¹ Viktor Schurr lists some of those for and against in Die Trinitätslehre des Boethius im Lichte der “skythischen Kontroversen” (Paderborn, 1935)Google Scholar, 8, n. 40. He mistakenly cites August Hildebrand as supporting the authenticity of the document.

² Schurr, 7–9. It is worth noting, however, that Father Schurr gives less than two full pages to Tr. IV, which, in his opinion, had little to do with his subject.

³ Ibid., 7–8. Professor Rand's dissertation, Der dem Boethius zugeschriebene Traktat de fide catholica, is in Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, XXVI, Supplementband (Leipzig, 1901) 401–461.

⁴ For example, Rand, thesis, 416–425.

⁵ A good illustration of this wise restraint is to be found in his thesis, 420, where it was remarked that Tr. IV, along with the other treatises, from the beginning has had a strong place in the tradition in two different recensions. The difficulty of interpreting the tradition aright, though not stressed, was made perfectly clear.

⁶ Stewart, H. F. and Rand, E. K., Boethius: The Theological Tractates. The Consolation of Philosophy (Cambridge and New York, 1936Google Scholar; first printed in 1918), 52, n. a. All references to Boethius' works are to this edition.

⁷ Ibid., 52, n. a. As noted above, Rand had already indicated, in his doctor's thesis, the firm position of Tr. IV in the tradition. Other re-interpretations presented in this edition will be commented on below.

⁸ Rand, E. K., Founders of the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1929CrossRefGoogle Scholar; this work first appeared in 1928), 156–157, 315, n. 28.

⁹ In a review of Cooper, Lane, A Concordance of Boethius, the Five Theological Tractates and the Consolation of Philosophy (Cambridge, 1928)Google Scholar. The review appeared in Speculum, IV (1929), 223–227Google Scholar. He here, p. 227, mentioned doubts about style, which struck him as different from that of the other four tractates and more in the ‘esoteric’ manner of the Consolation. He wondered too about disagreements in vocabulary and turns of phrase. Schurr referred (8, n. 43) to this hesitation without comment. Is the Consolation ‘esoteric’ in style as compared with the tractates? I doubt very much that Boethius thought so.

¹⁰ Rand, review of Schurr's Trinitätslehre, Speculum, XI (1936), 153–156Google Scholar. See also Rand, , The Building of Eternal Rome (Cambridge, 1943), 239CrossRefGoogle Scholar, n. 104, where Tr. IV is again accepted as genuine.

¹¹ Cappuyns, M., ‘Boèce’ in Dictionnaire d'histoire et de géographic ecclésiastiques, IX (1937), cols. 348–380Google Scholar. In cols. 371–372 he accepts Rand's revised opinion but mentions neither Rand's review of Cooper's Concordance, nor his review of Schurr. Furthermore he does not consider the internal theological evidence, but until that evidence is examined the case can scarcely be regarded as complete.

¹² On the importance of this controversy for politics, for theology, and for the development of scholasticism see Schurr, 228–232. For a comment on the connection between Boethius' theological activities and his arrest and execution for treason see my article, ‘Theodoric vs. Boethius: Vindication and Apology,’ American Historical Review, XLIX (1944), 410–426Google Scholar.

¹³ As Rand noted in his thesis, 428.

¹⁴ The comment of Nitzsch, Friedrich, in Das System des Boethius und die ihm zugeschriebenen theologischen Schriften (Berlin, 1860)Google Scholar, is interesting. He says of Tr. IV, p. 170: ‘… der Stil desselben zeichnet sich vor dem aller anderen durch Kraft, Lebendigkeit und Gedrungenheit aus; einige Stellen haben einen fast liturgischen, das ganze hat einen kirchlithen Charakter….’ Indeed the manner of expression, it seems to me, sometimes approaches the mystical mode of some of Boethius' Eastern contemporaries. See also Rand, Pounders, 156–157.

¹⁵ Note the comparisons in the Rand-Stewart edition, 104, n. a and 126, n. b. Compare also lines 9–14 and 32–34 in Tr. IV with lines 7–15 in Tr. I, i.

¹⁶ See McKinlay, Arthur P., ‘Stylistic Tests and the Chronology of the Works of Boethius,’ Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, XVIII (1907), 123–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar. According to the stylistic tables on pp. 138–139 there are no significant variations between Tr. IV and the other tractates. See Cappuyns, 371.

¹⁷ Rand, thesis, 416–420, and Schurr, 8. See also Usener, Hermann, Anecdoton Holderi: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Roms in ostgotischer Zeit, in Festschrift zur Begrüssung der XXXII Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner zu Wiesbaden (Bonn, 1877), 49–50Google Scholar, 55–56, 59.

¹⁸ Cappuyns, 372. Rand, review of Schurr, Trinitätslehre, in Speculum, XI, 153, in referring to the second point, says, ‘The significance of that note, I believe, is diminished by the complete evidence of the tradition. Traube asked me, I remember, why Reginbert, the writer of that part of R, should know more about the matter than we.’ See Cappuyns, 371, for his views on the tradition. Cf. Rand, thesis, 419.

¹⁹ For the fragment see Usener, Anecdoton Holderi, 4, lines 14–16. Rand-Stewart edition, 52–53, n. a, and Rand, Founders, 315, n. 28.

²⁰ Rand's suggestion is accepted by Cappuyns, 371, who adds that it is not improbable that, in Boethius' time, as was the case in the later Middle Ages, Tr. II and III (?) were included with Tr. I under the title Liber de Trinitate.

²¹ There is no need to treat at length the point raised by Nitzsch and by Rand, in his dissertation, concerning the alleged difference between Boethius' creation doctrine and that of Tr. IV. That Boethius as a theologian was sui generis is well known to those who have studied the Opuscula Sacra and the Consolation. But see Silk, Edmund T., ‘Boethius's Consolatio Philosophiae as a Sequel to Augustine's Dialogues and Soliloquia,’ Harvard Theological Review, XXXII (1939), 19–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Klingner, Fritz, De Boethii Consolatione Philosophiae in Philologische Untersuchungen, XXVII (1921Google Scholar); and Carton, Raoul, ‘Le christianisme et l'Augustinisme de Boèce,’ Revue de philosophie nouvelle série, I (1930), 573–659Google Scholar. It is recognized of course that Boethius was much influenced by Greek thought; it should also be remembered that he had not finished his contemplated career of writing at the time of his death. Nitzsch, who wrote before the publication of the Aneedoton Holderi, believed the arguments used against Boethius' authorship of Tr. V (he rejected all the tractates) could also be used against Tr. IV (169). For Rand's discussion see his thesis, 425–427, where he takes issue with Nitzsch and disputes Hildebrand's views on Boethius' creation doctrine. But if this thought concerning Boethius' belief in respect of nihil ex nihilo, as expressed in the Consolation, were carried through, would it not actually constitute an argument against Boethius' Christianity or at least his orthodoxy? It is not necessary, however, to discover the creation theory of the Consolation in Tr. IV in order to establish the authenticity of the latter. And as Rand and Stewart point out in their edition (56, n. b), the expression ex nihilo creauit is not used in the disputed tractate. See also, ibid., 104, n. a and 126, n.b.

²² For the view that Tr. IV was written in Boethius' time see Rand, thesis, 441 ff. and Nitzsch, 170.

²³ The influence of Augustine upon this work was very great, just as it was in Boethius' Trinitarian studies. Rand, thesis, 420–425.

²⁴ Nitzsch, 166, noticed that these remarks were more involved than what followed but did not discuss them.

²⁵ For further discussion, references, and an interpretation see ‘Theodoric vs. Boethius,’ especially 411–415.

²⁶ Schurr, 105–107, 224–225. Schurr, 127, believed Tr. V was written some years earlier in 512–513. Cappuyns, 374, suggests that its date be put closer to that of I and II, but offers neither evidence nor convincing argument in support of a revision of Schurr's chronology. Certainly the later date may be considered more convenient but thus far there is no reason for considering it anything more than convenient.

²⁷ Schurr, 135–136, 224–225.

²⁸ For a full statement and extensive quotations see Schurr, 210–219.

²⁹ For a discussion of the philosophical principles involved see Schurr, 21–46.

³⁰ Tr. I, as Schurr has shown, 97–104, was written after II and expands and extends the argument presented in the earlier and shorter treatise.

³¹ In Tr. I and II these references to the Trinity are followed by esoteric discussions, since, as explained by the prefatory letter of Tr. I and by the dedication and conclusion of Tr. II, they were addressed to specialists. There is no such learned discussion in Tr. IV, but it was not the working out of a problem.

³² In the De trinitate, V, 8 (PL 42) Augustine says: ‘Quemadmodum enim Pater Deus est, et Filius Deus est, et Spiritus sanctus Deus est, quod secundum substantiam dici nemo dubitat: non tamen tres deos, sed unum Deum dicimus earn ipsam praestantissiman Trinitatem.’

³³ And the fides catholica is defined in Tr. I in a way strongly reminiscent of Tr. IV. Cf. I, i, 1–6 and IV, 257–265. Reference should also be made again to the similarities pointed out in the Rand-Stewart edition, 104, n. a and 126, n. b.

³⁴ Nitzsch, 168. The statement of Tr. IV, lines 34–40, is: ‘Sabelliani quoque non tres exsistentes personas sed unam ausi sunt affirmare, eundem dicentes patrem esse qui filius est eundemque filium qui pater est atque spiritum sanctum eundem esse qui pater et filius est; ac per hoc unam dicunt esse personam sub uocabulorum diuersitate signatam.’ August Hildebrand, in Boëthius und seine Stellung zum Christentume (Regensburg, 1885), 295–309, also rejects Tr. IV but his arguments are weak and irrelevant.

³⁵ Sabellianism also drew the fire of the Scythians. See John Maxentius, Dialogi contra Nestorianos libri II, in Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ed. Schwartz, IV, 2, p. 39, lines 32 ff., and Dionysius Exiguus, preface to his translation of Proclus' Tomus ad Armenios, ACO IV, 2, p. 196, lines 18–25. Dionysius describes the Sabellian belief exactly as Tr. IV does. In defending the Scythian formula, unus ex trinitate, and reassuring Westerners who were afraid of the new expression, he declares: ‘… post auctoritatem apostolicam id ipsum exequentem multipliciter uenerabilium quoque patrum testimoniis adprobatum est ob distinctionem personarum, cum ratio poposcerit, unum ex tribus fideliter posse praedicari, maxime contra Sabellium, qui sanctam trinitatem unius credit esse personae eamque nominibus tantum fatetur esse [non] tribus, quam nos unius uenerantes essentiae personarum solummodo cognitione discernimus.’ Dionysius also defends his Trinitarian views against the Nestorians and against those (p. 197, lines 1–4): ‘qui uocabulum trinitatis non personarum esse significatiuum, sed substantiae suspicantur. quibus 〈sci〉 licet ad informationem ueri debuerat appellatio ipsa sufficere, quae uim pluralis numeri resonans non essentiam, sed personas indubitanter expromit.’ Boethius dealt in the same way with numbers in the Trinity. In Tr. II, after explaining that there is diversity of persons in the Trinity but unity of substance, he says, lines 58–62: ‘Quod si personae diuisae sunt, substantia uero indiuisa sit, necesse est quod uocabulum ex personis originem capit id ad substantiam non pertinere; at trinitatem personarum diuersitas fecit, trinitas igitur non pertinet ad substantiam.’ Tr. IV does not go into the question of numbers in detail but the essence of Boethius' and Dionysius' views is there. For another striking comparison see Tr. II, lines 52–54, and Tr. IV, lines 36–38. On the similarity of Boethius' and Dionysius' interpretations see Schurr, 207–209.

³⁶ See Leclercq, C. J. Hefele-H., Histoire des conciles d'après les documents originaux I, 2 (Paris, 1907), 966Google Scholar, on the Sabellian interpretation of πρόσωπον. For Sabellianism see Stokes, G. T., ‘Sabellianism’ in Dictionary of Christian Biography and Adolf von Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, fünfte, photomechanisch gedruckte Auflage, I (Tübingen, 1931), 763Google Scholar. Harnack here observes: ‘Die Annahme von Nitzsch und Anderen, man müsse zwischen zwei Stadien in der Theologie des Sabellius unterscheiden, wird unnöthig, sobald nur die unzuverlässigen Quellen ausgeschieden sind. Der Hauptsatz auch des Sabellius lautete, dass derselbe der Vater, derselbe der Sohn, derselbe der h. Geist sei. An einem und demselben Wesen haften also drei Namen.’

³⁷ Compare Tr. IV, lines 49–53, on the Manichaean denial of the Virgin birth of the Son with Tr. V, v, where Boethius refutes Eutyches on Christ's birth.

³⁸ Tr. IV, 22–25. The language is interesting. On the use of uel in the phrase ‘a patre quoque procedentem uel filio’ see Rand-Stewart edition, 56, n. a and Rand's dissertation, 441–442. Cf. Hildebrand, 296, 308, who incorrectly translates uel as oder.

³⁹ Tr. I, v, 45–48. If Boethius wrote Tr. IV as well as I, he may have used ‘quoque’ in the passage cited in the preceding note with the notion that the Spirit too proceeded from the Father just as the Son did. I do not think we need consider Boethius' terminology loose, as Rand does in his dissertation, 442, n. 2, simply because he says, Tr. I, v, 46–48: ‘…cogitemus processisse quidem ex deo patre filium deum et ex utrisque spiritum sanctum.’ This language was perhaps a trifle unusual, even in the sixth century, but it was not heretical. It is one thing to say the Son proceeded from the Father; it would have been something quite different to say the Spirit was begotten. Note Augustine's terminology, De trinitate, XV, 27 (PL 42): ‘Quia nec filius hominum simul et ex patre et ex matre procedit,’ etc. He points out, in the same place, that it would be quite wrong to say the Spirit was begotten and he also remarks, with deep feeling, I suspect, that in the Trinity: ‘difficillimum est generationem a processione distinguere.’

⁴⁰ For Cyril's anathema see Hefele-Leclercq, II, 1, 275–276, and n. 2. For Theodore's creed see Hahn, August, Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche, dritte Auflage (Breslau, 1897), 302Google Scholar. See also Bethune-Baker, J. F., An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine to the Time of the Council of Chalcedon, fourth edition (London, 1929), 214–216Google Scholar. Theodore's creed was mentioned with strong disapproval by Dionysius Exiguus in the preface cited above, ACO, IV, 2, 196. It is also noteworthy that this creed was translated into Latin by the compiler of the Palatine Collection, who was a Scythian contemporary of Boethius, ACO I, 5.

⁴¹ See Schurr, 211–215 for more information on Boethius, the Scythians, and the question of number in the Trinity.

⁴² Tr. IV, 207–213: ‘Sed huic tarn sanae atque ueracissimae fidei exstiterant multi qui diuersa garrirent et praeter alios Nestorius et Eutyches repertores haereseos exstiterunt, quorum unus hominem solum, alter deum solum putauit asserere nec humanum corpus quod Christus induerat de humanae substantiae participatione uenisse.’ Note the brief mention of Pelagius, Tr. IV, 113–117.

⁴³ Nitzseh does not agree. After the declaration that the statement of Tr. IV on the Sabellians is not pertinent and not historically accurate, he adds that the same is true of the assertion that Nestorius pronounced Christ to be man only and that Eutyches regarded him as a purely divine being. Nitzseh expected a great deal of a summary statement. But Tr. IV, far from contradicting Tr. V, is in agreement with it. In Tr. V, iv, 67–125, Boethius explained that as long as the persons remained, as Nestorius taught, there could be no assumption of humanity and hence Christ would be no more God than the saints. In Tr. V, v, 5–7, he accused Eutyches of believing that after the assumption of humanity the human nature did not remain. Hildebrand also (303–304) expected too much of a brief statement and as a result thought he saw a difference between Tr. IV and Boethius' analysis of the Nestorian-Eutychian question in V. Boethius issued a pertinent warning on brevity to his friend John the Deacon, Tr. III, lines 11–14: ‘Prohinc tu ne sis obscuritatibus breuitatis aduersus, quae cum sint arcani fida custodia tum id habent commodi, quod cum his solis qui digni sunt conloquuntur.’

⁴⁴ The sixth heresy named in Tr. IV, the Pelagian, was also attacked by the Scythian monks.

⁴⁵ Band, Founders, 157. Schurr, 8–9, n. 46, does not agree, since Tr. IV seems to him to be ‘ein ungemein sorgfältig ausgearbeitetes, theologisch sehr hochstehendes Glaubenssymbol.’

⁴⁶ Lines 94–96 and 247–253. Note Schurr's comment, 8–9, n. 46.

⁴⁷ For that reason an unknown Scythian compiled the Collectio Palatina and in it appealed to the definitions of Nestorianism and Eutychianism prepared by his compatriot, John, bishop of Tomi, who was presumably John Maxentius. Dionysius Exiguus made his translations of theological documents for the same reason. Pope Hormisdas vigorously defended his rather hostile treatment of the Scythians and Maxentius replied. A senator, Faustus by name, asked the presbyter Trifolius to explain the Scythian formula and Trifolius gave an unfriendly interpretation of the Theopaschite position. Both sides energetically tried to win the support of senate and people.