This edition and translation of some of the mystical discourse of the eighth-century Nestorian monk John of Dalyatha is an attempt to fill part of the gap that exists in our knowledge of Syrian Christian mysticism.

蘇澤民. / "2006年12月" / 論文(哲學碩士)--香港中文大學, 2006. / 參考文獻(leaves 121-126). / "2006 nian 12 yue" / Abstracts in Chinese and English. / Su Zemin. / Lun wen (zhe xue shuo shi)--Xianggang Zhong wen da xue, 2006. / Can kao wen xian (leaves 121-126). / Chapter 第一章 --- 緒論 --- p.1 / Chapter 第一節 --- 硏究目的及範圍 --- p.2 / Chapter 第二節 --- 關於荀卿之生平及其著述 --- p.3 / Chapter 第三節 --- 關於楊倞及其《荀子注》 --- p.6 / Chapter 第二章 --- 楊倞《注》的體例 --- p.8 / Chapter 第一節 --- 襲用前代注釋典籍之材料 --- p.8 / Chapter 第二節 --- 闡釋義理 --- p.11 / Chapter 第三節 --- 輯錄別本異文 --- p.13 / Chapter 第四節 --- 引錄佚說 --- p.14 / Chapter 第三章 --- 楊倞《注》徵引《莊子》考論 --- p.16 / Chapter 第一節 --- 唐代莊學盛行與楊倞引用《莊子》作注之關係 --- p.17 / Chapter 第二節 --- 楊倞用《莊子》注《荀子》述例 --- p.19 / Chapter 一、 --- 名物訓詁 --- p.19 / Chapter 二、 --- 闡釋義理 --- p.24 / Chapter 三、 --- 對《荀子》內容作出補充 --- p.29 / Chapter 第三節 --- 楊倞用《莊子》作注所見《莊子》與《荀子》 在用語及思想上之關係 --- p.32 / Chapter 一、 --- 《荀子》部分用語受《莊子》影響 --- p.33 / Chapter 二、 --- 莊子與荀、孟思想之異同 --- p.36 / Chapter 第四節 --- 小結 --- p.46 / Chapter 第四章 --- 楊倞以「仁義禮智信」注思孟五行辨 --- p.49 / Chapter 第一節 --- 思孟五行諸家解說槪述 --- p.51 / Chapter 第二節 --- 《¯‘ة書´Ø洪範》「五行」、「五事」與思孟五行之關係 --- p.54 / Chapter 第三節 --- 《周易´Ø乾文言》與《太玄´Ø玄數》 所見五行與五常之關係 --- p.61 / Chapter 第四節 --- 從《中庸》看思孟五行與五常之關係 --- p.67 / Chapter 第五節 --- 小結 --- p.75 / Chapter 第五章 --- 楊倞對儒家統緒承傳問題之立場 --- p.78 / Chapter 第一節 --- 從楊倞引韓愈著述看其對韓愈統緒觀之認同 --- p.79 / Chapter 第二節 --- 引錄揚雄著述，標明其與荀卿之關係 --- p.86 / Chapter 第六章 --- 楊倞改易《荀子》篇章次第析論 --- p.91 / Chapter 第一節 --- 改易〈賦篇 > 及〈成相〉次第 --- p.92 / Chapter 第二節 --- 將性質相同的篇章置於一類 --- p.95 / Chapter 第三節 --- 始〈勸學〉而終〈堯問〉 --- p.96 / Chapter 第七章 --- 結論 --- p.98 / 附錄 / 附錄一楊倞《注》徵引各種篇籍數量表 --- p.101 / 附錄二 楊倞《注》徵引《莊子》表 --- p.104 / 附錄三 楊倞《注》徵引韓愈著述表 --- p.115 / 附錄四 楊倞《注》徵引揚雄著述表 --- p.117 / 附錄五 《太玄´Ø玄數》五方配五行、四時、五常示意圖 --- p.120 / 附錄六參考書目 --- p.121

John of Damascus was an early eighth century theologian in the Jerusalem Patriarchate. His family supplied financial administrators in Syro-Palestine for most of the seventh century, who were involved in surrendering Damascus to the Arabs if not also to the Persians. They thrived in the sectarian environment under the Umayyads. Numerous Greek Lives paint John in legendary terms; however, these are late and unreliable. I deconstruct the Lives decoupling his timeline from Byzantine Iconoclasm, arguing that there is no evidence and good reason to think that he did not leave the Arab administration because of vexed piety, persecution or administrative language change. Rather, focusing on the chronicler's treatment of John's family, I argue that John left office for his own reasons. I propose that John was instrumental in a quid pro quo: cathedral for patriarchate negotiation. Consequently, the Arabs built the Damascus Mosque on the site of the cathedral church of St John the Baptist, and the (dyothelite) Chalcedonian party moved to Jerusalem, where they reestablished the Jerusalem Patriarchate. Thus, I argue the context of John's polemical works is Jerusalem and patriarchal policy. Further, I argue that John was commissioned to produce something like 'proto-school' texts in the context of debate in the Anastasis with internal Maronite and external West and East Syrian interlocutors. Then I look at one example of John's theological creativity to show how this context impinged on his theological program. John appropriates Maximus the Confessor's term perichoresis and reduces its scope to the Incarnation while moving it into the doctrine of God for the first time. I show that he does this for polemical reasons in order to contravene each of his interlocutors with a simple biblical rhetorical model providing Chalcedonian monks in debate with a simple formula against better educated foes. This thesis demonstrates that reading John out of context fails to appreciate his creative response to these local exigencies.

No description available.

Ancient Maya inscription carvers at the city of Palenque in what is now Chiapas, Mexico worked in teams to complete large and complex stone tablets. Like artists everywhere, they each had developed idiosyncratic habits which the modern connoisseur can learn to discern, in order to identify which parts of a particular monument were sculpted by one or another artist. The author scrutinized several eighth-century CE inscriptions, panels in stucco and limestone, analyzing how many artists worked on each, to wit: the Temple XVIII Stuccos, the Temple XIX Platform, the Temple XIX Stuccos, the Temple XIX Panel, the Panel of the 96 Glyphs, the Lápida de la Creación and associated fragments, the Palace Tablet and its associated fragmentary panels, and the Tablet of the Slaves. The ensemble whose main components are the Panel of the 96 Glyphs and the Lápida de la Creación are all by one hand, and the Tablet of the Slaves was the work of four carvers, but the Temple XIX Platform surprisingly employed fourteen carvers, and the Palace Tablet over a score. Their territories were not divided textually, and display idiosyncratic spellings of glyph compounds as well as carving habits. The conclusion discusses possible reasons for these findings, relating them to the unusual Maya practice of never correcting mistakes in monumental inscriptions. A likely reason seems to be that the ancient Maya considered these texts not merely as a permanent record, but as ongoing, living repetitions of the ritual in question, and had to be completed in a very short time. / text