The Theological Tractates and The Consolation of Philosophy written by Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius

A >> Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius >> The Theological Tractates and The Consolation of Philosophy

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25

BOETHIUS

THE THEOLOGICAL TRACTATES

WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY H.F. STEWART, D.D.

FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE

AND E.K. RAND, PH.D.

PROFESSOR OF LATIN IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY

THE CONSOLATION OF PHILOSOPHY

WITH THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF "I.T." (1609)

REVISED BY H.F. STEWART

1918

[Transcriber's Note: The paper edition of this book has Latin and English
pages facing each other. This version of the text uses alternating Latin
and English sections, with the English text slightly indented.]

CONTENTS

NOTE ON THE TEXT

INTRODUCTION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

THE THEOLOGICAL TRACTATES

THE CONSOLATION OF PHILOSOPHY

SYMMACHI VERSUS

INDEX

NOTE ON THE TEXT

In preparing the text of the _Consolatio_ I have used the apparatus in
Peiper's edition (Teubner, 1871), since his reports, as I know in the case
of the Tegernseensis, are generally accurate and complete; I have depended
also on my own collations or excerpts from various of the important
manuscripts, nearly all of which I have at least examined, and I have also
followed, not always but usually, the opinions of Engelbrecht in his
admirable article, _Die Consolatio Philosophiae des Boethius_ in the
_Sitzungsberichte_ of the Vienna Academy, cxliv. (1902) 1-60. The
present text, then, has been constructed from only part of the material
with which an editor should reckon, though the reader may at least assume
that every reading in the text has, unless otherwise stated, the authority
of some manuscript of the ninth or tenth century; in certain orthographical
details, evidence from the text of the _Opuscula Sacra_ has been used
without special mention of this fact. We look to August Engelbrecht for the
first critical edition of the _Consolatio_ at, we hope, no distant
date.

The text of the _Opuscula Sacra_ is based on my own collations of all
the important manuscripts of these works. An edition with complete
_apparatus criticus_ will be ready before long for the Vienna
_Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum_. The history of the
text of the _Opuscula Sacra_, as I shall attempt to show elsewhere, is
intimately connected with that of the _Consolatio_.

E.K.R.

INTRODUCTION

Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius, of the famous Praenestine family of the
Anicii, was born about 480 A.D. in Rome. His father was an ex-consul; he
himself was consul under Theodoric the Ostrogoth in 510, and his two sons,
children of a great grand-daughter of the renowned Q. Aurelius Symmachus,
were joint consuls in 522. His public career was splendid and honourable,
as befitted a man of his race, attainments, and character. But he fell
under the displeasure of Theodoric, and was charged with conspiring to
deliver Rome from his rule, and with corresponding treasonably to this end
with Justin, Emperor of the East. He was thrown into prison at Pavia, where
he wrote the _Consolation of Philosophy_, and he was brutally put to death
in 524. His brief and busy life was marked by great literary achievement.
His learning was vast, his industry untiring, his object unattainable--
nothing less than the transmission to his countrymen of all the works of
Plato and Aristotle, and the reconciliation of their apparently divergent
views. To form the idea was a silent judgment on the learning of his day;
to realize it was more than one man could accomplish; but Boethius
accomplished much. He translated the [Greek: Eisagogae] of Porphyry, and
the whole of Aristotle's _Organon_. He wrote a double commentary on the
[Greek: Eisagogae] and commentaries on the _Categories_ and the _De
Interpretatione_ of Aristotle, and on the _Topica_ of Cicero. He also
composed original treatises on the categorical and hypothetical syllogism,
on Division and on Topical Differences. He adapted the arithmetic of
Nicomachus, and his textbook on music, founded on various Greek
authorities, was in use at Oxford and Cambridge until modern times. His
five theological _Tractates_ are here, together with the _Consolation of
Philosophy_, to speak for themselves.

Boethius was the last of the Roman philosophers, and the first of the
scholastic theologians. The present volume serves to prove the truth of
both these assertions.

The _Consolation of Philosophy_ is indeed, as Gibbon called it, "a golden
volume, not unworthy of the leisure of Plato or of Tully." To belittle its
originality and sincerity, as is sometimes done, with a view to saving the
Christianity of the writer, is to misunderstand his mind and his method.
The _Consolatio_ is not, as has been maintained, a mere patchwork of
translations from Aristotle and the Neoplatonists. Rather it is the supreme
essay of one who throughout his life had found his highest solace in the
dry light of reason. His chief source of refreshment, in the dungeon to
which his beloved library had not accompanied him, was a memory well
stocked with the poetry and thought of former days. The development of the
argument is anything but Neoplatonic; it is all his own.

And if the _Consolation of Philosophy_ admits Boethius to the company of
Cicero or even of Plato, the theological _Tractates_ mark him as the
forerunner of St. Thomas. It was the habit of a former generation to regard
Boethius as an eclectic, the transmitter of a distorted Aristotelianism, a
pagan, or at best a luke-warm Christian, who at the end cast off the faith
which he had worn in times of peace, and wrapped himself in the philosophic
cloak which properly belonged to him. The authenticity of the _Tractates_
was freely denied. We know better now. The discovery by Alfred Holder, and
the illuminating discussion by Hermann Usener,[1] of a fragment of
Cassiodorus are sufficient confirmation of the manuscript tradition, apart
from the work of scholars who have sought to justify that tradition from
internal evidence. In that fragment Cassiodorus definitely ascribes to his
friend Boethius "a book on the Trinity, some dogmatic chapters, and a book
against Nestorius."[2] Boethius was without doubt a Christian, a Doctor and
perhaps a martyr. Nor is it necessary to think that, when in prison, he put
away his faith. If it is asked why the _Consolation of Philosophy_ contains
no conscious or direct reference to the doctrines which are traced in the
_Tractates_ with so sure a hand, and is, at most, not out of harmony with
Christianity, the answer is simple. In the _Consolation_ he is writing
philosophy; in the _Tractates_ he is writing theology. He observes what
Pascal calls the orders of things. Philosophy belongs to one order,
theology to another. They have different objects. The object of philosophy
is to understand and explain the nature of the world around us; the object
of theology is to understand and explain doctrines delivered by divine
revelation. The scholastics recognized the distinction,[3] and the
corresponding difference in the function of Faith and Reason. Their final
aim was to co-ordinate the two, but this was not possible before the
thirteenth century. Meanwhile Boethius helps to prepare the way. In the
_Consolation_ he gives Reason her range, and suffers her, unaided, to
vindicate the ways of Providence. In the _Tractates_ Reason is called in to
give to the claims of Faith the support which it does not really lack.[4]
Reason, however, has still a right to be heard. The distinction between
_fides_ and _ratio_ is proclaimed in the first two _Tractates_. In the
second especially it is drawn with a clearness worthy of St. Thomas
himself; and there is, of course, the implication that the higher authority
resides with _fides_. But the treatment is philosophical and extremely
bold. Boethius comes back to the question of the substantiality of the
divine Persons which he has discussed in Tr. I. from a fresh point of view.
Once more he decides that the Persons are predicated relatively; even
Trinity, he concludes, is not predicated substantially of deity. Does this
square with catholic doctrine? It is possible to hear a note of challenge
in his words to John the Deacon, _fidem si poterit rationemque coniunge_.
Philosophy states the problem in unequivocal terms. Theology is required to
say whether they commend themselves.

One object of the scholastics, anterior to the final co-ordination of the
two sciences, was to harmonize and codify all the answers to all the
questions that philosophy raises. The ambition of Boethius was not so
soaring, but it was sufficiently bold. He set out, first to translate, and
then to reconcile, Plato and Aristotle; to go behind all the other systems,
even the latest and the most in vogue, back to the two great masters, and
to show that they have the truth, and are in substantial accord. So St.
Thomas himself, if he cannot reconcile the teaching of Plato and Aristotle,
at least desires to correct the one by the other, to discover what truth is
common to both, and to show its correspondence with Christian doctrine. It
is reasonable to conjecture that Boethius, if he had lived, might have
attempted something of the kind. Were he alive to-day, he might feel more
in tune with the best of the pagans than with most contemporary philosophic
thought.

In yet one more respect Boethius belongs to the company of the schoolmen.
He not only put into circulation many precious philosophical notions,
served as channel through which various works of Aristotle passed into the
schools, and handed down to them a definite Aristotelian method for
approaching the problem of faith; he also supplied material for that
classification of the various sciences which is an essential accompaniment
of every philosophical movement, and of which the Middle Ages felt the
value.[5] The uniform distribution into natural sciences, mathematics and
theology which he recommends may be traced in the work of various teachers
up to the thirteenth century, when it is finally accepted and defended by
St. Thomas in his commentary on the _De Trinitate_.

A seventeenth-century translation of the _Consolatio Philosophiae_ is here
presented with such alterations as are demanded by a better text, and the
requirements of modern scholarship. There was, indeed, not much to do, for
the rendering is most exact. This in a translation of that date is not a
little remarkable. We look for fine English and poetry in an Elizabethan;
but we do not often get from him such loyalty to the original as is here
displayed.

Of the author "I.T." nothing is known. He may have been John Thorie, a
Fleming born in London in 1568, and a B.A. of Christ Church, 1586. Thorie
"was a person well skilled in certain tongues, and a noted poet of his
times" (Wood, _Athenae Oxon._ ed. Bliss, i. 624), but his known
translations are apparently all from the Spanish.[6]

Our translator dedicates his "Five books of Philosophical Comfort" to the
Dowager Countess of Dorset, widow of Thomas Sackville, who was part author
of _A Mirror for Magistrates_ and _Gorboduc_, and who, we learn from I.T.'s
preface, meditated a similar work. I.T. does not unduly flatter his
patroness, and he tells her plainly that she will not understand the
philosophy of the book, though the theological and practical parts may be
within her scope.

The _Opuscula Sacra_ have never before, to our knowledge, been translated.
In reading and rendering them we have been greatly helped by two mediaeval
commentaries: one by John the Scot (edited by E.K. Rand in Traube's
_Quellen und Untersuchungen_, vol. i. pt. 2, Munich, 1906); the other by
Gilbert de la Porree (printed in Migne, _P.L._ lxiv.). We also desire to
record our indebtedness in many points of scholarship and philosophy to Mr.
E.J. Thomas of Emmanuel College.

Finally, thanks are due to Mr. Dolson for the suggestion in the footnote on
the preceding page, and also to Professor Lane Cooper of Cornell University
for many valuable corrections as this reprint was passing through the
Press.

H.F.S.
E.K.R.

_October, 1926._

[1] _Anecdoton Holderi_, Leipzig, 1877.

[2] _Scripsit librum de sancta trinitate et capita quaedam dogmatica et
librum contra Nestorium._ On the question of the genuineness of Tr. IV. _De
fide catholica_ see note _ad loc_.

[3] Cp. H. de Wulf, _Histoire de la Philosophie medievale_ (Louvain and
Paris 1915), p. 332.

[4] See below, _De Trin_. vi. _ad fin_.

[5] Cp. L. Baur, _Gundissalinus: de divisione_, Muenster, 1905.

[6] Mr. G. Bayley Dolson suggests with greater probability that I.T. was
John Thorpe (fl. 1570-1610), architect to Thomas Sackville, Earl of Dorset.
Cf. _American Journal of Philology_, vol. xlii. (1921), p. 266.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

_Editio Princeps_:

Collected Works (except _De fide catholica_). Joh. et Greg. de
Gregoriis. Venice, 1491-92.

_De consolatione philosophiae_. Coburger. Nuernberg, 1473.

_De fide catholica_. Ed. Ren. Vallinus. Leyden, 1656.

_Latest Critical Edition_:

_De consolatione philosophiae_ and Theological Tractates. R.
Peiper. Teubner, 1871.

_Translations_:

_De consolatione philosophiae_.

Alfred the Great. Ed. W.J. Sedgefield. Oxford, 1899 and 1900.

Chaucer. Ed. W.W. Skeat in Chaucer's Complete Works. Vol. ii. Oxford,
1894.

H.R. James. _The Consolation of Philosophy of Boethius_. London,
1897; reprinted 1906.

Judicis de Mirandol. _La Consolation philosophique de Boece_.
Paris, 1861.

_Illustrative Works_:

A. Engelbrecht. _Die Consolatio Phil. der B._ Sitzungsberichte der
Koen. Akad. Vienna, 1902.

Bardenhewer, _Patrologie_ (Boethius und Cassiodor, pp. 584 sqq.).
Freiburg im Breslau, 1894.

Haurean. _Hist. de la philosophie scolastique._ Vol. i. Paris,
1872.

Hildebrand. _Boethius und seine Stellung zum Christentum._
Regensburg, 1885.

Hodgkin. _Italy and her Invaders._ Vols. iii. and iv. Oxford, 1885.

Ch. Jourdain. (1) _De l'origine des traditions sur le christianisme de
Boece_; (2) _Des commentaires inedits sur La Consolation de la
philosophie_. (Excursions historiques et philosophiques a travers le
moyen age.) Paris, 1888.

Fritz Klingner. _De Boethii consolatione_, Philol. Unters. xxvii.
Berlin, 1921.

F.D. Maurice. _Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy._ Vol. i. London,
1872.

F. Nitzsch. _Das System des B._ Berlin, 1860.

E.K. Rand. _Der dem B. zugeschriebene Traktat de Fide catholica_
(Jahrbuch fuer kl. Phil. xxvi.). 1901.

Semeria. _Il Cristianesimo di Sev. Boezio rivendicato_, Rome, 1900.

M. Schanz. _Gesch. der roem. Litteratur._ Teil iv. Boethius. Berlin,
1921.

H.F. Stewart. _Boethius: an Essay._ Edinburgh, 1891.

Usener. _Anecdoton Holderi._ Leipsic, 1877.

BOETHIUS

THE THEOLOGICAL TRACTATES
AND THE CONSOLATION OF PHILOSOPHY

ANICII MANLII SEVERINI BOETHII
V.C. ET INL. EXCONS. ORD. PATRICII

INCIPIT LIBER QVOMODO
TRINITAS VNVS DEVS
AC NON TRES DII

AD Q. AVRELIVM MEMMIVM SYMMACHVM
V.C. ET INL. EXCONS. ORD. ATQVE PATRICIVM SOCERVM

Investigatam diutissime quaestionem, quantum nostrae mentis igniculum lux
diuina dignata est, formatam rationibus litterisque mandatam offerendam
uobis communicandamque curaui tam uestri cupidus iudicii quam nostri
studiosus inuenti. Qua in re quid mihi sit animi quotiens stilo cogitata
commendo, tum ex ipsa materiae difficultate tum ex eo quod raris id est
uobis tantum conloquor, intellegi potest. Neque enim famae iactatione et
inanibus uulgi clamoribus excitamur; sed si quis est fructus exterior, hic
non potest aliam nisi materiae similem sperare sententiam. Quocumque igitur
a uobis deieci oculos, partim ignaua segnities partim callidus liuor
occurrit, ut contumeliam uideatur diuinis tractatibus inrogare qui talibus
hominum monstris non agnoscenda haec potius quam proculcanda proiecerit.
Idcirco stilum breuitate contraho et ex intimis sumpta philosophiae
disciplinis nouorum uerborum significationibus uelo, ut haec mihi tantum
uobisque, si quando ad ea conuertitis oculos, conloquantur; ceteros uero
ita submouimus, ut qui capere intellectu nequiuerint ad ea etiam legenda
uideantur indigni. Sane[7] tantum a nobis quaeri oportet quantum humanae
rationis intuitus ad diuinitatis ualet celsa conscendere. Nam ceteris
quoque artibus idem quasi quidam finis est constitutus, quousque potest uia
rationis accedere. Neque enim medicina aegris semper affert salutem; sed
nulla erit culpa medentis, si nihil eorum quae fieri oportebat omiserit.
Idemque in ceteris. At quantum haec difficilior quaestio est, tam facilior
esse debet ad ueniam. Vobis tamen etiam illud inspiciendum est, an ex beati
Augustini scriptis semina rationum aliquos in nos uenientia fructus
extulerint. Ac de proposita quaestione hinc sumamus initium.

[7] sed ne _codices optimi_.

THE TRINITY IS ONE GOD NOT THREE GODS

A TREATISE BY ANICIUS MANLIUS SEVERINUS BOETHIUS MOST HONOURABLE, OF THE
ILLUSTRIOUS ORDER OF EX-CONSULS, PATRICIAN

TO HIS FATHER-IN-LAW, QUINTUS AURELIUS MEMMIUS SYMMACHUS
MOST HONOURABLE, OF THE ILLUSTRIOUS ORDER OF EX-CONSULS, PATRICIAN

I have long pondered this problem with such mind as I have and all the
light that God has lent me. Now, having set it forth in logical order
and cast it into literary form, I venture to submit it to your judgment,
for which I care as much as for the results of my own research. You will
readily understand what I feel whenever I try to write down what I think
if you consider the difficulty of the topic and the fact that I discuss
it only with the few--I may say with no one but yourself. It is indeed
no desire for fame or empty popular applause that prompts my pen; if
there be any external reward, we may not look for more warmth in the
verdict than the subject itself arouses. For, apart from yourself,
wherever I turn my eyes, they fall on either the apathy of the dullard
or the jealousy of the shrewd, and a man who casts his thoughts before
the common herd--I will not say to consider but to trample under foot,
would seem to bring discredit on the study of divinity. So I purposely
use brevity and wrap up the ideas I draw from the deep questionings of
philosophy in new and unaccustomed words which speak only to you and to
myself, that is, if you deign to look at them. The rest of the world I
simply disregard: they cannot understand, and therefore do not deserve
to read. We should not of course press our inquiry further than man's
wit and reason are allowed to climb the height of heavenly knowledge.[8]
In all the liberal arts we see the same limit set beyond which reason
may not reach. Medicine, for instance, does not always bring health to
the sick, though the doctor will not be to blame if he has left nothing
undone which he ought to do. So with the other arts. In the present case
the very difficulty of the quest claims a lenient judgment. You must
however examine whether the seeds sown in my mind by St. Augustine's
writings[9] have borne fruit. And now let us begin our inquiry.

[8] Cf. the discussion of human _ratio_ and divine _intellegentia_ in
_Cons. v._ pr. 4 and 5.

[9] e.g. Aug. _De Trin._

I.

Christianae religionis reuerentiam plures usurpant, sed ea fides pollet
maxime ac solitarie quae cum propter uniuersalium praecepta regularum,
quibus eiusdem religionis intellegatur auctoritas, tum propterea, quod eius
cultus per omnes paene mundi terminos emanauit, catholica uel uniuersalis
uocatur. Cuius haec de trinitatis unitate sententia est: "Pater," inquiunt,
"deus filius deus spiritus sanctus deus." Igitur pater filius spiritus
sanctus unus non tres dii. Cuius coniunctionis ratio est indifferentia. Eos
enim differentia comitatur qui uel augent uel minuunt, ut Arriani qui
gradibus meritorum trinitatem uariantes distrahunt atque in pluralitatem
diducunt. Principium enim pluralitatis alteritas est; praeter alteritatem
enim nec pluralitas quid sit intellegi potest. Trium namque rerum uel
quotlibet tum genere tum specie tum numero diuersitas constat; quotiens
enim idem dicitur, totiens diuersum etiam praedicatur. Idem uero dicitur
tribus modis: aut genere ut idem homo quod equus, quia his idem genus ut
animal; uel specie ut idem Cato quod Cicero, quia eadem species ut homo;
uel numero ut Tullius et Cicero, quia unus est numero. Quare diuersum etiam
uel genere uel specie uel numero dicitur. Sed numero differentiam
accidentium uarietas facit. Nam tres homines neque genere neque specie sed
suis accidentibus distant; nam uel si animo cuncta ab his accidentia
separemus, tamen locus cunctis diuersus est quem unum fingere nullo modo
possumus; duo enim corpora unum locum non obtinebunt, qui est accidens.
Atque ideo sunt numero plures, quoniam accidentibus plures fiunt.

I.

There are many who claim as theirs the dignity of the Christian
religion; but that form of faith is valid and only valid which, both on
account of the universal character of the rules and doctrines affirming
its authority, and because the worship in which they are expressed has
spread throughout the world, is called catholic or universal. The belief
of this religion concerning the Unity of the Trinity is as follows: the
Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Therefore Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, not three Gods. The principle of this
union is absence of difference[10]: difference cannot be avoided by
those who add to or take from the Unity, as for instance the Arians,
who, by graduating the Trinity according to merit, break it up and
convert it to Plurality. For the essence of plurality is otherness;
apart from otherness plurality is unintelligible. In fact, the
difference between three or more things lies in genus or species or
number. Difference is the necessary correlative of sameness. Sameness is
predicated in three ways: By genus; e.g. a man and a horse, because of
their common genus, animal. By species; e.g. Cato and Cicero, because of
their common species, man. By number; e.g. Tully and Cicero, because
they are numerically one. Similarly difference is expressed by genus,
species, and number. Now numerical difference is caused by variety of
accidents; three men differ neither by genus nor species but by their
accidents, for if we mentally remove from them all other accidents,[11]
still each one occupies a different place which cannot possibly be
regarded as the same for each, since two bodies cannot occupy the same
place, and place is an accident. Wherefore it is because men are plural
by their accidents that they are plural in number.

[10] The terms _differentia, numerus, species,_ are used expertly, as
would be expected of the author of the _In Isag. Porph. Commenta._ See
S. Brandt's edition of that work (in the Vienna _Corpus_, 1906), s.v.
_differentia,_ etc.

[11] This method of mental abstraction is employed more elaborately in
_Tr._ iii. (_vide infra_, p. 44) and in _Cons._ v. pr. 4, where the
notion of divine foreknowledge is abstracted in imagination.

II.

Age igitur ingrediamur et unumquodque ut intellegi atque capi potest
dispiciamus; nam, sicut optime dictum uidetur, eruditi est hominis unum
quodque ut ipsum est ita de eo fidem capere temptare.

Nam cum tres sint speculatiuae partes, _naturalis_, in motu
inabstracta [Greek: anupexairetos] (considerat enim corporum formas cum
materia, quae a corporibus actu separari non possunt, quae corpora in motu
sunt ut cum terra deorsum ignis sursum fertur, habetque motum forma
materiae coniuncta), _mathematica_, sine motu inabstracta (haec enim
formas corporum speculatur sine materia ac per hoc sine motu, quae formae
cum in materia sint, ab his separari non possunt), _theologica_, sine
motu abstracta atque separabilis (nam dei substantia et materia et motu
caret), in naturalibus igitur rationabiliter, in mathematicis
disciplinaliter, in diuinis intellectualiter uersari oportebit neque diduci
ad imaginationes, sed potius ipsam inspicere formam quae uere forma neque
imago est et quae esse ipsum est et ex qua esse est. Omne namque esse ex
forma est. Statua enim non secundum aes quod est materia, sed secundum
formam qua in eo insignita est effigies animalis dicitur, ipsumque aes non
secundum terram quod est eius materia, sed dicitur secundum aeris figuram.
Terra quoque ipsa non secundum [Greek: apoion hulaen] dicitur, sed secundum
siccitatem grauitatemque quae sunt formae. Nihil igitur secundum materiam
esse dicitur sed secundum propriam formam. Sed diuina substantia sine
materia forma est atque ideo unum et est id quod est. Reliqua enim non sunt
id quod sunt. Vnum quodque enim habet esse suum ex his ex quibus est, id
est ex partibus suis, et est hoc atque hoc, id est partes suae coniunctae,
sed non hoc uel hoc singulariter, ut cum homo terrenus constet ex anima
corporeque, corpus et anima est, non uel corpus uel anima in partem; igitur
non est id quod est. Quod uero non est ex hoc atque hoc, sed tantum est
hoc, illud uere est id quod est; et est pulcherrimum fortissimumque quia
nullo nititur. Quocirca hoc uere unum in quo nullus numerus, nullum in eo
aliud praeterquam id quod est. Neque enim subiectum fieri potest; forma
enim est, formae uero subiectae esse non possunt. Nam quod ceterae formae
subiectae accidentibus sunt ut humanitas, non ita accidentia suscipit eo
quod ipsa est, sed eo quod materia ei subiecta est; dum enim materia
subiecta humanitati suscipit quodlibet accidens, ipsa hoc suscipere uidetur
humanitas. Forma uero quae est sine materia non poterit esse subiectum nec
uero inesse materiae, neque enim esset forma sed imago. Ex his enim formis
quae praeter materiam sunt, istae formae uenerunt quae sunt in materia et
corpus efficiunt. Nam ceteras quae in corporibus sunt abutimur formas
uocantes, dum imagines sint. Adsimulantur enim formis his quae non sunt in
materia constitutae. Nulla igitur in eo diuersitas, nulla ex diuersitate
pluralitas, nulla ex accidentibus multitudo atque idcirco nec numerus.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25