The List of Aristotelian Types of Motion and Its Extension in De duabus in Christo voluntatibus of John Damascene

John Damascene’s use of philosophical logic in his theological treatises has remained a somewhat unclear subject. We know that John compiled purely logical and philosophical works, such as the Institutio Elementaris and the Dialectica . But it is not clear how much, if at all, John’s purely philosophical projects contributed to his later theological work. In order to illuminate the issue, I shall take under investigation the Damascene’s implementation of the Aristotelian types of motion that are clearly found both in John’s philosophic and in his theological works. One of his theological works in which the Aristotelian types of motion are used in tandem with the intelligible motion is the De duabus in Christo voluntatibus . Taking this Christological work as a starting point, this article aims to shed light on the potential sources behind the Damascene’s use of the different types of motion and the significance thereof for his arguments against Monothelitism and Monoenergism.


Introduction
The question of how exactly John Damascene implements philosophical logic, especially of an Aristotelian kind, in his theological argumentation has been a matter of intense speculation for some time now. From one side, we see that John put forth the effort to compile works of philosophical kind, such as the Institutio Elementaris (IE) and the Dialectica (Dial.), the latter based on Aristotle's Categories and on the commentary tradition of Porphyry.1 If we would like, on the other hand, to imagine John Damascene as a man who engaged with pagan philosophical works or the commentary tradition, then our enthusiasm would be quashed quite rapidly. M. Roueché's thorough studies, which in general are held to be valid up to the present day, show that John and his philosophic works were probably connected neither with any of the works of Aristotle, nor with any of the later commentaries of the Alexandrian School. Instead, John probably used logical handbooks or compendia that were essentially Christianized summaries of basic logical definitions and concepts with a strong Aristotelian background.2 It is also little understood to what extent John extends and applies the concepts in his philosophical works, especially the Dialectica, within his This of course raises the question of how exactly this philosophical inspiration took place and, most significantly, how original and creative was John Damascene in its implementation.7 In order to attain a clearer picture of how this might have occurred, I shall turn to John's treatise On the Two Wills and Energies of Christ (Volunt.). The first reason for this selection is the fact that it is one of the first theological works written just after the IE and the Dialectica brev., and should therefore work as a first example of this philosophical watershed.8 And the second reason is that the Volunt. contains a philosophical concept in itself unrelated to Christianity: the list of the Aristotelian types of motion.9 In the Categories, Aristotle distinguishes six types of motion (κινήσεις) or change:10 generation (γένεσις), destruction (φθορά), increase (αὔξησις), decrease 7 The originality or unoriginality of John Damascene is a subject that has been for a long time under intense discussion. John Damascene, in the introduction to the Dial., himself states that he shall say or add nothing of his own, but will only gather what great teachers before him have said. ( peculiar thing is that the Damascene uses the Aristotelian types of motion, in tandem with the intelligible type of motion, also in his theological works: the Voluntatis and the Expositio fidei.17 John's decision to do so stands out even more in light of the fact that these same logical concepts appear very rarely in the patristic tradition prior to John. This comparatively vigorous application of the different types of motion in John Damascene's theology begs for some sort of explanation. To gain insight into this matter, I shall study John's use of the list of the different types of motion in his theological work the Volunt., attempting in the course of this to account for the influence on his work of various sources. The ultimate aim of this paper is to shed light, through an analysis of John's use of the Aristotelian and intelligible types of motion, on the particular way John Damascene implements philosophical logic in his theological argumentation. Although the list of the different types of motion is also present in John's Expositio fidei, I will concentrate mainly on the Volunt., as a thorough analysis of both of them would require more space than a single article provides. John Damascene explains that humanity is an entity composed of a rational soul and a mortal body, uniting in itself the sensible and intelligible realities. Humanity may be therefore called mikros kosmos (small world), which means that it unites and represents in it all the intelligible and sensible properties and functions of the macrocosmic created realm. p. 198.) these are related to the human will (θέλησις).20 In order to clarify the matter, the Volunt. first of all distinguishes between human functions that are activities and those that are irrational passions.21 According to John, the criterion of difference between an activity and a passion is that an activity is a movement derived from nature, whereas a passion is a motion resulting from an activity that affects the nature.22 In the Volunt., both activities and irrational passions are essentially motions that are related to nature, which means that they are God-given and therefore innocent.23 In order to establish this more firmly, chapter 18 of the Volunt. then defines nature as "the law and power given in the beginning by the Creator to every species, according to which it moves or reposes."24 This connection becomes possible for John thanks to an element of Aristotelian logic, according to which nature is an inner principle of motion or rest.25 The necessity of bringing in this definition of nature makes clear John's aim in dealing with the phenomenon of motion: to provide more solid proof of the naturalness of activities and irrational passions.26 Motion as a principle that derives from nature now becomes the centre of John's attention, obliging him to lay out the Aristotelian types of motion: The motions are generation and destruction and alteration, increase, decrease and locomotion, which is in six ways: forward, back, right, left, upward, downward.27 After presenting the Aristotelian types of motion, Volunt. distinctively places alongside another type of motion: the process of willing activity by which the 20 Volunt human mind exercises its free will.28 From here through the end of chapter 18, the Volunt. extensively grapples with the concept of human will, asserting that it was given to humanity as a natural endowment in order to control and guide its animalistic substance (ζωώδης οὐσία) and its irrational passions (ἄλογα πάθη).29 An eye-catching aspect is that John characterizes this body-mind relation by linking the Aristotelian types of motion to the motion of the willing activity.30 John concludes, in a very Aristotelian manner, that the logic of the Aristotelian types of motion is applicable to sensible nature.31 Reapplying this logical framework, in Volunt. John makes of the Aristotelian types of motion a tool for elucidating the passive motions32 of the sensible and animalistic part of human nature.33 In contrast, the Volunt. distinctively emphasizes that the natural motions of the willing process are on the other hand activities.34 Sensible 28 Willing activity is here conceived as the thinking and willing process of the human mind: νόησις καὶ ἡ λογικὴ ὄρεξις ὅ τε διαλογισμὸς καὶ ἡ ζήτησις καὶ σκέψις καὶ βουλὴ καὶ κρίσις καὶ διάθεσις καὶ προαίρεσις γνώμη τε καὶ ἡ πρὸς τὴν χρῆσιν ὁρμὴ… (Volunt.  John clearly emphasizes the distinction between Aristotelian types of motion and modes of willing activity: καὶ πάντα δὲ τὰ λοιπὰ τὰ εἰρημένα κινήσεις εἰσίν· ἡ δὲ νόησις καὶ ἡ λογικὴ ὄρεξις ὅ τε διαλογισμὸς καὶ ἡ ζήτησις καὶ σκέψις καὶ βουλὴ καὶ κρίσις καὶ διάθεσις καὶ προαίρεσις γνώμη τε καὶ ἡ πρὸς τὴν χρῆσιν ὁρμὴ ἐνέργειαί εἰσιν. ( and passive motions are therefore distinguished from the active motions of the rational soul, which has the capacity to freely govern all the natural motions (πᾶσαν φυσικὴν κίνησιν) and irrational passions of human nature.35 This juxtaposition produces an ingenious microcosmic anthropological model in which the Aristotelian types of motion correspond to the God-given passive functions of the sensible and irrational part of human nature, intended to be guided and governed by the freely willed activity and motion of the intelligible mind. For this very reason, John's theological works (incl. Exp.) never present the Aristotelian types of motion in isolation, but always in tandem with the willing motions of the mind.36 As is widely recognized, analogous anthropological models applying to the human being as a unity of body and soul were crafted by non-Chalcedonians as well as Chalcedonians. The non-Chalcedonians argued from such models that just as the soul and body are united in a single composite human nature, in the same way, the united humanity and divinity of Christ should also form a single composite nature and a single composite will and activity.37 John, in contrast, concludes from the anthropological model that the incarnated Christ possessed two distinctive natural wills and activities.
The definition of nature with which John works informs his conviction that all motions, both passive and active, derive from nature. In order to determine precisely which motions are inherent to this microcosmic human nature, John lays out all the known types of motion of the created order. The Aristotelian types of motion clearly show which functions belong to the sensible, passive and animalistic part of human nature, and the motions of the willing process indicate which functions belong to the active and intelligible part of the human nature. Christ, being fully human, must evidently have possessed each of these sensible and intelligible functions and motions. If Christ had lacked one of these two types of natural motions, either passive or active, he would 35 Volunt. 18: 19-51, but also have lacked a fully human nature.38 In other words, if Christ indeed possessed a distinct and complete human nature, he must have also possessed a distinct willing activity to govern and guide the motions of the passive and sensible body. Marshalled against non-Chalcedonian viewpoints, John's anthropological model established that Christ's humanity and divinity must necessarily have respectively borne two distinct natural wills and activities.39 The logic of the created and natural types of motion therefore helped John to better establish the functions of the created human nature of Christ as distinct from the uncreated divine nature of Christ.

Identifying John's Possible Sources
Up to this point, we have examined the compilation in the 18th chapter of Volunt. of four essentially separate concepts: 1. activities and irrational passions in relation to nature and motion; 2. the definition of nature as a God-given power of motion; 3. the Aristotelian types of motion as a characterization of sensible and passive nature; 4. the distinctive guiding and governing role of the willing activity of the mind in relation to the sensible and passive part of human nature. Still unclear, however, are the background and the sources that might have inspired John to pursue this course -an essential component of a comprehensive account of John's implementation of philosophical logic in theology. It appears, as we will see in the following analysis, that John combines lines of argument from multiple sources.
The first extensively used source is naturally John's own Elementary Introduction (IE), in particular its strongly anti-Monothelite three final chapters (8-10) concerning activities, passions and the will.40 The distinction between 38 Καὶ τὰ πάθη δὲ τὰ φυσικὰ πολλάκις ἐνέργειαι λέγονται, οἷον πεῖνα, δίψα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα. Καὶ ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν· Ἐνέργειά ἐστι φυσικὴ ἡ ἑκάστης οὐσίας δύναμίς τε καὶ κίνησις, ἧς χωρὶς μόνον τὸ μὴ ὄν. Πῶς οὖν οὐχ ἕξει τὴν φυσικὴν ἐνέργειαν τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως ὁ κύριος; Ἡ γὰρ ἀνυπαρξία τῆς φυσικῆς ἑκάστου ἐνεργείας ἀνυπαρξία ὑπάρχει τῆς φύσεως. Εἰ οὖν οὐκ ἔσχεν ἀνθρωπίνην φυσικὴν ἐνέργειαν, οὐδὲ φύσιν ἔσχεν ἀνθρωπίνην· ὧν γὰρ ἡ φύσις διάφορος, τούτων καὶ ἡ θέλησις καὶ ἡ ἐνέργεια διάφορος. ( Elementary Introduction (Institutio elementaris) is John Damascene's first work of a philosophical kind, preceding the Dialectica; in it he aims to explain the most important terms in light of post-Chalcedonian orthodox teaching. The last three chapters of the IE present a pro-Chalcedonian terminological clarification of activity (περὶ ἐνεργείας), activity and passion found in the Volunt., as well as the different examples of passions and activities and their relation to movement and nature, are more or less also found in chapters 8 and 9 of the IE.41 In succession, the influence of chapter 10 of the IE on the Volunt. is apparent in the discussion of the guiding and governing role of the intelligible human will in relation to sensible bodily motions.42 Yet at the same time, the IE mentions nothing about the Aristotelian types of motion, neither does John make a move there to link the Aristotelian types of motion with the sensible nature, let alone with the definition of nature itself.
A number of these missing elements are indeed found, however, in John's other philosophical work: the Dialectica. Let us start with the definition of nature as "the law and power given in the beginning by the Creator to every species, according to which it moves or reposes."43 Kotter suggests that the Volunt. derives this definition from Elias' Commentary on Aristotle's Categories,44 but vast differences between these two textual pericopes exclude the possibility of a direct connection.45 The primary point of divergence is that the Volunt. holds nature to be not simply a principle of motion and rest, but a God-given power and principle of motion and rest.46 The reference to Creator (God), of course, indicates a Christianized version of the Aristotelian definition of nature,47 which was evidently useful for the theological arguments of both the pro-Chalcedonians and the anti-Chalcedonians. One can easily conclude that such definitions also made their way into Christian handbooks of logic, of which the Dialectica is known to be a late example. Taking now the definition of nature of the 18th chapter of the Volunt., it is possible to identify this same definition in the Dial., broken down into two parts: one in chapter 31 of Dialectica (Dial. brev. 11) and the other in chapter 41 (Dial. brev. 24 In substance, there is generation and destruction; in quantity, there is increase and decrease; in quality, alteration; and in place, motion in a circle, which is called "circular," and motion in straight line, which is called "direct." There are, moreover, six kinds of direct motion: upward, downward, inward, outward, motion to the right, and motion to the left. And so with circular motion there are seven kinds of locomotion.50 And slightly further along:

Dial. II:
If this is in the thing itself, it will constitute generation and destruction. If, however, it is in something in the thing itself, this will either be in quantity, in which case it will constitute increase and decrease, or it will be in quality, in which case it will constitute alteration. And if it is in something around the thing, then it will constitute change in place.51 As we can see, the 62nd chapter of the Dialectica contains two extended, explicative articulations of the Aristotelian types of motion (Dial. I and Dial. II), whereas the Volunt. presents the types of motion in one version and in a simple list. Even judging only by the general structure of the presentation of τε καὶ ἠρεμίας. (Dial. fus. 41:2, brev. 24:2, p. 107.) = Φύσιν δὲ λέγω τὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς παρὰ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ δοθέντα ἑκάστῳ εἴδει νόμον καὶ δύναμιν, καθ' ἣν κινεῖται ἢ ἠρεμεῖ. ( Aristotelian types of motion in the two works, a direct link between them should be excluded. Firstly, the 62nd chapter of the Dial. presents the Aristotelian types of motion in two versions, and secondly, it explicates them in terms of their corresponding categories (essence, quantity, quality, etc.). The Volunt., on the other hand, does nothing of the kind, presenting us rather with a straightforward list of the Aristotelian types of motion. But, at the same time, the types of motion are indeed presented with almost identical vocabulary in the Volunt. and the Dial.. Even though the Dial. II uses the term "change of place" (κατὰ τόπον μεταβολήν), which is highly characteristic of Aristotle and later Aristotelian commentators,52 Dial. I refers to the same idea with the term "locomotions" (τοπικαὶ κινήσεις).53 In his theological treatises, in contrast -including the Volunt. -John Damascene discards the term "change of place" (κατὰ τόπον μεταβολήν) from the list entirely, preferring to use only, as in Dial. I, the term "locomotion" instead.54 In addition, the Dial. I names six types of direct motion, but adds circular motion, for a total of seven types of locomotion. The presentation of the six types of locomotion in Volunt. therefore overlaps very closely with Dial. I.
It is therefore possible that John drew from the Dial. his preferred vocabulary for the list of Aristotelian types of motion, unburdened it of the corresponding categories, and constructed his own shorter version of it in the Volunt.. In one way or another, the 62nd chapter of the Dial. is the closest source, in terms of vocabulary, for the Aristotelian types of motion in the Volunt..
But missing from the Dial. is the presentation of the Aristotelian types of motion in tandem with the willing motion and activity of the mind. As we have just seen, John's Dial. presents the list of the Aristotelian types of motion without reference to the willing motions, as is also the practice of Aristotle and the late Neoplatonic commentators. In contrast, in John's theological works, including the Volunt., the Aristotelian list of motions is considered insufficient for characterizing the entire created order, and is supplemented with motion of an intelligible kind. This additional motion of the free willing process naturally raises the question of whether John was drawing on other authors within the patristic tradition. Intriguingly, as previously mentioned, the Greek patristic tradition prior to John appears largely unconcerned with The motions are generation and destruction and alteration; increase, decrease and locomotion -which is in six ways: forward, backward, right, left, upward, downward. And also all the rest that were mentioned are motions. But thought, rational desire, calculation, inquiry, consideration, 55 John Chrysostom, In epistulam ad Colossenses, V, PG 62, 336. One of the so-called patristic sources in which we can also find listed the Aristotelian types of motion is chapter 2 of the De sancta trinitate, ascribed to Cyril of Alexandria (PG 77, 1121). Even though it was long considered to predate John Damascene, Vassa Kontouma has adequately demonstrated that De trinitate is actually an encyclopedic text composed by Joseph the Philosopher in the beginning of the 14th century. In the 17th century, it was falsely attributed to Cyril of Alexandria (Conticello, "Pseudo-Cyril's De SS," pp. 117-129; V. Kontouma-Conticello, "À l'origine de la dogmatique systématique byzantine: l'Édition précise de la foi orthodoxe de saint Jean Damascène," in: Byzantine Theologians Ποίαν δὲ κίνησιν, εἰπέ μοι; παρὰ γὰρ ἡμῖν ἑπτά τινές εἰσιν, ἡ κάτω, ἡ ἄνω, ἡ ἐντὸς, ἡ ἐκτὸς, ἡ δεξιὰ, ἡ ἀριστερὰ, ἡ κυκλοφορικῶς· ἢ εἰ μὴ τοῦτο, αὔξησις, μείωσις, γένεσις, φθορὰ, ἀλλοίωσις. Ἀλλ' οὐδεμίαν τούτων κινεῖται, ἀλλ' οἵαν ὁ νοῦς κίνησιν κινεῖται; Ἀλλ' οὐδὲ τοῦτο· μὴ γένοιτο· πολλὰ γὰρ καὶ ἀτόπως ὁ νοῦς κινεῖται. (PG 62, 336. Own translation.) counsel, judgement, disposition, choice, inclination and impulse towards use are activities.57 As we can see, Chrysostom begins with seven subtypes of movement, after which follow decrease (αὔξησις), increase (μείωσις), generation (γένεσις), corruption (φθορά) and alteration (ἀλλοίωσις). The lists of Aristotelian types of motion in Ad Colossenses and in the Volunt. share a simple textual structure, in contrast to the explicative structure of the Dialectica. The vocabulary is also strikingly similar: only instead of Chrysostom's "motion" (κίνησις), the Damascene uses "locomotion" (τοπικὴ κίνησις). Another difference is that the former names seven types of locomotion, the latter six. In addition, the Ad Colossenses list does not name the Aristotelian types of motion following the classical order, whereas that of the Volunt. does.58 As one would expect, the two texts by John Damascene -Volunt. and Dial. -exhibit greater consistency in vocabulary (the use of the term "locomotion") and also in the number of subtypes of direct motion listed (six) with one another than with John Chrysostom's text.
And yet, at the same time, the texts bear a similarity that cannot be overlooked. Perhaps the most striking commonality between the excerpts from Chrysostom's and the Damascene's works is the juxtaposition to the Aristotelian types of motion of the willing active motion of the mind. Chrysostom's motion of the mind is of course presented by the 18th chapter of the Volunt. in a more developed way that details the whole process of the willing activity.
But the question remains, was it in fact Ad Colossenes that inspired John Damascene to deal with the Aristotelian types of motion together with the willing motions of the mind?
A closer look at chapter V of Ad Colossenes reveals that the Chrysostom lists the different types of motion in order to distinguish types of motion in created reality from the motions of the uncreated God. This thematic combination is strongly paralleled in the anthropological model of the Volunt., which also distinguishes the motions of the created from the uncreated. Also, Chrysostom 57 Κινήσεις δέ εἰσι γένεσις καὶ φθορὰ καὶ ἀλλοίωσις, αὔξησις, μείωσις καὶ ἡ τοπικὴ κίνησις. Ἑξάτροπος δὲ αὕτη ἐστίν, ἔμπροσθεν, ὀπίσω, δεξιά, ἀριστερά, ἄνω, κάτω· καὶ πάντα δὲ τὰ λοιπὰ τὰ εἰρημένα κινήσεις εἰσίν· ἡ δὲ νόησις καὶ ἡ λογικὴ ὄρεξις ὅ τε διαλογισμὸς καὶ ἡ ζήτησις καὶ σκέψις καὶ βουλὴ καὶ κρίσις καὶ διάθεσις καὶ προαίρεσις γνώμη τε καὶ ἡ πρὸς τὴν χρῆσιν ὁρμὴ ἐνέργειαί εἰσιν. links the different types of sensible and intelligible motions with the concept of essence (οὐσία) that is a principle of motion and activity59 -a close parallel with the Volunt., in which the different types of passive and active motions are considered to derive from nature. It is reasonable to infer that the Damascene's inspiration for introducing his own version of the definition of nature and linking it with the different types of motion indeed came from Chrysostom. The fact that Ad Colossenses refers to essence rather than nature does not present a problem, as the Damascene concluded already in his Dial. that the definition of nature is equivalent to the definition of essence.60 The potential influence of John Chrysostom becomes evident in the Volunt. and Exp., as well, where the Damascene invokes his authority in arguing for the two natural wills and activities of Christ.61 All these similarities, and especially the juxtaposition of the Aristotelian types of motion to the willing motion of the mind, mark Chrysostom's Ad Colossenses as a strongly influential source, the importance of which should certainly not be overlooked. But at the same time, Ad Colossenses mentions nothing about the process of the willing activity, nor about its governing and guiding capacity, as Chrysostom's main aim is to assert the incomprehensibility of God, not the human nature of Christ.
Here one must turn to the influence of works historically attributed to Maximus the Confessor. The first of such works are the Christological Opuscula theologica et polemica and the Disputatio cum Pyrrho, which seemed to have influenced John to present in detail the process of the willing activity in chapter 18 of the Volunt.. 62 In a similar way to Maximus, John Damascene in chapter 18 of the Volunt. also considers the complicated process of willing activity, including choice (προαίρεσις) and inclination (γνώμη), to be a part of human natural will.63 As Maximus was known to be the main protagonist in the polem-ics against the Monothelites, his influence here is quite to be expected. But, at the same time, Maximus is also known to be influenced by the Aristotelian concept of motion and change. 64 In the Commentaries on the Divine Names of Dionysios the Areopagite, 65 Maximus in fact lays out many different types of sensible and intelligible motions, some of which overlap with the known list of the Aristotelian types of motion of the Categories, whereas others do not.66 In other words, the Commentary to the Divine Names lacks an orderly list of the Aristotelian types of motion, as presented by the Alexandrian commentators and John Damascene alike. Nor can we find anywhere a case of the Aristotelian types of motion presented together with the process of the willing activity. Even though Maximus' references to the types of motion might have made an impact of a general kind on the Damascene, any direct link between the Commentary to the Divine Names and chapter 18 of the Volunt. should still be excluded.
All of this shows that John Damascene is truly a genius of compilation, who for his chapter 18 of the Volunt. synthesized concepts and patterns from the IE, Dial., Ad Colossenses and from the Christological Opuscula and Disputatio cum Pyrrho, but who in the end transcends the logic of all of those sources and arrives at an original outcome that had not existed before.
The first element of this composite inspirational background is the IE, from which John draws the tripartite notions of activity, passion and will -especially chapter 10 of the IE, which is concerned mainly with how the intelligible will has the power to govern and guide all sensible human reality.
The second element derives from John Chrysostom's Ad Colossenses, from which the Damascene takes the idea of combining essence with motion in its various sensible and intelligible types in order to better distinguish the created from the uncreated. The Damascene clearly appreciated the potential usefulness of this logic in his argument against the Monothelites, as it helped him to distinguish the created human nature of Christ from the uncreated divine nature of Christ. John took up this logic and integrated it with the previously mentioned concepts from the IE. In this way, the Aristotelian types of motion are designated as natural passions of the sensible and animalistic part of the human nature, which is governed by the active motion of the mind.
As the precision of definitions is generally a matter of importance for the Damascene, he turns to additional sources for help in giving the existing concept a more detailed form. Chrysostom's concept of essence therefore guided the Damascene to turn to the Dial., which helped him formulate a more exact definition of nature, needed in order to connect all the sensible and intelligible motions with God-given human nature and thereby with the human nature of Christ. Taking Chrysostom's list of types of movement as a starting point, John of Damascus also reshapes this in accord with the representation thereof in the Dial., rendering its structure and wording more applicable to the problem at hand. And lastly, the Maximian works were used to present the simple governing motion of the mind in a more detailed way as a natural process of the willing activity.
This synthesis in the Volunt. results in an impressively original anti-Monothelite and anti-Monoenergite implementation of the Aristotelian types of motion, which express the God-given passive and sensible human nature, meant to be guided and governed by the freely willing activity of the mind.

Conclusion
As we have seen from the use of the Aristotelian types of motion in the Volunt., John Damascene proves to be a synthesizer unafraid to employ Aristotelian philosophical logic in his theological argumentation. John does so because he seems to have understood a fundamental Aristotelian logic, according to which from motion one may deduce something about nature and vice versa. But in addition, John appreciated the value of this logic for proving the existence of two distinct natures in Christ along with the functions that go with these natures. This understanding guided John even deeper into the logic of motion and thereby into the world of the different kinds and types of motion, which enabled him to argue with greater precision against the non-Chalcedonians. In so doing, John is clearly drawing both on patristic and Christian philosophical sources, where such ideas already partially existed. Even though the patristic authority of Chrysostom and Maximus would have been sufficient, the Damascene still feels the need to supplement it with concepts from the IE and the Dial. This means that the formulation of these philosophical works indeed formed a watershed, significantly influencing John Damascene and his later theological thinking. The use of the list of the Aristotelian types of motion in one of his philosophic works, combined with the addition of the intelligible motion in two of his theological works, as well, is one clear example of this impact.
But the most striking feature of this innovation is not the extraction of traces of Aristotelian logic from patristic sources in combination with his own philosophical works, but the way this combination takes place. John does not merely compile random concepts from previous patristic and Christian philosophic traditions, but creatively synthesizes them in new contexts with his own personal touch. This means that rather than a mere copyist, John is here more like a creative artist of compilation who mixes different pre-existing colors in order to create new tones. This innovative approach enables John to utilize older logical concepts from the Christian philosophical and patristic tradition, synthesizing them in an original way to meet the Christological challenges of his own era.