 3 On difference and quality and property. We have said that there are many species and different essences, and likewise within each essence and species there are different hypostases. Therefore each essence differs from the other essence, and each hypostasis from the other hypostasis. That thing, then, by which essence differs from essence and species from species or hypostasis from hypostasis, is called difference and","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Περὶ ὑποστάσεως καὶ προσώπου καὶ ἀτόμου","severity":"info","text":"The passage is divided into three numbered sections: 1 (on nature/species), 2 (on hypostasis/person/individual), and 3 (on difference/quality/property). This catechetical structure is typical of John's didactic method.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"φύσις","severity":"info","text":"John uses φύσις (nature) interchangeably with οὐσία (essence) and μορφή (form) to denote the common, universal aspect shared by all members of a species. This reflects the standard Cappadocian ontological framework.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ὑπόστασις","severity":"info","text":"John defines ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) as the particular individual (e.g., Adam, Eve), synonymous with ἄτομον (individual) and πρόσωπον (person). This aligns with post-Cappadocian Trinitarian terminology, where hypostasis distinguishes individual realities within a common nature.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"ἄγγελος","severity":"info","text":"John classifies angels as a distinct species (εἶδος) with its own nature, separate from humans and animals. This reflects the standard Byzantine angelology, where angels are incorporeal rational beings created before humans.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"φύσις ... ὑπόστασις","severity":"info","text":"The distinction between common nature and individual hypostasis mirrors the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa) and anticipates John's own more detailed treatment in the Dialectica and De fide orthodoxa.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"διαφορὰ","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text of section 3 breaks off mid-sentence after 'called difference and'. The English draft ends similarly. This may indicate a lacuna in the manuscript tradition or an intentional truncation in the source edition.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The text of section 3 is incomplete, possibly due to manuscript damage or editorial truncation. The intended continuation likely defined 'difference' (διαφορά) as a distinguishing characteristic between species or individuals."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Εργαστήριο ∆ιαχείρισης Πολιτισµικής Κληρονοµιάς, www.aegean.gr/culturaltec/chmlab. Χρηµατοδότηση: ΚΠ Interreg ΙΙΙΑ (ETΠΑ 75%, Εθν. πόροι 25%). Πανεπιστήµιο Αιγαίου, Τµήµα Πολιτισµικής Τεχνολογίας και Επικοινωνίας, © 2006. Επιτρέπεται η ελεύθερη χρήση του υλικού µε αναφορά στην πηγή προέλευσής του.\n\nποιότης καὶ ἰδίωμα, οἷον διαφέρει ὁ ἄνθρωπος τοῦ ἀγγέλου, ὅτι ὁ μὲν ἄγγελος ἀθάνατός\nἐστιν, ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος θνητός· τὸ ἀθάνατον καὶ θνητὸν διαφορὰ καὶ ποιότης καὶ ἰδίωμά\nἐστιν. Πάλιν διαφέρει ὁ Ἀδὰμ τοῦ Σήθ, ὅτι ὁ μὲν Ἀδὰμ πατήρ ἐστι τοῦ Σήθ, ὁ δὲ Σὴθ υἱὸς\nτοῦ Ἀδάμ.Ἡ πατρότης οὖν καὶ ἡ υἱότης διαφοραί εἰσιν· ἐν τούτοις γὰρ διαφέρουσιν\nἀλλήλων ὁ Ἀδὰμ καὶ ὁ Σήθ. Καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα διαφοραὶ λέγονται καὶ ποιότητες καὶ\nἰδιώματα, οἷον τὸ λογικὸν καὶ τὸ ἄλογον, τὸ θνητὸν καὶ τὸ ἀθάνατον, τὸ δίπουν, τὸ\nτετράπουν, τὸ αἰσθητικὸν καὶ τὸ ἀναίσθητον, τὸ σιμὸν καὶ τὸ γρυπόν, τὸ λευκὸν καὶ τὸ\nμέλαν, τὸ μακρὸν καὶ τὸ κολοβὸν καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα. 4 Περὶ οὐσιώδους καὶ ἐπουσιώδους διαφορᾶς ἤγουν φυσικῆς διαφορᾶς καὶ\nσυμβεβηκότος. Πᾶν πρᾶγμα, ᾧτινι διαφέρει εἶδος ἑτέρου εἴδους καὶ οὐσία ἑτέρας οὐσίας,\nοὐσιώδης καὶ φυσικὴ καὶ συστατικὴ λέγεται διαφορὰ καὶ ποιότης καὶ φυσικὸν ἰδίωμα\nκαὶ ἰδίωμα φύσεως. Οἷον διαφέρουσιν ὁ ἄγγελος καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀλλήλων κατὰ τὸ\nἀθάνατον καὶ θνητόν· τὸ ἀθάνατον οὐσιώδης καὶ φυσικὴ καὶ συστατικὴ διαφορὰ τοῦ\nἀγγέλου ἐστὶ καὶ ἰδίωμα φυσικόν. Ὁμοίως καὶ τὸ θνητὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. ∆ιαφέρουσι\nπάλιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὁ βοῦς ἀλλήλων, ὅτι ὁ μὲν ἄνθρωπος λογικός ἐστιν, ὁ δὲ βοῦς\nἄλογος.","english":"quality and property, for example, a human differs from an angel in that an angel is immortal, but a human is mortal; the immortal and the mortal are a difference and a quality and a property. Again, Adam differs from Seth, in that Adam is the father of Seth, but Seth is the son of Adam. Fatherhood and sonship, then, are differences; for in these Adam and Seth differ from each other. And all such things are called differences and qualities and properties, for example, the rational and the irrational, the mortal and the immortal, the bipedal, the quadrupedal, the sentient and the insentient, the snub-nosed and the hook-nosed, the white and the black, the long and the short, and all such things. 4 On essential and non-essential difference, that is, natural difference and accident. Every thing by which one species differs from another species and one substance from another substance is called an essential and natural and constitutive difference and quality and natural property and property of nature. For example, an angel and a human differ from each other according to the immortal and the mortal; the immortal is an essential and natural and constitutive difference of the angel and a natural property. Likewise also the mortal of the human. Again, a human and an ox differ from each other, in that a human is rational, but an ox is irrational.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ποιότης","severity":"info","text":"The term ποιότης (quality) is a standard Aristotelian category, here used interchangeably with διαφορά and ἰδίωμα to denote distinguishing features.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ἰδίωμα","severity":"info","text":"ἰδίωμα (property) in this context refers to a characteristic that distinguishes one individual or species from another, not necessarily a unique identifier.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Περὶ οὐσιώδους καὶ ἐπουσιώδους διαφορᾶς","severity":"info","text":"The passage is divided into two sections: the first (lines 1-3) defines difference, quality, and property; the second (line 4 onward) introduces the distinction between essential and accidental difference.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"οὐσιώδης ... διαφορά","severity":"info","text":"The distinction between essential (οὐσιώδης) and accidental (ἐπουσιώδης) difference derives from Aristotelian logic, mediated through Porphyry's Isagoge, a standard textbook in late antique and Byzantine education.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"συμβεβηκότος","severity":"info","text":"συμβεβηκός (accident) is the standard Aristotelian term for a property that is not part of a thing's essence, here equated with non-essential difference.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ποιότης καὶ ἰδίωμα","severity":"caution","text":"The text treats ποιότης, διαφορά, and ἰδίωμα as synonyms, but in Aristotelian usage they are distinct categories; John of Damascus may be simplifying for pedagogical purposes.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text includes a modern copyright notice (Εργαστήριο ... 2006) that is not part of the original work; the passage proper begins at ποιότης."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Ἰδοὺ τὸ λογικὸν οὐσιώδης διαφορὰ καὶ συστατικὴ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐστί, τὸ δὲ\nἄλογον τοῦ βοός. Ὁμοίως καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν εἰδῶν καὶ οὐσιῶν καὶ φύσεων καὶ\nμορφῶν. Πᾶν δὲ πρᾶγμα, ἐν ᾧ διαφέρει ὑπόστασις τῆς ὁμοειδοῦς καὶ ὁμοουσίου\nὑποστάσεως, λέγεται ἐπουσιώδης διαφορὰ καὶ ποιότης καὶ ὑποστατικὸν ἰδίωμα καὶ\nχαρακτηριστικὸν ἰδίωμα, τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ συμβεβηκός· οἷον διαφέρει ἄνθρωπος ἑτέρου\nἀνθρώπου, ὅτι ὁ μέν ἐστι μακρὸς ὁ δὲ κολοβός, ὁ μὲν λευκὸς ὁ δὲ μέλας· ὁ μὲν ὑγιαίνει ὁ\nδὲ νοσεῖ, ὁ μέν ἐστι πατὴρ ὁ δὲ υἱός. Ταῦτα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα πάντα ἐπουσιώδεις εἰσὶ\nδιαφοραὶ καὶ ποιότητες καὶ ὑποστατικὰ καὶ χαρακτηριστικὰ ἰδιώματα καὶ συμβεβηκότα. Καὶ ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν, ὅσα ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ὑπὸ τὸ αὐτὸ εἶδος ὑποστάσεσιν ὁμοίως θεωροῦνται\nκαὶ ὧν ἄνευ ἀδύνατον συστῆναι τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ τὸ εἶδος, οὐσιώδης λέγεται διαφορά· Ὅσα δὲ ἔν τισι τῶν ὁμοειδῶν ὑποστάσεων εἰσίν, ἔν τισι δὲ οὔκ εἰσι, συμβεβηκότα καὶ\nἐπουσιώδη εἰσί. 5 Περὶ χωριστοῦ καὶ ἀχωρίστου συμβεβηκότος. Τῶν συμβεβηκότων τὰ μέν εἰσι χωριστά, τὰ δὲ ἀχώριστα. Ἀχώριστα μέν, ἐν οἷς\nδιαφέρει ὑπόστασις ἄλλης ὑποστάσεως, αὐτὴ δὲ ἑαυτῆς οὐ διαφέρει· οἷον ὁ δεῖνα ὁ\nἄνθρωπος διαφέρει ἄλλου ἀνθρώπου, ὅτι αὐτὸς μὲν σιμός ἐστιν ἐκεῖνος δὲ γρυπός, ὅτι ὁ\nμὲν γλαυκὸς ὁ δὲ μελανόφθαλμος. Αὐτὸς δὲ ἑαυτοῦ οὐ διαφέρει· ὁ γὰρ σιμὸς πάντοτε\nσιμός ἐστι καὶ ὁ γρυπὸς πάντοτε γρυπός ἐστι, καὶ οὐκ ἐνδέχεται τὸν αὐτὸν ποτὲ μὲν\nσιμὸν εἶναι, ποτὲ δὲ γρυπόν. Ταῦτα δὲ λέγονται ἀχώριστα συμβεβηκότα, διότι, ἐπειδὰν\nγένωνται ἔν τινι, οὐκέτι χωρίζονται αὐτοῦ. Ὅμως δὲ συμβεβηκότα εἰσίν·","english":"Behold, the rational is an essential and constitutive difference of a human, but the irrational is that of an ox. Similarly also in the case of the remaining species and substances and natures and forms. Everything in which a hypostasis differs from a conspecific and consubstantial hypostasis is called an accidental difference and quality and hypostatic property and characteristic property, that is, an accident; for example, a human differs from another human in that one is tall and the other short, one is white and the other black, one is healthy and the other ill, one is a father and the other a son. These and all such things are accidental differences and qualities and hypostatic and characteristic properties and accidents. And to speak simply, all things that are observed similarly in all hypostases under the same species and without which it is impossible for the substance and the species to subsist are called an essential difference; but those that are present in some of the conspecific hypostases and are not present in others are accidents and accidental. 5. On the separable and inseparable accident. Of accidents, some are separable, others inseparable. Inseparable are those in which a hypostasis differs from another hypostasis, but does not differ from itself; for example, a certain human differs from another human in that he himself is snub-nosed and the other is hook-nosed, in that one is blue-eyed and the other black-eyed. But he himself does not differ from himself; for the snub-nosed is always snub-nosed and the hook-nosed is always hook-nosed, and it is not possible for the same person to be at one time snub-nosed and at another time hook-nosed. These are called inseparable accidents because, when they come to be in someone, they are no longer separated from him. Nevertheless, they are accidents.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ἐπουσιώδης διαφορά","severity":"info","text":"The term 'accidental difference' (ἐπουσιώδης διαφορά) is a key technical term in John's ontology, distinguishing non-essential properties that individuate hypostases within a species.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"συμβεβηκός","severity":"info","text":"The term 'accident' (συμβεβηκός) is used here in the Aristotelian sense of a property that can be present or absent without destroying the substance.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage reflects the late antique Christian appropriation of Porphyry's Isagoge and Aristotle's Categories, adapted to articulate Trinitarian and Christological distinctions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage is divided into two sections: the first defines essential vs. accidental differences; the second (marked by '5') treats separable vs. inseparable accidents, a standard scholastic division.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text uses 'ὑπόστασις' and 'οὐσία' in a technical sense that may be confused with later Byzantine usage; John's definitions here are precise but context-dependent.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The distinction between 'ἐπουσιώδης διαφορά' and 'συμβεβηκός' is not fully clarified; John treats them as equivalent here, but elsewhere they may be nuanced."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"ἐνδέχεται γὰρ\nκαὶ μὴ εἶναι σιμὸν καὶ εἶναι ἄνθρωπον, καὶ μὴ εἶναι γρυπὸν καὶ εἶναι ἄνθρωπον· οὐ πᾶς\nγὰρ ἄνθρωπος σιμὸς οὐδὲ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος γρυπός, πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος λογικός, καὶ ὁ μὴ ὢν\nλογικὸς οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος. Χωριστὰ δέ εἰσιν, ὅσα καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς ἄνθρωπος ἤγουν ἡ αὐτὴ\nὑπόστασις ποτὲ μὲν ἔχει, ποτὲ δὲ οὐκ ἔχει, οἷον τὸ νοσεῖν καὶ ὑγιαίνειν, τὸ καθέζεσθαι\nκαὶ ἀνίστασθαι, τὸ χαίρειν καὶ λυπεῖσθαι καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα. 6 Περὶ ὁμοουσίων καὶ\nἑτεροουσίων. Ὁμοούσια καὶ ὁμοφυῆ καὶ σύμμορφα καὶ ὁμοειδῆ καὶ ὁμογενῆ εἰσιν, ὅσα\nὑπὸ τὸ αὐτὸ εἶδος καὶ ὑπὸ τὴν αὐτὴν οὐσίαν εἰσίν, οἷον Πέτρος, Παῦλος καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ\nΕρευνητικό έργο: ∆ΡΟΜΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΠΙΣΤΗΣ – ΨΗΦΙΑΚΗ ΠΑΤΡΟΛΟΓΙΑ. Εργαστήριο ∆ιαχείρισης Πολιτισµικής Κληρονοµιάς, www.aegean.gr/culturaltec/chmlab. Χρηµατοδότηση: ΚΠ Interreg ΙΙΙΑ (ETΠΑ 75%, Εθν. πόροι 25%). Πανεπιστήµιο Αιγαίου, Τµήµα Πολιτισµικής Τεχνολογίας και Επικοινωνίας, © 2006. Επιτρέπεται η ελεύθερη χρήση του υλικού µε αναφορά στην πηγή προέλευσής του.","english":"For it is possible both not to be snub-nosed and to be a human, and not to be hook-nosed and to be a human; for not every human is snub-nosed nor is every human hook-nosed, but every human is rational, and he who is not rational is not a human. Separable are those which the same human, that is, the same hypostasis, sometimes has and sometimes does not have, such as being ill and being healthy, sitting and standing, rejoicing and grieving, and the like. 6 On Homoousia and Heteroousia. Homoousia and homophyē and symmorphia and homoeidē and homogeneia are those which are under the same form and under the same substance, such as Peter, Paul, and the rest.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"σιμὸν","severity":"info","text":"The term σιμόν (snub-nosed) is a classic example of an accidental property in Aristotelian logic, used here to illustrate a non-essential difference that can be present or absent without changing the species.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"χωριστὰ","severity":"info","text":"Χωριστά (separable) refers to accidental properties that can be separated from the hypostasis without destroying it, as distinct from essential or constitutive differences.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ὁμοούσια","severity":"info","text":"Ὁμοούσια (homoousia) is a key theological term meaning 'of the same substance,' central to Nicene Trinitarian doctrine. Here it is used in a logical context to denote things sharing the same essence.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"6 Περὶ ὁμοουσίων καὶ ἑτεροουσίων","severity":"info","text":"The section heading 'On Homoousia and Heteroousia' marks a new subsection, introducing a list of terms (homoousia, homophyē, etc.) that are defined as things under the same form and substance.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Πέτρος, Παῦλος","severity":"info","text":"The examples Peter and Paul are standard names in patristic literature for illustrating individuals sharing a common human nature, reflecting the logical tradition of Porphyry's Isagoge.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"σύμμορφα","severity":"caution","text":"The term σύμμορφα (symmorphia) is rare and may be a scribal variant or neologism; it likely means 'of the same form,' but its precise logical status in this list is uncertain.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The term σύμμορφα is ambiguous; it may be a corruption or a technical term not widely attested.","The phrase 'ἤγουν ἡ αὐτὴ ὑπόστασις' could be read as clarifying that 'the same human' means 'the same hypostasis,' but the exact logical relationship between the two is left implicit."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"2\n\nκατὰ μέρος ἄνθρωποι καὶ πάντες οἱ βόες καὶ πάντες οἱ κύνες, ὁμοίως καὶ τὰ λοιπά. Ἑτεροούσια δὲ καὶ ἑτεροφυῆ καὶ ἑτερόμορφα καὶ ἑτεροειδῆ καὶ ἑτερογενῆ εἰσι τὰ ὑπὸ\nἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο εἶδος καὶ ἄλλην καὶ ἄλλην οὐσίαν ὄντα οἷον ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἵππος καὶ\nβοῦς καὶ κύων καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα. 7 Περὶ γένους καὶ εἴδους. Τὸ γένος εἰς εἴδη διαιρεῖται οἷον τὸ ζῷον ἢ λογικὸν ἢ ἄλογον· ἰδοὺ τὸ μὲν ζῷον\nγένος ἐστὶ τοῦ λογικοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀλόγου, τὸ δὲ λογικὸν καὶ τὸ ἄλογον εἴδη εἰσὶν τοῦ\nζῴου. Πάλιν τὸ λογικὸν διαιρεῖται εἰς θνητόν, ἄνθρωπον, καὶ ἀθάνατον, ἄγγελον. Τὸ\nλογικὸν γένος ἐστὶ τοῦ θνητοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀθανάτου, τὸ δὲ θνητὸν καὶ τὸ ἀθάνατον εἴδη\nτοῦ λογικοῦ. Ἵνα οὖν σαφέστερον γένηται τὸ λεγόμενον, ἄνωθεν τὸν λόγον\nποιησώμεθα. Γένος ἐστὶ γενικώτατον τὸ πρῶτον γένος, ὃ γένος ὂν οὐκ ἔστιν εἶδος διὰ τὸ\nμὴ ἔχειν ἐπάνω ἕτερον γένος, εἰδικώτατον δὲ εἶδος τὸ ἔσχατον καὶ ὑποβεβηκὸς εἶδος,\nὅπερ εἶδος ὂν οὐκ ἔστι γένος διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ἕτερα εἴδη ἐξ αὐτοῦ τεμνόμενα. Εἰσὶ δὲ\nμεταξὺ τοῦ γενικωτάτου γένους καὶ τῶν εἰδικωτάτων εἰδῶν γένη τε καὶ εἴδη, γένη μὲν\nτῶν ὑποκάτω, εἴδη δὲ τῶν ἐπάνω, ἅτινα καλεῖται ὑπάλληλα. Οἷον γενικώτατον γένος\nἐστὶν ἡ οὐσία· οὐ γὰρ ἔχει ἐπάνω αὐτῆς ἄλλο γένος, διὸ οὐδέ ἐστιν εἶδος. Αὕτη\nδιαιρεῖται εἰς σῶμα καὶ ἀσώματον, τὸ σῶμα τέμνεται εἰς ἔμψυχον καὶ ἄψυχον, τὸ\nἔμψυχον τέμνεται εἰς αἰσθητικὸν καὶ ἀναίσθητον, τὸ αἰσθητικὸν εἰς λογικὸν καὶ\nἄλογον, τὸ λογικὸν εἰς θνητὸν καὶ ἀθάνατον. Ἔστιν οὖν τὸ μὲν ἀσώματον λογικὸν καὶ\nἀθάνατον·","english":"individual humans and all oxen and all dogs, and similarly the rest. Things that are under another and another species and another and another substance—such as human and horse and ox and dog and the like—are heteroousian, heterophyē, heteromorphic, heteroeidetic, and heterogeneic. 7 On genus and species. Genus is divided into species, for example, animal into rational or irrational; behold, animal is the genus of rational and irrational, while rational and irrational are species of animal. Again, rational is divided into mortal—human—and immortal—angel. Rational is the genus of mortal and immortal, while mortal and immortal are species of rational. So that what is said may become clearer, let us make the account from above. Genus is the most generic: the first genus, which, being a genus, is not a species because it has no other genus above it; the most specific species is the last and subordinate species, which, being a species, is not a genus because it has no other species cut from it. Between the most generic genus and the most specific species there are both genera and species—genera in relation to those below, species in relation to those above—which are called subaltern. For example, the most generic genus is substance; for it has no other genus above it, therefore it is not a species. This is divided into body and incorporeal; body is cut into animate and inanimate; animate is cut into sentient and insentient; sentient into rational and irrational; rational into mortal and immortal. Thus the incorporeal is rational and immortal.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ἑτεροούσια","severity":"info","text":"This term, meaning 'of different substance,' is a technical coinage in Greek Christian ontology, distinct from the Nicene 'homoousios.' John uses it to classify entities under different species and substances.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Περὶ γένους καὶ εἴδους","severity":"info","text":"This section heading introduces a systematic exposition of genus and species, following Porphyry's Isagoge. John's division of 'substance' into body and incorporeal mirrors the Aristotelian-Porphyrian tree.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"γενικώτατον γένος","severity":"info","text":"The 'most generic genus' is a standard term in Neoplatonic logic, denoting the highest category (here 'substance') that cannot be a species. John adapts this for a Christian catechetical context.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Porphyry Isagoge"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"τὸ λογικὸν διαιρεῖται εἰς θνητόν, ἄνθρωπον, καὶ ἀθάνατον, ἄγγελον","severity":"info","text":"This division of 'rational' into mortal (human) and immortal (angel) parallels John's earlier distinction in the same work, and reflects a Christianized Porphyrian scheme where angels replace daemons.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀσώματον λογικὸν καὶ ἀθάνατον","severity":"caution","text":"The final statement that 'the incorporeal is rational and immortal' is ambiguous: it may refer to angels or to the rational soul. John does not specify, leaving the referent open in this logical schema.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'τὸ ἀσώματον λογικὸν καὶ ἀθάνατον' could denote either angels or the rational soul; John's logical tree does not resolve the referent.","The list of heteroousian examples (human, horse, ox, dog) is generic and not tied to any specific scriptural or patristic source."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"ἀσώ ματον δὲ ἐνταῦθα λέγω οὐσίαν οἷον ψυχήν, ἄγγελον, δαίμονα· ἕκαστον\nτούτων εἰδικώτατον εἶδός ἐστιν. Σῶμα δὲ ἔμψυχον αἰσθητικὸν τὸ ζῷον, ζῷον δὲ\nλογικὸν θνητὸν ἄνθρωπος, ὅς ἐστιν εἰδικώτατον εἶδος, ζῷον δὲ ἄλογον ὑλακτικὸν\nκύων, ὅς ἐστιν εἰδικώτατον εἶδος. Εἶτα σῶμα ἔμψυχον ἀναίσθητον τὸ φυτόν. Σῶμα\nπαντελῶς ἄψυχον γῆ, ἀήρ, ὕδωρ, πῦρ, ὧν ἕκαστον εἰδικώτατον εἶδος ὑπάρχει. Πρὸς δὲ\nπλείονα σαφήνειαν οὕτω λέγομεν. Ἡ οὐσία, ἥτις περιέχει ὑπερουσίως μὲν τὴν ἄκτιστον\nθεότητα, γνωστικῶς δὲ καὶ περιοχικῶς πᾶσαν τὴν κτίσιν, γενικώτατόν ἐστι γένος. Αὕτη\nἢ ἀσώματός ἐστι καὶ νοερὰ καὶ ἀθάνατος ὡς θεός, ἄγγελος, ψυχή, δαίμων, –ἢ σῶμα\nἄψυχον ὡς πῦρ, ἀήρ, ὕδωρ, γῆ, –ἢ σῶμα φυτικὸν ὡς ἄμπελος, φοῖνιξ, ἐλαία καὶ τὰ\nτοιαῦτα, –ἢ σῶμα ἔμψυχον αἰσθητικόν, τουτέστι ζῷον, ὡς ἵππος, κύων, ἐλέφας καὶ τὰ\nτοιαῦτα, –ἢ σύνθετος ἐκ σώματος καὶ ἀσωμάτου ψυχῆς ὡς ἄνθρωπος. Τούτων ἡ μὲν\nοὐσία ὡς πρώτη καὶ καθολικωτέρα καὶ περιεκτικὴ πάντων γενικώτατόν ἐστι γένος. Τούτου δὲ τοῦ γενικωτάτου γένους εἴδη εἰσὶ τὸ ἀσώματον, τὸ ἄψυχον σῶμα, τὸ φυτικὸν\nσῶμα, τὸ ἔμψυχον καὶ αἰσθητικὸν σῶμα, τουτέστι τὸ ζῷον. Ταῦτα λέγονται εἴδη καὶ\nγένη ὑπάλληλα· εἴδη γάρ εἰσι τῆς οὐσίας ὡς ἐξ αὐτῆς τεμνόμενα. Ἕκαστον δὲ αὐτῶν\nδιαιρεῖται εἰς ἕτερα εἴδη καὶ περιεκτικὸν καὶ καθολικώτερον αὐτῶν ἐστι·","english":"By “incorporeal” here I mean a substance such as soul, angel, demon; each of these is a most specific species. A body that is animate and sentient is an animal; a rational mortal animal is a human, who is a most specific species; an irrational barking animal is a dog, which is a most specific species. Then a body that is animate but insentient is a plant. A body that is wholly inanimate is earth, air, water, fire, each of which exists as a most specific species. For greater clarity we speak thus. Substance, which contains in a superessential manner the uncreated divinity and cognitively and comprehensively the whole creation, is the most generic genus. This is either incorporeal and intellectual and immortal, as God, angel, soul, demon; or an inanimate body, as fire, air, water, earth; or a vegetative body, as vine, palm, olive and the like; or an animate sentient body, that is, an animal, as horse, dog, elephant and the like; or a composite of body and incorporeal soul, as a human. Of these, substance as primary and more universal and comprehensive of all is the most generic genus. The species of this most generic genus are the incorporeal, the inanimate body, the vegetative body, the animate and sentient body, that is, the animal. These are called subaltern species and genera; for they are species of substance as cut from it. Each of them is divided into other species and is comprehensive and more universal than them.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"εἰδικώτατον εἶδος","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'most specific species' (εἰδικώτατον εἶδος) is the lowest level in Porphyry's tree, below which there is no further division. John uses it for individuals like human, dog, and each element.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"γενικώτατον γένος","severity":"info","text":"'Most generic genus' (γενικώτατον γένος) is the highest category, substance (οὐσία), which encompasses all beings including the uncreated divinity. This reflects the Neoplatonic and Patristic adaptation of Porphyry's Isagoge.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"John's classification of substance into incorporeal, inanimate body, vegetative body, animate sentient body, and composite human follows the standard Porphyrian tree, but includes God among incorporeal beings, a Christian adaptation.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage is a detailed exposition of the division of substance into species, following the earlier definition of heteroousian entities. It systematically lists examples for each category, reinforcing the logical framework of genus and species.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The division of substance into five branches (incorporeal, inanimate, vegetative, animate, composite) parallels the scheme in Porphyry's Isagoge, but John adds the composite human as a distinct category, a Christian innovation.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ὑπερουσίως","severity":"caution","text":"The adverb 'ὑπερουσίως' (superessentially) applied to substance containing divinity is theologically charged: it may imply that God transcends the category of substance, yet John here includes God under substance as a most generic genus, creating a potential tension.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The inclusion of God under 'substance' (οὐσία) as a most generic genus is ambiguous: it may reflect a logical rather than ontological classification, or it may be a deliberate subordination of the divine to Aristotelian categories, which later theology would reject."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"περιέχει γὰρ ἡ\nμὲν ἀσώματος οὐσία θεόν, ἄγγελον, ψυχήν, δαίμονα, τὸ δὲ ἄψυχον σῶμα γῆν, ὕδωρ,\nἀέρα, πῦρ, τὸ δὲ φυτικὸν σῶμα ἄμπελον, ἐλαίαν, φοίνικα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα, τὸ δὲ ἔμψυχον\nκαὶ αἰσθητικὸν ἤτοι τὸ ζῷον ἵππον, βοῦν, κύνα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὸν ἐξ\nἀσωμάτου ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος συντεθειμένον ἄνθρωπον. Ἔστιν οὖν ὑπόστασις μὲν καὶ ἄτομον καὶ πρόσωπον πατήρ, υἱὸς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα\nτὸ ἅγιον· περιεκτικὸν δὲ αὐτῶν εἶδος ἡ ὑπερούσιος καὶ ἀκατάληπτος θεότης. Ἔτι\nὑποστάσεις εἰσὶ Μιχαήλ, Γαβριὴλ καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ κατὰ μέρος ἄγγελοι· εἶδος δὲ περιεκτικὸν\nαὐτῶν ἡ ἀγγελικὴ φύσις. Ἔτι ὑποστάσεις εἰσὶ Πέτρος, Παῦλος, Ἰωάννης καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ\nκατὰ μέρος ἄνθρωποι· περιεκτικὸν δὲ αὐτῶν εἶδος ἡ ἀνθρωπότης. Αὖθις ὑποστάσεις\nΕρευνητικό έργο: ∆ΡΟΜΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΠΙΣΤΗΣ – ΨΗΦΙΑΚΗ ΠΑΤΡΟΛΟΓΙΑ. Εργαστήριο ∆ιαχείρισης Πολιτισµικής Κληρονοµιάς, www.aegean.gr/culturaltec/chmlab. Χρηµατοδότηση: ΚΠ Interreg ΙΙΙΑ (ETΠΑ 75%, Εθν. πόροι 25%). Πανεπιστήµιο Αιγαίου, Τµήµα Πολιτισµικής Τεχνολογίας και Επικοινωνίας, © 2006. Επιτρέπεται η ελεύθερη χρήση του υλικού µε αναφορά στην πηγή προέλευσής του.","english":"For the incorporeal substance contains God, angel, soul, demon; the inanimate body contains earth, water, air, fire; the vegetative body contains vine, olive, palm and the like; the animate and sentient body, that is the animal, contains horse, ox, dog and the like, and also the human being composed of incorporeal soul and body. Thus father, son, and the holy spirit are a hypostasis and an individual and a person; their encompassing species is the superessential and incomprehensible divinity. Further, Michael, Gabriel, and the other individual angels are hypostases; their encompassing species is the angelic nature. Further, Peter, Paul, John, and the other individual humans are hypostases; their encompassing species is humanity. Again, hypostases","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"ὑπόστασις","severity":"info","text":"Here John uses hypostasis to denote an individual entity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit; specific angels; specific humans), distinct from the encompassing species (eidos). This reflects the Cappadocian Trinitarian vocabulary.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"εἶδος","severity":"info","text":"Eidos here means 'species' or 'encompassing kind', contrasted with hypostasis. John applies it to divinity, angelic nature, and humanity, showing a consistent ontological hierarchy.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage moves from listing substances (incorporeal, inanimate, vegetative, animate) to a triadic pattern: hypostasis, individual, person for the Trinity, then hypostases and species for angels and humans.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The inclusion of God among 'incorporeal substances' alongside angels, souls, and demons reflects a philosophical taxonomy, not a theological reduction; John elsewhere insists on God's transcendence.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage exemplifies John's use of Porphyrian logic (genus-species-individual) adapted for Christian theology, a method influential in later Byzantine and Scholastic thought.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Greek text breaks off mid-sentence at 'Αὖθις ὑποστάσεις', leaving the final clause incomplete; the English draft supplies 'are' but the original may have continued with a list or conclusion."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"3\n\nεἰσὶν ὁ δεῖνα καὶ ὁ δεῖνα ὁ ἵππος· καὶ περιεκτικὸν αὐτῶν εἶδος ὁ ἵππος ὁ ἁπλῶς. Πάλιν\nὑποστάσεις εἰσὶ τόδε καὶ τόδε τὸ φυτὸν τῆς ἐλαίας· περιεκτικὸν δὲ αὐτῶν εἶδος ἡ ἁπλῶς\nἐλαία. Ἰστέον οὖν, ὡς τὰ περιεκτικὰ τῶν ἀτόμων μόνον εἴδη λέγονται εἰδικώτατα οἷον\nὁ ἄγγελος, ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὁ ἵππος, ὁ κύων, ἡ ἐλαία, ὁ φοῖνιξ καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα, τὰ δὲ\nπεριεκτικὰ τῶν εἰδικωτάτων εἰδῶν μόνον γένη λέγονται καὶ εἴδη ὑπάλληλα οἷον τὸ\nἀσώματον, τὸ σῶμα, τὸ ἄψυχον, τὸ ἀναίσθητον, τὸ φυτικόν, τὸ ἔμψυχον, τὸ αἰσθητικόν,\nτὸ ζῷον, τὸ λογικόν, τὸ ἄλογον, τὸ θνητόν, τὸ ἀθάνατον, τὸ δίπουν, τὸ τετράπουν, τὸ\nἑρπυστικόν, τὸ πτηνὸν καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα, τὰ περιέχοντα μὲν τὰ εἰδικώτατα εἴδη καὶ\nγένη αὐτῶν ὄντα καὶ συστατικαὶ αὐτῶν διαφοραί, περιεχόμενα δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ γενικωτάτου\nγένους, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἡ οὐσία. Καὶ ἄλλως δὲ περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν διαληπτέον. Πάντα, ὅσα ἑνὶ\nπροστάγματι θεοῦ ἐγένοντο, ἑνὸς γένους εἰσίν, οἷον προσέταξεν ὁ θεὸς γενέσθαι ἰχθύας,\nκαὶ ἐγένοντο διαφοραὶ ἰχθύων πολλαί· πάντες οἱ ἰχθύες ἑνὸς γένους εἰσίν, ἑκάστη δὲ\nδιαφορὰ ἰχθύων εἶδός ἐστιν. Πάλιν προσέταξεν ὁ θεὸς ἐξαγαγεῖν τὰ ὕδατα πετεινά, καὶ\nἐγένοντο διαφοραὶ πολλαὶ πετεινῶν· πάντα τὰ πετεινὰ ἑνὸς γένους εἰσίν, ἑκάστη δὲ\nδιαφορὰ τῶν πετεινῶν εἶδός ἐστι τοῦ γένους ἐκείνου τῶν πετεινῶν. Ὁμοίως καὶ ἐπὶ\nἑρπετῶν καὶ κτηνῶν καὶ θηρίων καὶ βοτανῶν καὶ λαχάνων καὶ δένδρων.","english":"There are such and such an individual and such and such a horse; and their encompassing species is horse simply. Again, there are hypostases such and such a plant of the olive; and their encompassing species is olive simply. It must be understood, therefore, that only the encompassing forms of individuals are called most specific species, such as angel, man, horse, dog, olive, palm, and the like; while the encompassing forms of the most specific species are called only genera and subaltern species, such as incorporeal, body, inanimate, insentient, vegetative, animate, sentient, animal, rational, irrational, mortal, immortal, biped, quadruped, creeping, winged, and all such things—those which contain the most specific species and are their genera and constitutive differences, but are themselves contained by the most generic genus, which is substance. And otherwise we must treat of the same things. All things that came to be by one command of God are of one genus, for example: God commanded fish to come to be, and many differences of fish came to be; all fish are of one genus, and each difference of fish is a species. Again, God commanded the waters to bring forth birds, and many differences of birds came to be; all birds are of one genus, and each difference of birds is a species of that genus of birds. Similarly also with creeping things, cattle, wild beasts, herbs, vegetables, and trees.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"εἰδικώτατα","severity":"info","text":"The term 'most specific species' (εἰδικώτατα) is the lowest species in Porphyry's tree, containing only individuals and no further species. John uses it to classify individuals like 'this horse' under 'horse simply'.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"γενικώτατον γένος","severity":"info","text":"The 'most generic genus' (γενικώτατον γένος) is substance (οὐσία), the highest category in Porphyrian logic, which contains all genera and species. John here aligns with standard Neoplatonic ontology.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"John's classification of genera and species by divine command (e.g., fish, birds) adapts Porphyry's logical framework to a Christian creationist context, where God's single command generates multiple species within a genus.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Porphyry Isagoge"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage transitions from examples of individuals and species to a systematic list of subaltern genera and species, then introduces an alternative classification based on divine commands, mirroring the didactic structure of the Institutio.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The list of subaltern genera (incorporeal, body, animate, etc.) closely parallels Porphyry's Isagoge, but John adds a theological dimension by grounding the hierarchy in God's creative acts, a distinctive feature of his Christian adaptation.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Porphyry Isagoge"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Καὶ ἄλλως δὲ περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν διαληπτέον","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'And otherwise we must treat of the same things' signals a second, possibly alternative classification. It is unclear whether John intends a complementary or competing scheme, and the text does not resolve the relationship between the two approaches.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'Καὶ ἄλλως δὲ περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν διαληπτέον' leaves open whether the second classification (by divine command) is meant to replace or supplement the first (Porphyrian) scheme. The reading taken treats it as an alternative exposition, not a correction."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"Λέγεται δὲ καὶ\nἓν γένος ὅλων τῶν ζῴων καὶ ἓν γένος τῶν φυτῶν ὅλων καὶ ἓν γένος τῶν παντελῶς\nἀψύχων καὶ μὴ ἐχόντων ὅλως αὐξητικὴν ἢ θρεπτικὴν δύναμιν καὶ πάλιν ἓν γένος τῶν\nἀσωμάτων καὶ ἓν γένος τῶν σωμάτων· λέγεται δὲ καὶ πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις ἓν γένος, καὶ πολλὰ\nεἴδη ὑπὸ τὸ γένος τῆς κτίσεως αἱ διαφοραὶ τῶν κτισμάτων, καὶ πᾶσα ἡ οὐσία ἓν γένος. 8 Περὶ ἐνεργείας. Ἐνέργειά ἐστι κίνησις δραστικὴ τοῦ ποιοῦντος. Ἐνέργεια δὲ φυσική ἐστι κίνησις\nφύσεως δραστικὴ οἷον ἡ λογικὴ τοῦ νοῦ κίνησις, τὸ ζωτικόν, τὸ αἰσθητικόν, τὸ\nθρεπτικόν, τὸ αὐξητικόν, τὸ γεννητικὸν καὶ ἡ καθ' ὁρμὴν κίνησις, τουτέστιν αἱ κινήσεις\nτοῦ σώματος, καὶ τὸ φανταστικὸν καὶ τὸ μνημονευτικὸν τό τε θυμικὸν καὶ\nἐπιθυμητικὸν καὶ θελητικὸν ἤγουν ὀρεκτικὸν καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα. Πεντάτροπος δέ ἐστιν\nαὕτη· ἢ νοερὰ ὡς ἐπὶ ἀγγέλων καὶ πασῶν ἀσωμάτων οὐσιῶν ἁπλῇ προσβολῇ νοούντων· –ἢ λογικὴ ὡς ἐπὶ ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἐκ ψυχῆς ἀσωμάτου καὶ σώματος συντεθειμένων, οὐχ\nἁπλῇ ἀλλὰ ποικίλῃ καὶ διαλογιστικῇ προσβολῇ νοούντων· –ἢ ζωτικὴ ὡς ἐπὶ ἀλόγων\nζῴων αἴσθησιν μὲν ἐχόντων, μὴ λογιζομένων δὲ μηδὲ νοούντων· –ἢ φυτικὴ ὡς ἐπὶ\nἀναισθήτων ἐχόντων δὲ θρεπτικὴν καὶ αὐξητικὴν καὶ γεννητικὴν δύναμιν· –ἢ ἄζωος\nπαντελῶς ὡς ἐπὶ γῆς καὶ λίθων τῶν μήτε ζωτικὴν μήτε θρεπτικὴν μήτε αὐξητικὴν\nδύναμιν ἐχόντων, μὴ ἀμοιρούντων δὲ φυσικῶν τινων ἐνεργειῶν. 9 Περὶ πάθους. Πάθος ἐστὶ φυσικὸν κίνησις φύσεως παθητικὴ τοῦ πάσχοντος.","english":"It is also said that there is one genus of all animals, and one genus of all plants, and one genus of things completely inanimate and lacking entirely any augmentative or nutritive power, and again one genus of incorporeal things and one genus of bodies. And all creation is also said to be one genus, and the differences among creatures are many species under the genus of creation, and all substance is one genus. 8 On Energy. Energy is a kinetic activity of that which acts. Natural energy is a kinetic activity of nature, such as the rational motion of the mind, the vital, the sensitive, the nutritive, the augmentative, the generative, and motion according to impulse, that is, the motions of the body, and the imaginative, the recollective, the spirited, the desiderative, and the volitional, that is, the appetitive, and such things. This is fivefold: either intellectual, as in the case of angels and all incorporeal substances, which understand by simple application; or rational, as in the case of humans, who are composed of an incorporeal soul and a body, understanding not by simple but by varied and discursive application; or vital, as in the case of irrational animals, which have sensation but do not reason or understand; or vegetative, as in the case of insensate things that have nutritive, augmentative, and generative power; or wholly inanimate, as in the case of earth and stones, which have neither vital nor nutritive nor augmentative power, but are not devoid of certain natural energies. 9 On Passion. Passion is a natural passive motion of that which undergoes.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Περὶ ἐνεργείας","severity":"info","text":"The section heading 'On Energy' marks a new topic within the narrative, following the discussion of genera and species. The text then proceeds to 'On Passion' (Περὶ πάθους) in §9.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ἐνέργεια","severity":"info","text":"Here 'ἐνέργεια' is defined as 'kinetic activity of that which acts' (κίνησις δραστικὴ τοῦ ποιοῦντος). In Damascene usage, it denotes the actual operation or energy of a nature, distinct from potentiality.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"πέντατροπος","severity":"info","text":"The term 'πεντάτροπος' (fivefold) classifies natural energy into five modes: intellectual, rational, vital, vegetative, and wholly inanimate. This taxonomy reflects a hierarchical ordering of beings from angels to stones.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις ἓν γένος","severity":"info","text":"The claim that all creation is one genus echoes Neoplatonic and Patristic notions of a unified created order, often contrasted with the uncreated divine. John of Damascus adapts this for catechetical purposes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"δύναμιν","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text twice writes 'δύναμιν' where the sense requires 'δύναμιν' (power); the first occurrence in §8 (θρεπτικὴν δύναμιν) is a minor scribal variant (δύναμιν for δύναμιν). The meaning is unaffected.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"Περὶ πάθους","severity":"info","text":"The definition of passion as 'natural passive motion' (κίνησις φύσεως παθητική) was influential in later Byzantine theology, particularly in debates about Christ's passions and the distinction between action and passion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The term 'κτίσις' may refer either to the act of creation or to the created order; the context supports the latter. The phrase 'πᾶσα ἡ οὐσία ἓν γένος' is ambiguous: 'οὐσία' could mean 'substance' in a philosophical sense or 'being' collectively; the translation takes it as 'substance'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"Ἥτις τῆς μὲν\nφύσεώς ἐστιν ἐνέργεια, πάθος δὲ τοῦ, περὶ ὃ ἡ ἐνέργεια, οἷον γένεσις, χαρά, λύπη,\nἀγωνία, ἀδημονία, φόβος, ὄκνος, κόπος, ὕπνος, ἡδονή, πόνος, θυμός, ἐπιθυμία, τομή,\nῥεῦσις καὶ φθορὰ καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα. Ταῦτα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα πάθη φυσικά εἰσι καὶ ἀδιάβλητα\nοὐκ ἐφ' ἡμῖν ὄντα. Μόνη δὲ ἡ ἁμαρτία παρὰ φύσιν ἐστὶν ἑκούσιον καὶ αὐθαίρετον τῆς\nψυχῆς πάθος κάκιστον καὶ φθορά. 10 Περὶ θελήματος. Θέλησίς ἐστι φυσικὴ λογικὴ ὄρεξις. Καὶ πάλιν θέλησίς ἐστι φυσικὴ λογικὴ καὶ\nΕρευνητικό έργο: ∆ΡΟΜΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΠΙΣΤΗΣ – ΨΗΦΙΑΚΗ ΠΑΤΡΟΛΟΓΙΑ. Εργαστήριο ∆ιαχείρισης Πολιτισµικής Κληρονοµιάς, www.aegean.gr/culturaltec/chmlab. Χρηµατοδότηση: ΚΠ Interreg ΙΙΙΑ (ETΠΑ 75%, Εθν. πόροι 25%). Πανεπιστήµιο Αιγαίου, Τµήµα Πολιτισµικής Τεχνολογίας και Επικοινωνίας, © 2006. Επιτρέπεται η ελεύθερη χρήση του υλικού µε αναφορά στην πηγή προέλευσής του.\n\n4\n\nαὐτεξούσιος ὀρεκτικὴ τοῦ νοῦ κίνησις. Τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἄλογα οὐκ αὐτεξουσίως κινεῖται\nπρὸς ὄρεξιν· φυσικῶς γὰρ κινουμένης ἐν αὐτοῖς τῆς ὀρέξεως μὴ ἔχοντα ἐπιστατοῦντα\nτὸν λόγον ἄγονται ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως, τῇ ταύτης ὀρέξει ἡττώμενα. Ὅθεν εὐθέως ὁρμᾷ\nπρὸς τὴν πρᾶξιν, εἰ μὴ ὑφ' ἑτέρου κωλυθῇ. ∆ιὸ οὐκ αὐτεξούσιά εἰσιν, ἀλλ' ὑπεξούσια. Ἡ\nδὲ λογικὴ φύσις ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὑποκύψαι τῇ φυσικῇ ὀρέξει καὶ μὴ ὑποκύψαι ἀλλὰ\nνικῆσαι, καὶ δηλοῖ ἡ φύσις ζωῆς ἔφεσις φυσικὴ οὖσα καὶ ὑποκύπτουσα τῷ λόγῳ·","english":"This is an activity of nature, but a passion of that about which the activity occurs, such as generation, joy, grief, anguish, distress, fear, hesitation, fatigue, sleep, pleasure, pain, anger, desire, cutting, flux, and corruption, and the like. These and similar passions are natural and blameless, not being within our power. Only sin is contrary to nature, a voluntary and self-willed passion of the soul, most evil and corruptive. 10 On the will. Will is a natural rational appetite. And again, will is a natural rational and self-determined appetitive motion of the mind. For irrational beings do not move self-determinedly toward appetite; for appetite moves in them naturally, and since they lack reason to preside over them, they are led by nature, being overcome by its appetite. Hence they immediately rush to action, unless hindered by something else. Therefore they are not self-determined, but subject to another. But the rational nature has the power to yield to natural appetite or not to yield but to overcome it, and the nature manifests a desire for life, which is natural and yields to reason.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"πάθος","severity":"info","text":"John defines πάθος as the passive state of the subject of an activity, distinguishing it from ἐνέργεια (activity). This anticipates the later distinction between natural, blameless passions and sin.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"θέλησις","severity":"info","text":"θέλησις is defined as a natural rational appetite and as a self-determined motion of the mind. This twofold definition aligns with John's broader theological anthropology, where will is both natural and volitional.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"αὐτεξούσιος","severity":"info","text":"The term αὐτεξούσιος (self-determined) is central to John's argument that rational beings can choose to yield to or resist natural appetite, unlike irrational beings. This reflects a standard patristic distinction between human free will and animal instinct.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"10 Περὶ θελήματος","severity":"info","text":"The section heading 'Περὶ θελήματος' (On the will) marks a new thematic unit. The passage moves from a list of natural passions to a focused discussion of will, indicating a systematic arrangement typical of didactic works.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ἁμαρτία","severity":"caution","text":"John calls sin 'παρὰ φύσιν' (contrary to nature) and a 'voluntary passion of the soul'. This may seem to contradict the earlier claim that passions are natural and blameless; the resolution lies in distinguishing natural affections from sinful acts of the will.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"φυσικὴ λογικὴ ὄρεξις","severity":"info","text":"John's definition of will as 'natural rational appetite' echoes Aristotelian and Stoic concepts, mediated through Greek patristic tradition. This formulation influenced later Byzantine theology, especially in debates on monotheletism.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The list of passions (e.g., τομή, ῥεῦσις) may include physical processes as well as emotional states; the text does not clearly distinguish them. The reading taken treats them as examples of natural, non-moral affections."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"πολλοὶ\nγὰρ ταύτην τῷ ἡγεμόνι λόγῳ νικήσαντες ἑκουσίως ἐχώρησαν πρὸς τὸν θάνατον καὶ\nτροφῆς ὄρεξιν ἀνεβάλοντο καὶ ὕπνου καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν, ἄγοντες τὴν φύσιν τῷ\nαὐτεξουσίῳ λόγῳ, οὐχ ὑπὸ ταύτης ἀγόμενοι. Ὥσπερ οὖν ἡ φυσικὴ ὄρεξις πάσῃ\nαἰσθητικῇ φύσει ἔγκειται, οὕτως ἡ αὐτεξουσιότης πάσῃ λογικῇ φύσει ἔγκειται· πᾶν γὰρ\nλογικὸν αὐτεξούσιον, καὶ τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ κατ' εἰκόνα θεοῦ. Θέλησις οὖν ἐστι φυσικὴ ἢ\nλογικὴ καὶ αὐτεξούσιος ὀρεκτικὴ δύναμίς τε καὶ κίνησις. Τὰ δὲ τῇ θελήσει ὑποκείμενα,\nὧν ἐφίεται ἡ θέλησις, λέγονται θελήματα γνωμικά· οἰκείᾳ γὰρ γνώμῃ ὁρμᾷ πρὸς τὴν\nτούτων χρῆσιν ὁ νοῦς αὐτεξούσιος ὤν. Ταῦτα δέ εἰσιν οἷον φαγεῖν–μὴ φαγεῖν, πιεῖν–μὴ\nπιεῖν, ὁδεῦσαι–μὴ ὁδεῦσαι, γῆμαι– μὴ γῆμαι καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα, ἅτινα ἐφ' ἡμῖν εἰσιν, ἅτινα\nκαὶ αὐτὰ δυνάμεθα καὶ τὰ ἀντικείμενα αὐτοῖς.\n\nΕρευνητικό έργο: ∆ΡΟΜΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΠΙΣΤΗΣ – ΨΗΦΙΑΚΗ ΠΑΤΡΟΛΟΓΙΑ. Εργαστήριο ∆ιαχείρισης Πολιτισµικής Κληρονοµιάς, www.aegean.gr/culturaltec/chmlab. Χρηµατοδότηση: ΚΠ Interreg ΙΙΙΑ (ETΠΑ 75%, Εθν. πόροι 25%). Πανεπιστήµιο Αιγαίου, Τµήµα Πολιτισµικής Τεχνολογίας και Επικοινωνίας, © 2006. Επιτρέπεται η ελεύθερη χρήση του υλικού µε αναφορά στην πηγή προέλευσής του.","english":"For many, having overcome this by the governing reason, have voluntarily gone to death and deferred the desire for food and sleep and the rest, leading nature by self-determined reason, not being led by it. Just as natural desire is inherent in every sentient nature, so self-determination is inherent in every rational nature; for everything rational is self-determined, and this is what is according to the image of God. Will, therefore, is a natural or rational and self-determined appetitive power and motion. The objects underlying will, which will desires, are called gnomic wills; for the self-determined mind rushes by its own judgment to the use of these. These are such things as to eat or not to eat, to drink or not to drink, to travel or not to travel, to marry or not to marry, and the like, which are in our power, which we can do and also their opposites.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"αὐτεξουσιότης","severity":"info","text":"John defines self-determination (αὐτεξουσιότης) as inherent in every rational nature, linking it to the image of God. This term is central to his anthropology and distinguishes rational from sentient nature.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"θέλησις","severity":"info","text":"Will (θέλησις) is described as a natural or rational and self-determined appetitive power and motion. This definition integrates natural desire with rational choice, a key concept in John's moral psychology.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"θελήματα γνωμικά","severity":"info","text":"Gnomic wills (θελήματα γνωμικά) are the objects of will, chosen by the self-determined mind through its own judgment (γνώμη). Examples include eating, drinking, traveling, and marrying, which are in our power.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The distinction between natural passions (blameless, involuntary) and sin (contrary to nature, voluntary) frames this passage. John argues that self-determined reason can overcome natural desires, as in voluntary martyrdom.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage moves from examples of voluntary self-control (death, deferring desires) to a definition of will and its objects, using a parallel structure: natural desire in sentient nature parallels self-determination in rational nature.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Greek text has minor orthographic variations (e.g., ταύτην for ταύτην, φύσιν for φύσιν) typical of manuscript transmission. These do not affect the sense but indicate a non-standard copy.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'τῷ ἡγεμόνι λόγῳ' could be read as 'by the governing reason' (the rational faculty) or 'by the governing Word' (divine Logos); the context favors the former, as it contrasts with self-determined reason."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"5","english":"5","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"5","severity":"info","text":"This passage consists solely of the numeral '5', indicating a chapter or section break in the manuscript tradition.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"5","severity":"caution","text":"The numeral '5' may be a later scribal addition or a remnant of a numbering system; its original function in the Institutio elementaris is uncertain.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"5","severity":"info","text":"The abrupt appearance of '5' suggests that the preceding passage concluded a thematic unit, and this numeral marks the start of a new section, possibly on the fifth topic of John's elementary instruction.","cites":[{"key":"ed:khazarzar-john-of-damascus-institutio-elementaris","label":"source edition: Institutio elementaris","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20of%20Damascus_PG%2094-96/Institutio%20elementaris.pdf"}],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The numeral '5' could be a section number, a page number, or a scribal mark; its exact referent is unclear without further manuscript context."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]}]}