BY ANICIUS MANLIUS SEVERINUS BOETHIUS MOST HONOURABLE, OF THE ILLUSTRIOUS
ORDER OF EX-CONSULS, PATRICIAN
TO HIS SAINTLY MASTER AND REVEREND FATHER JOHN THE DEACON
HIS SON BOETHIUS
I have been long and anxiously waiting for you to discuss with me the
problem which was raised at the meeting. But since your duties have
prevented your coming and I shall be for some time involved in my
business engagements, I am setting down in writing what I had been
keeping to say by word of mouth.
You no doubt remember how, when the letter[53] was read in the assembly,
it was asserted that the Eutychians confess that Christ is formed from
two natures but does not consist of them--whereas Catholics admit both
propositions, for among followers of the true Faith He is equally
believed to be of two natures and in two natures. Struck by the novelty
of this assertion I began to inquire what difference there can be
between unions formed from two natures and unions which consist in two
natures, for the point which the bishop who wrote the letter refused to
pass over because of its gravity, seemed to me of importance and not one
to be idly and carelessly slurred over. On that occasion all loudly
protested that the difference was evident, that there was no obscurity,
confusion or perplexity, and in the general storm and tumult there was
no one who really touched the edge of the problem, much less anyone who
solved it.
I was sitting a long way from the man whom I especially wished to
watch,[54] and if you recall the arrangement of the seats, I was turned
away from him, with so many between us, that however much I desired it I
could not see his face and expression and glean therefrom any sign of
his opinion. Personally, indeed, I had nothing more to contribute than
the rest, in fact rather less than more. I, no more than the others, had
any view about the question at issue, while my possible contribution was
less by one thing, namely, the false assumption of a knowledge that I
had not got. I was, I admit, much put out, and being overwhelmed by the
mob of ignorant speakers, I held my peace, fearing lest I should be
rightly set down as insane if I held out for being sane among those
madmen.[55] So I continued to ponder all the questions in my mind, not
swallowing what I had heard, but rather chewing the cud of constant
meditation. At last the door opened to my insistent knocking, and the
truth which I found cleared out of my way all the clouds of the
Eutychian error. And with this discovery a great wonder came upon me at
the vast temerity of unlearned men who use the cloak of impudent
presumption to cover up the vice of ignorance, for not only do they
often fail to grasp the point at issue, but in a debate of this kind
they do not even understand their own statements, forgetting that the
case of ignorance is all the worse if it is not honestly admitted.[56]
I turn from them to you, and to you I submit this little essay for your
first judgment and consideration. If you pronounce it to be sound I beg
you to place it among the other writings of mine which you possess; but
if there is anything to be struck out or added or changed in any way, I
would ask you to let me have your suggestions, in order that I may enter
them in my copies just as they leave your hands. When this revision has
been duly accomplished, then I will send the work on to be judged by the
man to whom I always submit everything.[57] But since the pen is now to
take the place of the living voice, let me first clear away the extreme
and self-contradictory errors of Nestorius and Eutyches; after that, by
God's help, I will temperately set forth the middle way of the Christian
Faith. But since in this whole question of self-contradictory heresies
the matter of debate is Persons and Natures, these terms must first be
defined and distinguished by their proper differences.
[53] Evidently the letter addressed to Pope Symmachus by the Oriental
bishops (_vide_ Mansi, _Concil_. viii. 221 ff.), in which they inquire
concerning the safe middle way between the heresies of Eutyches and
Nestorius. The date of the bishops' letter, and consequently, in all
probability, of Boethius's tractate was 512.
[54] Obviously his father-in-law Symmachus. _Vide_ p. 76, _eius cuius
soleo iudiclo_, etc.
[55] Cf. Hor. _Serm_. i. 3. 82; ii. 3. 40.
[56] Cf. _infra, de Cons._ i. pr. 4 (p. 142) _oportet uulnus detegas.
[57] _Vide supra_, p. 75, and _De Trin._ p. 3.