1. A second phase took place from 813 to 843; it ended with the restoration of icons in the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. A useful chronological table for the whole controversy can be found in the proceedings of the ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, held at the University of Birmingham in March 1975: Bryer, Anthony and Herrin, Judith, eds., Iconoclasm (Birmingham, U.K., 1977), pp. 178–179.Google Scholar

2. The three treatises appear in Kotter, Bonifatius, ed., Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, vol. 3 (Berlin, 1975).Google ScholarKotter gives them the title Logoi apologētikoi pros tous diaballontas tas hagias eikonas. An earlier Greek recension, with a parallel Latin translation, was produced in Migne, J. P., ed., Patrologia Graeca [PG] (Paris, 1857–1912), 94:1231–1420.Google ScholarThe most recent English translation is St. John of Damascus, On the Divine Images, trans. Anderson, David (Crestwood, N.Y., 1980), which offers an abridged version. Citations of the Damascene's work below will appear as Treatise, followed by the number of the treatise and the section. I am responsible for the English translations which appear below: in preparing them, I consulted Anderson's translation but found it often too much of a paraphrase for the purposes of this study.Google Scholar

3. The text of the decree appears in Mansi, Giovanni D., ed., Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Florence, Italy, 1759–1927), 13:363E–380C;Google Scholarfor an abbreviated version, see Geischer, Hans-Jürgen, ed., Der byzantinische Bilderstreit (Gütersloh, Germany, 1968), pp. 57–58;Google Scholarfor an English translation of the decree, see Sahas, Daniel J., Icon and Logos: Sources in Eighth-Century Iconoclasm (Toronto, Ont., 1986), pp. 176–180.Google ScholarFor a discussion of the influence exerted by the Damascene during the controversy, see Noble, Thomas F. X., “John Damascene and the History of the Iconoclastic Controversy,” in Religion, Culture, and Society in the Early Middle Ages: Studies in Honor of Richard E. Sullivan, ed. Noble, Thomas F. X. and Contreni, John J. (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1987), pp. 95–116. Noble argues that, although Nicea II included little of the Damascene's specific argument in its decisions, his apologetic presented the theological perspective reflected in its declarations.Google Scholar

4. PG 98:77D–80A.Google Scholar

5. Noble, , pp. 95, 99–104, 107;Google Scholarand Ladner, Gerhard, “Der Bilderstreit und die Kunst-Lehren der byzantinischen und abendländischen Theologie,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 50 (1931): 4, 17.Google ScholarGeorge, Ostrogorsky persuasively argued that the Iconoclastic Controversy was fundamentally a question of Christology in Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Bilderstreites (1929; repr. Amsterdam, 1964);Google Scholarhe has been followed in this assessment by most scholars. See, for example, Giakalis, Ambrosios, Images of the Divine: The Theology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Leiden, The Netherlands, 1994), pp. 130–131, 136;Google ScholarSideris, Theodore, “The Theological Arguments of the Iconoclasts during the Iconoclastic Controversy,” Byzantine Studies 6 (1979): 181;Google ScholarMeyendorff, John, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes (New York, 1974), p. 42;Google Scholarand Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600–1700) (Chicago, 1974), p. 91.Google ScholarBrown, Peter challenges this consensus in “A Dark-Age Crisis: Aspects of the Iconoclastic Controversy,” The English Historical Review 88 (1973): 3.Google ScholarHenry, Patrick counters Brown's objections and reasserts the importance of the christological issue in “What was the Iconoclastic Controversy About?” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 45 (1976): 16–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarFor a treatment of the christological issues involved in the controversy, see Meyendorff, John, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (Crestwood, N.Y., 1975), pp. 153–192.Google Scholar

6. Noble, , p. 103;Google ScholarLadner, , p. 8 n. 22.Google ScholarMeyendorff, credits the influence to Leontius of Byzantium (Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, pp. 155–156);Google Scholarhowever, Gray, Patrick T. R. argues, with more recent scholarship, for the influence of Leontius of Jerusalem.Google ScholarSee The Defense of Chalcedon in the East (451–553) (Leiden, The Netherlands, 1979), pp. 122–141.Google Scholar

7. Sahas, Daniel J., “Hylē and physis in John of Damascus's Orations in defense of the icons,” Studia Patristica, ed. Livingston, Elizabeth A. (Leuven, Belgium, 1989), 23:67 n. 11.Google Scholar

8. Noble, , pp. 103–104;Google ScholarSideris, , pp. 183, 185–187;Google ScholarMeyendorff, , Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, pp. 179–182;Google ScholarOstrogorsky, , pp. 22–24;Google ScholarGiakalis, , p. 8;Google Scholarand Ladner, , pp. 4, 17.Google ScholarOstrogorsky and Giakalis present the emperor as the one who brought christological considerations to the fore, while Noble and Ladner credit John of Damascus.Google Scholar

9. For the Damascene's understanding of icons as “books for the illiterate,” see Lange, Günter, Bild und Wort: Die katechetische Funktionen des Bildes in der griechischen Theologie des sechsten bis neunten jahrhunderts (Würzburg, Germany, 1969), pp. 106–140.Google ScholarThis notion, expressed earlier in both Latin and Greek patristic theology, had been urged upon Bishop Serenus of Marseilles by Pope Gregory I in letters of 599 and 600 as the justification for religious imagery; for the text of the letters, see Norberg, Dag, ed., S. Gregorii Magni Registrum Epistolarum (Turnhout, Belgium, 1982), pp. 768, 874.Google ScholarThis pastoral consideration became the main argument in defense of religious imagery in the Latin West (Feld, Helmut, Der Ikonoklasmus des Westens [Leiden, The Netherlands, 1990], p. 11) but it played a less significant role in Eastern Christendom.Google Scholar

10. For John of Damascus's treatment of the other areas, see Noble, p. 101. Sahas touches on human cognition when he notes that, for John Damascene, “icons are inherently related to the needs of human nature; they are necessary tools of communication with God” (p. 67), but he does not elaborate. I utilized the electronic bibliographical capacities of the CD-ROM databases for history, religion, and psychology; entries for several relevant terms (including “John of Damascus,” “Damascus,” “John Damascene,” “Damascene,” “cognition,” “cognitive theory,” “church fathers,” “fathers,” “patristics,” and “icons”) were checked, both individually and in cross-listed format, but no references to the topic under investigation were discovered.Google Scholar

11. In The Spirit of Eastern Christendom, Pelikan discusses some psychological aspects of the iconodule arguments (pp. 120–122)Google Scholar, but he does not deal with the question of human cognition there; in his recent work, Imago Dei: The Byzantine Apologia for Icons (Princeton, N.J., 1990), Pelikan approaches the general question with comments about the Damascene's views on sense perception (pp. 112–113), but does not go on to assess either how a human being utilizes such perceptions or the role played by them in cognition. Giakalis treats psychological aspects of the iconodule argument (pp. 62–65), but without considering either cognition or the contribution of the Damascene in that regard.Google ScholarNo mention of John Damascus is found in either Anderson, John R., Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications, 3d ed. (New York, 1990)Google Scholaror Medin, Douglas L. and Ross, Brian H., Cognitive Psychology (New York, 1990), two standard treatments of the field. Studies of the history of psychology, in dealing with cognition, rarely include anything more than terse summaries of the views of Plato and Aristotle (and sometimes other ancient philosophers); if any church father is included, it will be Augustine.Google ScholarThus, John of Damascus is not to be found in Leahey, Thomas Hardy, A History of Psychology: Main Currents in Psychological Thought, 2d ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1987);Google ScholarHilgard, Ernest R., Psychology in America: A Historical Survey (New York, 1967);Google ScholarCapretta, Patrick J., A History of Psychology in Outline: From Its Origins to the Present (New York, 1967);Google Scholaror Herrnstein, Richard J. and Boring, Edwin G., eds., A Source Book in the History of Psychology (Cambridge, Mass., 1966).Google Scholar

12. Aristotle, De Anima, 2.5.7, 3.8. De Anima has appeared in a critical edition by Ross, W. D. (Oxford, 1956);Google Scholarfor an English translation, see Aristotle: De Anima (On the Soul), trans. Lawson-Tancred, Hugh (New York, 1986).Google Scholar

13. Gregory, of Nyssa's De Opificio Hominis has been reproduced in PG 44:123–255;Google Scholaran English translation appears in Schaff, Philip and Wace, Henry, eds., A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Second Series (1890–1900; repr. Grand Rapids, Mich., 1974), 5:387–428.Google ScholarNemesius of Emesa, De Natura Hominis: Graece et Latine, ed. Matthew, C. F. (1802; repr. Hildesheim, 1967);Google Scholaran older standard edition is found in PG 40:504–817; for a recent critical edition, see Nemesii Emeseni De Natura Hominis, ed. Morani, Moreno (Leipzig, Germany, 1987).Google ScholarHelpful studies on these treatises are Young, Frances M., “Adam and Anthropos: A Study of the Interaction of Science and the Bible in Two Anthropological Treatises of the Fourth Century,” Vigilae Christianae 37 (1983): 110–140;Google Scholarand Halton, Thomas, “The Five Senses in Nemesius, De Natura Hominis and Theodoret, De Providentia,” in Studia Patristica, ed. Livingstone, Elizabeth A. (Leuven, Belgium, 1989), 20:94–101.Google Scholar

14. An English translation of Gregory's sermon can be found in Hardy, Edward Rochie, ed., Christology of the Later Fathers (Philadelphia, Pa., 1954), pp. 136–159.Google ScholarFor background to the sermon, see Uthemann, Karl-Heinz, “Die Sprache der Theologie nach Eunomius von Cyzicus,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 104 (1993): 143–175;Google Scholarand Young, Frances M., “The God of the Greeks and the Nature of Religious Language,” in Schoedel, William R. and Wilken, Robert L., eds., Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition (Paris, 1979), pp. 45–74Google Scholar

15. The Orthodox Faith, 2.13–24. This work, usually known in the West by its Latin title, De fide orthodoxa, carries the Greek title, Ekdosis akribēs tēs orthodoxou pisteōs;Google Scholarit has appeared in critical edition in Kotter, Bonifatius, ed., Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, vol. 2 (Berlin, 1973). An earlier Greek recension, with a parallel Latin translation, was produced in PG 94:789–1228.Google ScholarAn English translation appears in Chase, Frederic H. Jr, trans., Saint John of Damascus: Writings (Washington, D.C., 1958), pp. 165–406. Citations of this work by John of Damascus will appear as The Orthodox Faith, followed by book and chapter numbers.Google Scholar

16. The question as to whether the Treatises or The Orthodox Faith was written first is unresolved in Damascene scholarship. Although Kotter argued in 1973 that The Orthodox Faith must have been written between 743 and 750, by 1975 his opinion had changed. He noted then, in view of a comparison with the Treatises, that The Orthodox Faith might have been written as much as two decades earlier than he had previously suggested. Kotter, 2:xxv–xxvii, 3:6 n. 14. The validity of using The Orthodox Faith to represent the context for John of Damascus's presentation on human cognition in his Treatises does not, however, depend on a resolution of the question of priority. In his prologue to The Fount of Knowledge, the Damascene declared that The Orthodox Faith was a compilation and synthesis of the teachings of the fathers before him, rather than an expression of originality on his own part: PG 94:525A; Chase, p. 6. Both Kotter and Chase have confirmed the veracity of this claim: Kotter, 2:xxvii–xxviii; Chase, pp. xxv–xxvi, xxxii–xxxv. Thus, The Orthodox Faith, as a synthesis of earlier patristic doctrine, may rightly be considered as foundational to the Damascene's presentation in his Treatises.Google Scholar

17. The Orthodox Faith 2.2.Google Scholar

18. The Orthodox Faith 2.12. The citation of Gregory Nazianzen is taken from either Oratio 38:11 (PG 36:321C) or Oratio 45:7 (PG 36:632A), where the wording is virtually identical; Maximus Confessor also endorsed this perspective in De variis difficilibus locis (PG 91:1305A—B).Google ScholarSee the discussion in Lossky, Vladimir, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, N.Y., 1976), p. 108.Google Scholar

19. Lossky, Vladimir, Orthodox Theology: An Introduction (Crestwood, N.Y., 1978), p. 70;Google ScholarMeyendorff, John, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes (New York, 1974), p. 142; and The Orthodox Faith 2.12. Later in the same chapter the Damascene used the terminology itself: “dio kai mikros kosmos ho anthrōpos estin.”Google Scholar

20. The Orthodox Faith 2.12; and Gregory of Nyssa, De Opifitio Hominis, PG 44:177D–180A. See the discussion in Lossky, Orthodox Theology, p. 70; see also his Mystical Theology, p. 114.Google Scholar

21. The Orthodox Faith 2.12; Lossky, Mystical Theology, p. 116; and Lossky, Orthodox Theology, p. 120.Google Scholar

22. Meyendorff, , Byzantine Theology, pp. 140–141.Google Scholar

23. Pelikan, , Imago Dei, pp. 103– 108.Google Scholar

24. The Orthodox Faith 2.3; and Treatise 3.26. See Sahas, pp. 70–71.Google Scholar

25. John of Damascus, De duabus in Christo voluntatibus, PG 95:145A—B.Google Scholar

26. PG 44:137B–140C, 152A–153C.Google Scholar

27. Voutilainen, Martti, “The Conception of Man in Byzantine Philosophy,” Byzantium and the North 1 (1985): 147.Google Scholar

28. Young, , “Adam and Anthropos,” pp. 110–140;Google Scholarand Halton, , pp. 94–101.Google Scholar

29. The major treatments appear at Treatise 1.11, 3.12, 3.21, and 3.24. (With the exception of one sentence, the treatment of the question at 3.21 offers a verbatim repetition of what appears at 1.11.) A briefer statement appears at 2.5 and again, virtually verbatim, at 3.2. Treatise 1.7 compares the roles played by the eye and the ear in learning.Google Scholar

30. The Orthodox Faith 2.19–20.Google Scholar

31. Treatise 3.12.Google Scholar

32. The Orthodox Faith 2.18.Google Scholar

33. Treatise 1.17; and Giakalis, pp. 51–52 nn. 2, 3.Google Scholar

34. Aristotle, De Anima 2.5, 3.8.431a16–17, and 3.8.431b1. My analysis of the vocabulary and sentence structure at the above points in De Anima and in the treatises of the Damascene's apologetic shows no evidence of dependence on Aristotle's formulations.Google Scholar

35. Treatise 2.5, citing from Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio 28:12; a virtually identical utterance appears at Oratio 28:13 and a summary statement to the same effect at Oratio 28:16. The Damascene obviously found Gregory's affirmation helpful, for he used it at three other points in his apologetic: Treatise 1.11, 3.2, and 3.21. See also Young, “God of the Greeks,” pp. 45–74.Google Scholar

36. Treatise 3.21.Google Scholar

37. Treatise 1.11.Google Scholar

38. Treatise 1.11. This passage is repeated at 3.21.Google Scholar

39. The Orthodox Faith 1.1.Google Scholar

40. The Orthodox Faith 1.12–13.Google Scholar

41. Treatise 1.11; the argument is repeated at 3.21.Google Scholar

42. Treatise 3.25.Google Scholar

43. Treatise 3.21.Google Scholar

44. The Orthodox Faith 1.1; and Treatise 2.7.Google Scholar

45. Treatise 3.12.Google Scholar

46. Treatise 3.24.Google Scholar

47. Treatise 1.11.Google Scholar

48. Treatise 3.24, 1.11.Google Scholar

49. See the treatment in The Orthodox Faith 2.20.Google Scholar

50. Treatise 3.12.Google Scholar

51. Treatise 3.12.Google Scholar

52. Treatise 1.17.Google Scholar

53. Treatise 1.17.Google Scholar

54. Treatise 1.4; these statements are repeated at 3.6.Google Scholar

55. Treatise 2.5.Google Scholar

56. Kotter found only two references to Gregory of Nyssa's De Opificio Hominis in the Treatises, and neither of these dealt with human cognition. With regard to Nemesius of Emesa's De Natura Hominis, Kotter noted citations from thirty-seven chapters in The Orthodox Faith; several of these chapters were cited more than once. By contrast, he found no citations of Nemesius's volume in the Treatises. Kotter, 3:207, 2:256–257, and 3:208. I have also been unable to discern any indebtedness to either of these works in John of Damascus's treatment of human cognition.Google Scholar