i Nestorii atque Eutychis summoueantur
errores; post uero adiuuante deo, Christianae medietatem fidei temperabo.
Quoniam uero in tota quaestione contrariarum sibimet [Greek: haireseon] de
personis dubitatur atque naturis, haec primitus definienda sunt et propriis
differentiis segreganda.

A TREATISE AGAINST EUTYCHES AND NESTORIUS

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 overwhelme