The following little work may seem to turn simply on the logical problem of predication. The great divide between predicates, for Thomas as for Aristotle, is between those that are predicated in quid and those that are predicated in quale the difference, in short, between those that tell us what the thing is, what pertains to its nature or essence, and those that attribute incidental properties, relations, location, etc. to a substance. In one of his shorter works, St Anselm wondered whether calling someone a grammarian amounted to a predicate of the first or second type. Boethius’s question can seem to be like that. When I say of someone that he is good – say the Samaritan – I seem to be doing something very much like saying, ‘The Samaritan is a grammarian.’ He had to exist in order to acquire this skill and he would go on being who he is if all his knowledge of grammar suddenly deserted him. But when he is said to be a man, on the other hand, the predicate informs us of the kind of thing he is. He could not be without that predicate and go on being a man.
Boethius’s problem arises from the fact that he is thinking of the difference between calling God good and calling a creature good. A man might be called morally good in terms of characteristics he at first did not have – virtues – and which he could lose and still go on being the same person, though no longer one we would care to live with. But Boethius has another sense of ‘good ’in mind; not an incidental predicate, but one pointing to what the thing is. Whatever is, is good just as it is one. To lose goodness in this sense would be to cease to be. So it looks to be a substantial rather than an incidental predicate. But what then of ’God is good’?
Boethius sets up a neat dilemma. If good can be predicated either incidentally or substantially, there are reasons why we would want to deny that the predicate in ‘Socrates is good ’is either. After all, God is goodness and Socrates only has it. This is the basis for the distinction between saying something essentially and saying something by way of participation of a subject. But, as you will see, this creates problems of its own.
Thomas’s commentary turns a fairly opaque piece into a relatively easy argument.
EXPOSITION OF ON THE HEBDOMADS OF BOETHIUS
1
You ask me to state and explain somewhat more clearly that obscure question in my Hebdomads concerning the manner in which substances can be good in virtue of existence without being absolute goods. You urge that this demonstration is necessary because the method of this kind of treatise is not clear to all. I can bear witness with what eagerness you have already attacked the subject. But I confess I like to expound my Hebdomads to myself, and would rather bury my speculations in my own memory than share them with any of those pert and frivolous persons who will not tolerate an argument unless it is made amusing. Wherefore do not you take objection to the obscurity that waits on brevity; for obscurity is the sure treasure house of secret doctrine and has the further advantage that it speaks a language understood only of those who deserve to understand. I have therefore followed the example of the mathematical and cognate sciences and laid down terms and rules according to which I shall develop all that follows.
A common conception of the soul is a statement accepted as soon as one hears it. These are of two kinds. One is common to all men, for example were you to say, ‘Equals taken from equals leave equals, ’no one hearing this would deny it. The other is of the learned alone, though it arises from the first, for example ‘Incorporeal things are in no place, ’etc., to which the learned but not the crowed assent.
Boethius, On the Hebdomads1
Boethius writes a book for us on his thoughts,called On the Hebdomads, that is,on the publications, because the Greek word means to publish. Boethius does two things in this book. First, he writes a preface, second he gets on with the body of the work: For a thing to be and what it is differ.
In the first part, he states his intention, next he tells us how he will procedure,‘You urge that…’,and third he speaks of the order of procudure, ‘I have therefore followed…’
He dedicates the book to John, a deacon of the Roman church, who had asked him to discuss certain matters from his Hebdomads, that is, publications, to clarify a difficult question so that an apparent contradiction might be resolved. For it is said that created substances, insofar as they exist, are good, yet created substances are not substantial goods, for this is said to be peculiar to God. What pertains to a thing insofar as it exists, belongs to it substantially. Therefore, if created substances, insofar as they exist, are good, it seems to follow that they are substantial goods.
When he says, You urge that…, he shows the way he wishes to speak here, not plainly, but obscurely. He does three things, first, says that he means to speak obscurely, second, he mentions that this is his customary manner, But I confess…, and third he shows that this manner ought to be accepted, Wherefore do not you…
First, he says that the one for whom he writes asked him to treat these matters in such a way that what is here written will not be understood by those who are not as attached to them as he. And of him Boethius testifies that he had embraced these matters eagerly before, that is, by profoundly understanding and fervently desiring.
He goes on to say that this manner is customary with him, remarking that it is his wont to comment, that is to compose and excogitate these Hebdomads or editions or conceptions, which he preserves, turning them over in memory.
When he writes, Wherefore do not you…, he concludes from the foregoing that he ought gratefully to receive this obscure speech, that is, the one who requested it; and that is why he says, do not you… namely because you did it, lest the journey of our descriptions should be open to all. Nor should you be adverse, that is contrary, to the obscurities of brevity, that is to the obscurity of the present book, which is linked to its brevity. By the fact that some things are briefly said, they become more obscure, but obscurity since it faithfully guards the secret, has this utility that he speaks only with the worthy, that is with the understanding and serious who are worthy to be admitted to the secrets of wisdom.
Then when he says, I have therefore followed the example of the mathematical, he shows the order of proceeding, that is, from things which are known of themselves, and he does two things, first, he states the order of proceeding, second, he makes known the things from which he intends to proceed: A common conception of the soul.
He says that he intends first to propose some self-evidently known principles which he calls terms or rules – terms, because in such principles the resolution of any demonstration comes to an end; rules, because by them one is directed to knowledge of the conclusions that follow. From such principles he intends to conclude and make known everything which is later to be treated, in the manner of geometry and the other demonstrative sciences, which are for that reason called disciplines because by them knowledge is acquired by learners from the demonstration that the teacher puts forward.
Then when he says the common conception of the soul, he makes known the self-evident principles, first by definition, second by division, there, These are of two kinds.
With respect to the first point it should be considered that such principles, which are terms because they are rules of demonstrations, are called common conceptions of the soul: A common conception of the soul is a statement accepted as soon as one hears it, that is, that anyone immediately approves when he hears it. For other propositions which are demonstrated by these are not immediately approved by the listener, but must become known through others. But there should not be an infinite regress so we must come to some that are known immediately of themselves. Hence they are called common conceptions of the soul and commonly fall within the conception of any intellect. The reason for this is that the predicate enters into the account of the subject, such that, once the subject is named and understood as to what it is, immediately it is manifest that the predicate is in it.
Then when he says, These are of two kinds, he divides the foregoing principles, saying that there are two kinds of common conceptions of the soul. For some conceptions of the soul are common to all men, for example, if equals be taken from equals equals remain. Another conception of the soul is common only to the learned and is derived from the first conceptions of the soul which are common to all men. For example, incorporeal things are not in place, which is not accepted by the unlearned, but only by the wise.
The reason for this distinction is this, since the common conception of the soul, or self-evident principle, is a proposition whose predicate enters into the account of the subject, if what is meant by subject and predicate is within the ken of all, such a proposition will be self-evident to all: for example what is equal is known to all, and so too what it is to take away, and therefore the foregoing proposition is self-evident to all. And so too, every whole is greater than its part, and other like propositions. But only the intellect of the wise rises to the understanding of the incorporeal thing, for the intellect of the mass of men does not transcend imagination, which is only of corporeal things, and therefore what is proper to bodies, for example to be circumscriptively in place, the intellect of the wise at once removes from incorporeal things, which the unlearned cannot do.
2
1. To be and that which is are different.
a. For to be itself is not yet, but that which is, having received a form of being, is and subsists.
b. That which is can participate in something, but to be itself in no wise participates in anything. Participation comes about when something already is, and something is when it receives existence.
c. That which is can have something outside what it is, but to be itself has nothing outside itself mixed with it.
2. To be such and such and to be something as that which is, differ.
a. The former signifies accident, the latter, substance. b. That which is participates in existence in order to be and participates in another to be such and such.
c. That which is participates in that which is existence in order to be, and is in order to participate in something else.
3. In every composite, to be is one thing, and the thing that is, another.
4. In every simple thing, its existence and that which is are the same.
5. All difference is discord, but likeness is to be desired.
What desires another is itself shown to be naturally like what it desires.
What we have set forth suffices. The wise interpreter with his own reasons can adapt each of them to arguments.
Boethius, On the Hebdomads
Boethius said above that he would proceed in this order that having set forth certain terms and rules, he would go on from them to further matters, and so according to the order stated, he begins first to set down some rules or some conceptions of the wise, and second he begins to argue from them: but a question of this kind…
As has already been said, those propositions are most known which use terms everyone understands. But the things that occur to any intellect are the most common that are: being, one and good. Therefore, Boethius first states some conceptions pertaining to being; second, some pertaining to one, from which the notions of simple and complex are taken: paragraph
3. Third, he states some conceptions pertaining to the good: paragraph 5.
With respect to being, to be itself is considered something common and indeterminate, which is determined in two ways, first on the part of the subject, which has existence, and another way on the part of the predicate, as when we say of man, or of anything, not that it simply is, but that it is such and such, for example white or black. First therefore he states conceptions which are taken from the comparison of that which is simply to be to that which is to be such and such: paragraph 5.
The first point he subdivides into two: first he states the difference between that which is existence and that which is; second he manifests this difference: For to be itself is not yet… (paragraph 1a)
First he says that to be and that which is are different. This difference is not now to be referred to things, of which he does not yet speak, but to the notions or intentions themselves. For we mean one thing when we say to be and another when we say that which is, just as we signify one thing by to run and another by runner. For to run and to be are signified in the abstract, like whiteness, but what is, that is being and runner, are signified in the concrete, like white.
When he says, For to be itself…, he manifests this difference in three ways, of which the first is this: to be itself is not signified as if it were the subject of being, any more than to run signifies the subject of running. Just as we cannot say that to run itself runs, so we cannot say that to be itself is, and just as that which is is signified as the subject of being, so that which runs is signified as the subject of running. Therefore, just as we can say of him who runs, or the runner, that he runs, insofar as he is the subject of running and participates in it, so we can say that being, or that which is, is. That is what he means when he says, to be itself is not yet, because to be is not attributed to it as to a subject of being; but that which is, having received a form of being, that is, by receiving the very act of being, is and consists, that is, subsists in itself. For being is only said properly and as such of substance, of which it is to subsist. Accidents are not called being as if they were beings, but insofar as something is their subject, as will be said later.
He states the second difference in paragraph 1b: That which is can participate. This difference is based on the notion of participation. To participate is as it were to take a part, and therefore when something receives in a particular way what pertains to another, it is generally said to participate in it, as man is said to participate in animal, because he does not have the notion of animal according to its full extension; for the same reason, Socrates participates in man. So too the subject participates in its accident, and matter in form, because the substantial or accidental form, which of its own notion is common, is determined to this or that subject, and similarly the effect is said to participate in its cause, especially when it is not equal to the power of its cause, for example when we say that air participates in the light of the sun because it does not receive it with the brightness the sun has.
Setting aside this third kind of participating, it is impossible that to be itself should participate in anything according to either of the first two modes. For it cannot participate in anything in the way in which matter or a subject participates in form or accident, because, as has been said, to be itself is signified as something abstract. No more can it participate in something in the way that the particular participates in the universal, even though some things abstractly stated can participate in something, as whiteness in colour. But to be itself is most common: it is indeed participated in by others, but does not itself participate in anything else. But that which is, or being, although most common is said concretely, and therefore it participates in to be itself, not in the way that the more common is participated in by the less common, but it participates in to be itself in the way the concrete participates in the abstract.
This is what he means by that which is – that is, being – can participate in something; but to be itself in no way participates in anything (paragraph 1b). And in this way he proves what was said above, namely that to be itself is not yet (paragraph 1a). Clearly what is not cannot participate in anything. Consequently, participation belongs to that which already is. Something is because it receives to be itself, as has been said; so it remains that that which is can participate in something, but to be itself cannot participate in anything.
He states the third difference in paragraph 1c, that which is, and this difference is based on the admixture of something extraneous. On this point, consider that with respect to anything abstractly considered, it is true that it does not have in itself anything extraneous, that is, anything that would be outside its essence, for example humanity or whiteness and anything else so said. The reason is that humanity is signified as that whereby something is a man, and whiteness as that whereby something is white. Nothing is a man, formally speaking, except by that which pertains to the definition of man, and similarly a thing is white formally only because of what pertains to the definition of white. Therefore, such abstractly stated things cannot have anything alien in themselves. It is otherwise with things stated concretely.
For ‘man’signifies that which has humanity, and ‘white ’that which has whiteness. But just because a man has humanity or whiteness does not prevent him from having something else which does not pertain to the definitions of these – except of course what is contrary to them. Therefore man and the white thing can have something besides humanity and whiteness. This is the reason that whiteness and humanity are signified in the manner of a part and are not predicated of the concrete, any more than the part is of its whole. Therefore, as has been said, because to be itself is signified as abstract and that which is as concrete, what is here said is true, that which is can have something besides that which it is (paragraph 1c), that is, outside its essence, but to be itself can have nothing mixed with it outside its own essence.
Then when in paragraph 2 he says To be such and such and to be something, he states conceptions which are based on the comparison of what it is to be simply and what it is to be such and such. First he states their difference, second, in paragraph 2a he assigns the differences: The former signifies accident.
With respect to the first, note that because that which is can have something outside its own essence, a twofold existence must be recognized in it. For since form is the principle of being, it is necessary that according as it has some form it will be said to have being in some way. Therefore, if the form is not outside the essence of the one having it, but constitutes his essence, by the fact that he has such a form he will be said to have existence simply, like a man because he has a rational soul. But if the form be such that it is extraneous to the essence of the one having it, because of this form it will not be said to be simply, but to be such and such, as thanks to whiteness a man is said to be white. That is what he means by to be such and such, which is not to be simply, differs from something as that in which it is, which is the proper subject of existence (paragraph 2).
When he says, The former signifies accident (paragraph 2a), he states three differences between the foregoing.
Of which the first is that there, that is, where it is said of a thing that it is such and such, and not that it is simply, an accident is signified, because the form that causes such being is outside the essence of the thing, but here when something is said to be in that which is signified as substance, namely because the form causing being constitutes the essence of the thing.
He states the second difference in paragraph 2b, That which is participates in existence, where he means that in order for something to be simply a subject, it participates in to be itself, but in order to be such and such, it must participate in something else; as a man in order to be white participates not only in substantial existence, but also in whiteness.
He states the third difference in paragraph 2c, That which is participates, which indeed is based on the order of both and is derived from what has gone before. The difference is that something must first be understood as simply being, and afterwards as being such and such; but when once it is, that is, by participation in to be itself, there remains for it to participate in something else, that is, in order to be such and such.
Then when he said, In every composite (paragraph 3), he states conceptions having to do with the complex and simple, which pertain to the notion of one. It should be noted that what was said already about the difference between to be itself and that which is, is based on their meanings or intentions. Here he shows how it is applied to things, and first he shows this in complex things, second in simple, in paragraph 4: In every simple thing…
First it must be noted that, just as to be and what is differ in simple things according to intentions, so they really differ in complex things. This is indeed manifest from what has gone before. For it was said above that to be itself neither participates in anything, such that its notion would be constituted of many, nor does it have anything extraneous mixed with it, such that there might be in it a composition with accident. To be itself is not complex. Therefore, the complex thing is not its own existence. That is what he means by In every composite, to be is one thing, and the namely that which has participated – thing that is is another (paragraph 3) in to be itself.
When he says, In every simple thing (paragraph 4), he shows how it is with the simple, in which to be itself and that which is must be really one and the same. For if to be itself were really other than that which is, it would not be simple, but composed. But note that although to be simple means to lack composition, nothing prevents something from being simple in a certain respect, because it lacks a kind of composition, which is not simple in every way. Thus fire and water are called simple bodies, insofar as they lack the composition of contraries that is found in mixed bodies, but each of them is composed both of quantitative parts and of form and matter. Therefore, if there should be found forms apart from matter, each of them is simple in that it lacks matter, and consequently quantity, which is a disposition of matter, none the less, because each form is determinative of to be itself, none of them is its own existence, but is something having existence.
For example, if we should adopt the opinion of Plato and posit an immaterial form to subsist which is an idea and notion of material men, and another form which is the idea and notion of horses, clearly the immaterial subsisting form, since it something determined to a species, is not common existence itself, but participates in it. In this respect it does not matter whether we posit immaterial forms of a higher rank than the notions of these sensible things, as Aristotle wishes: each of them, insofar as it is distinct from the others, is a special form participating in existence itself. Thus none of them is truly simple.
That will be truly simple which does not participate in existence as something inhering in it but is subsistent existence. But this can only be one. Because if existence itself has nothing added to itself besides existence, as has been said, it is impossible that that which is its own existence be multiplied by something diversifying it; and because it has nothing outside itself mixed with it, the consequence is that it is susceptible of no accident. This one simple and sublime being is God himself.
When he says, All difference… (paragraph 5), he states two conceptions pertaining to appetite from which good is defined; for the good is said to be what all things desire.
Here then is the first conception: all difference is discord, and similarity is to be desired. Concerning which, note that the discordant clashes with desire, so discord is said to be what is repugnant to desire. The different as such is repugnant to desire; the reason is that the like augments and perfects what is like it and everything desires its own growth and perfection, and therefore the like, as such, is desirable to anything and, by parity of reasoning, the diverse is repugnant to desire insofar as it diminishes and impedes perfection.
Therefore he says that all difference is discord, that is, discordant with desire, but likeness is to be desired. It happens accidentally that an appetite abhors the like and desires the different or contrary. As has been said, each thing first of all and as such desires its own perfection, which is the good of anything, and is always proportioned to what is perfectible of it, and so far forth has similarity to it. Other exterior things are desired or avoided insofar as they contribute to proper perfection, in which something sometimes fails either by defect or excess.
The proper perfection of anything consists of a kind of commensuration, as the perfection of the human body consists in commensurated heat which, when it fails, something hot is desired by which heat can be augmented, and if it is excessive it seeks the contrary, namely the cold, to reduce its temperature, in which consists the perfection conformed to nature. Thus one potter might resent another insofar as he takes away from him a desired perfection, namely profit.
He states the second conception in paragraph 5, What desires another…, which is derived from the foregoing. For if likeness is as such to be desired, that which desires another is shown naturally to be of the same sort as the thing it wants, because it has a natural inclination to what it desires. This natural inclination sometimes follows the essence of the thing, as the heavy desires to be down according to the notion of its essential nature, but sometimes it follows on the nature of some supervenient form, as when someone with an acquired habit desires that which is agreeable to him because of that habit.
Finally he adds an epilogue, What we have set forth suffices, namely what has been said is sufficient for the thesis, and one who wisely interprets these axioms can adapt each of them to arguments, applying them to appropriate conclusions, as will be clear in what follows.
3
Now the problem is this. Things which are, are good. For all the learned are agreed that every existing thing tends to good and everything tends to its like. Therefore things which tend to good are good. We must, however, inquire how they are good – by participation or by substance.
If by participation, they are in no wise good in themselves; for a thing which is white by participation in whiteness is not white in itself by virtue of what it is. So with all other qualities. If then they are good – by participation, they are not good in themselves; therefore they do not tend to good. But we have agreed that they do. Therefore they are good not by participation but by substance.
But those things whose substance is good are substantially good. But the fact that they are is due to existence. Therefore their existence is good. Existence therefore is a good of all things. But if existence is good the things that are, are good just insofar as they are. For them to be and to be good is the same. They are substantial goods since they do not participate in goodness. But if their existence is good, there is no doubt that, as substantial goods, they are like the First Good. Indeed, they will be the First Good since nothing other is like it. From which it follows that they are God, an impious assertion. Therefore they cannot be substantial goods, their existence is not good, and they are not good because they exist.
But neither do they participate in goodness. Therefore, they in no way tend to the good and in no way are good.
Boethius, On the Hebdomads
Having set down certain principles which are necessary for the discussion of the question before us, he goes on now to the question and does three things. First, he proposes the question; second, he advances a solution to it, in Chapter 4; third, he sets aside some objections to the solution, in Chapter 5.
Next he does two things: first, he sets down what the question presupposes; second, what in the question generates doubt: We must, however, inquire how they are good.
He says that the way for us to approach the question is to presuppose that all the things that are are good. To prove this, he advances an argument based on what he has earlier set down, and it is this: Everything tends towards its like. He set down above that what desires another thereby shows itself to be naturally like the thing that it desires.
But whatever is, tends to the good. This invokes the second common conception of the learned, for at the outset of the Ethics the Philosopher says that the wise declare the good to be that which all things desire. For good is the proper object of the will, as sound is the proper object of hearing, and just as sound is perceived by any hearer, so good must be that towards which every appetite tends. Thus, since everything has some appetite, intellectual, sensitive, or natural, it follows that every thing desires the good. And thus he concludes, Every thing is good, something our question presupposes.
When he says, We must inquire how they are good, he shows the doubt the question raises, and on this point he does three things: first, he states the question; second, he argues against one aspect of the question, If by participation…; third, he goes on to exclude the first supposition, therefore they are not good because they exist…
First he says that, supposing that all things are good, the way of it must be looked into, namely, how they are good. Something can be predicated of a thing in two ways, in one way, substantially, in another way, by participation. Hence the question arises whether beings are good in essence or by participation. To understand the question, it should be noted that the question presupposes that to be in essence and to be by participation are opposed. And in one of the modes of participation distinguished earlier this is manifestly true, that is, according to the mode whereby the subject participates in an accident, or matter in form.
For an accident is outside the nature of the subject and form is outside the very substance of matter. But in another mode of participation, that whereby the species participates in the genus, this is also true, according to the opinion of Plato who posited that the idea of animal is different from the idea of the biped man. But according to the view of Aristotle, who held that man truly is what animal is, the essence of animal not existing apart from the difference of man, nothing prevents what is said by participation from being predicated substantially. But Boethius here speaks in terms of the participation whereby subject participates in accident, and then what is predicated substantially can be the opposite of what is predicated participatively, as is clear from the examples he subsequently introduces.
When he says, If by participation…, he argues against both sides of the suggestion, and first against this, that things are good by participation, and second against the claim that they are good by their own substance: But those things whose substance is good…
First he says that if all things are good by participation, it follows that they are in no way good in themselves. And this indeed is true if ‘in themselves ’is taken to mean ‘is in the definition of that of which it is said’, as man is animal of himself, since what enters into a thing’s definition pertains to its essence; and thus is not said of it by way of participation as we are now using that term. If it were taken in another way, namely insofar as the subject enters into the definition of the predicate, then what is said here would be false. For the proper accident is in this way in its subject per se, and yet is predicated of it participatively.
Therefore, since Boethius here understands participation in the way the subject participates in an accident, and per se or of itself that which is put into the definition of the subject, it necessarily follows that if things are good by participation, they are not good of themselves. He manifests this with an example: that which is white by participation, is not white of itself, that is, in that which it is, which pertains to the first mode of speaking per se, and it is the same with other qualities. If therefore all beings were good by participation, it follows that all are not good per se, that is, in their substance. From this it follows that the substances of beings do not tend to the good, the opposite of which was conceded earlier, namely that all things tend to the good. It seems therefore that beings are not good by participation but through their substance.
When he says, But things whose substance…, he objects to the other side in this way. Those things whose substance is good must be good in that which they are: for those things pertain to the substance of a thing which come together in order for it to exist. But that things are they owe to existence. For it was said above that something is when it receives existence. It follows therefore that the very existence of things which are good according to their substance is good. Therefore, if all things were good in their substance, it would follow that the existence itself of all things is good. And, since the premisses from which he is arguing are convertible, he proceeds conversely. For it follows conversely that if the existence of all things is good, then the things that are, insofar as they are, are good, and it is the same for a thing to exist and to be good. Therefore it follows that they are substantial goods from the fact that they are good, and not by participation in goodness. He goes on to show that something absurd follows from this. If the very existence of all things is good, and from this it follows that they are substantial goods, the consequence is that they are like the First Good, which is substantial good and for which to exist and to be good are the same.
From which it further follows that all things are the First Good itself, because nothing apart from it is like it, that is with respect to the mode of goodness. Nothing else outside the first good is good in the same way as it, which alone is the First Good. Other things are said to be like it insofar as they are secondary goods derived from the first and principal good. If therefore all things are the first good itself, since that first good is nothing other than God, it would follow that all beings are God, to say which is sinful. Thus it follows that what has gone before is false and all things are not substantial goods nor is their very existence good, since from that it followed that all things are God. It would further follow that all things are not good insofar as they are.
When he says, but neither do they participate…, he goes on to remove the first supposition, and says that, if to this, that beings are not substantially good, be added the other conclusion arrived at above, namely that all beings are not good by participation, since from that it followed that they would not then tend to the good, as was said above, it seems possible to conclude finally that there is no way in which beings are good – which is contrary to what was set down earlier.
4
This problem admits of the following solution. There are many things which can be separated by a mental process which cannot be separated in fact. No one, for instance, can actually separate a triangle or other mathematical figure from the underlying matter; but mentally one can consider a triangle and its properties apart from matter.
Let us, therefore, abstract mentally for a moment the presence of the First Good, whose existence is admitted by the universal consensus of the learned and unlearned and can be deduced from the religious beliefs of savage races.
The First Good having been thus for a moment abstracted, let us postulate as good all things that are, and let us consider how they could possibly be good if they did not derive from the First Good. This process leads me to perceive that their goodness and their existence are two different things. For let me suppose that one and the same substance is good, white, heavy, and round. Then it must be admitted that its substance, roundness, colour, and goodness are all different things. For if each of these qualities were the same as its substance, weight would be the same thing as colour or goodness, and goodness would be the same thing as colour; which is contrary to nature. For them to be, then, differs from their being such-and-such, and they would be good but their very existence would not be good. Therefore, if they were in any way to exist, they would neither be goods nor from the good, they would not be the same as the good, and for them to be and to be good would differ.
But if they were nothing else but good substances, and were neither heavy nor coloured, and possessed neither spatial dimension nor quality, beyond that of goodness, they (or rather it) would seem to be not things but a principle of things. For there is one thing alone that is by nature good to the exclusion of every other quality.
But since they are not simple, they could not even exist at all unless that which is the one sole good willed them to be. They are called good simply because their existence derived from the will of the Good. For the First Good is essentially good in virtue of his existence. Secondary goods are good in their turn because they derive from the good whose very existence is good. The existence of all things derives from the First Good, of whom it is rightly said that for him to be is to be good. Therefore their existence is good. But for them to be and to be good would not be the same if they did not derive from the First Good.
Boethius, On the Hebdomads
Boethius here provides a solution to the foregoing question and to the arguments brought forward, in three steps. First, he settles the truth of the question; then he answers an objection, and finally he raises some objections to his resolution, and answers them.
On the first point, he does three things: first, he sets down a certain supposition; second, he shows what follows from that supposition with regard to the goodness of things: The First Good having been thus for a moment removed…; third, he shows what the truth of the matter is about the goodness of things, no supposition being made: But since they are not simple…
He subdivides the first into two: first he sets down something that is necessary in order to show that such a supposition can be made; second, he introduces the supposition: Let us therefore abstract…
First he says that there are many things which cannot be actually separated but which can be separated in the soul by thought; the reason for this is that things exist in one way in the soul and in another in matter. Therefore, it can be that something, given the mode of existence it has in matter, is inseparably joined to it, yet insofar as it is in the soul, it is not inseparably joined to it, because the notion of the one is distinct from the notion of the other. He gives the example of triangle and other mathematical entities which cannot actually be separated from sensible matter, yet the mathematician, abstracting in his mind from sensible matter, considers the triangle and its properties, because the notion of triangle does not depend on sensible matter.
When he says, Let us, therefore, abstract…, he states the supposition he has in mind, namely that by a mental consideration we remove for now the presence of the first good from other things, which is possible in the order of things as knowable by us. Even though in the natural order of knowing God is the first known, for us his sensible effects are first known. So nothing prevents that the effects of the highest good should fall to our consideration without our considering the First Good. Thus we will remove the First from the consideration of the mind, though it is wholly obvious to us that he exists, for it can be known from the common opinion of all, both the learned and unlearned, and even from the religions of barbarous peoples, that nothing would be if God did not exist.
When he says, The First Good having been thus for a moment abstracted…, he shows what follows for the goodness of things on this supposition; and he does two things: first, he states his intention; second, he proves something that it presupposes: But if there were nothing else but good…
He says first that, taking away the first good with our intellect, we hold that other things are good because from the goodness of the effects we come to knowledge of the First Good. Therefore, we shall consider how they could be good if they did not proceed from the First Good. This supposition being made, it seems that in them goodness would be one thing and their existence another. For if one and the same substance were taken to be good, white, heavy and round, it would follow that its substance was one thing, and roundness another, colour another, goodness another.
The goodness of a thing is its virtue, by which it produces good activity. For virtue is what makes the one having it good and makes his work good, as is evident from the Philosopher in Ethics 2.6. That these things are other than the substance of the thing, he proves as follows. If each of the foregoing were the same as the substance of the thing, it would follow that all of them are the same as one another: that is, heaviness would be the same as colour, and as good, and as white, and as roundness, because whatever are the same as some third thing are the same as one another. But the nature of things does not allow all things to be the same. Therefore it remains that, the aforementioned supposition being made, it is one thing for a thing to be and another for it to be something, that is, good or white or whatever such thing it is called. Thus, the foregoing supposition being made, things would indeed be good, but their existence would not be good. Therefore, if in some way they were not from the First Good and yet were in themselves good, it would follow that their being such and their being good would not be the same but for them to be would be one thing and for them to be good another.
When he says, But if they were nothing else but good…, he proves what he has supposed, namely, that the foregoing supposition being made, for them to be good would be one thing and for them simply to be or to be in any other way would be different. Because, if there were nothing else about them save that they are good, and they were not heavy or coloured or distinct by some dimension of space, as all bodies are, but only this one quality of being good, they would no longer seem to be created things but would rather be the first principle of things himself. Consequently it would follow that we could not speak in the plural of all these things that seem to be the principle of things: but only in the singular could they be the first principle of things. It would be as if all good things were absolutely one, because only one thing and no other could be good in such a manner. But this is patently false. And it is also false that created things, setting aside the First Good, are nothing other than what it is to be good.
When he says, But since they are not simple…, he shows what should be thought of the goodness of things in truth, and he says that created things do not have utter simplicity such that there could be nothing in them except the essence of goodness, nor could they even be among the things that are unless God, who alone is what is, namely insofar as he is the essence of goodness, willed them to be. It follows that it is because the existence of things flows from the will of him who is essentially good that created things are said to be good. For the First Good, namely God, is good just insofar as he is because he is essentially goodness itself, but the secondary or created good is good because it flows from the First Good. That is why the existence itself of things is good and any created thing, insofar as it exists, is good. Thus created things are only good insofar as they exist because their existence derives from the highest good.
Therefore his solution comes to this: the existence of the First Good is good according to its proper notion, because the nature and essence of the First Good is nothing other than goodness. The existence of the secondary good is indeed good, though not according to the proper notion of its essence – its essence is not goodness itself, but humanity or somethingelse like it – but its existence is good because of its relation to the First – else like it Good, which is its cause, to which it is compared as to its first principle and ultimate end. It is in this way that something is called healthy because it is ordered to the end of health, as something is called medical with reference to the effective principle of the art of medicine.
According to what has been set down, it should be noticed that there is a twofold goodness in created goods. One, insofar as they are called good by relation to the First Good, and on this basis their existence and whatever is in them from the First Good, is good. But there is another goodness in them taken absolutely, insofar as each is said to be good because it is perfect in existence and activity. This perfection does not belong to created goods according to their essential existence, but because of something superadded, which is called their virtue, as was said above. According to this, to exist itself is good, but the First Good has every manner of perfection in his existence, and therefore his existence is as such and absolutely good.
5
Thereby the problem is solved. For though things be good through the fact that they exist, they are not like the First Good, since their existence is not in every way good. Things can only exist insofar as their existence derives from the First Existence, that is, Good. For them to exist is good but not in the manner of that from which they derive. He is in every way good insofar as he exists, and is nothing other than goodness. The secondary good, if it did not derive from him, might be good but not insofar as it exists. It might perhaps participate in the good, but if its existence did not derive from the Good, it could not be good.
Therefore, the First Good having been abstracted from them by the mind and thought, although they might be good, would not be good in virtue of their own existence. Since they could only actually exist insofar as that which is truly good produces them, their existence is good, but it is not like the substantial good from which they derive. And unless they derive from it, although they might be good, they could not be good insofar as they exist because they would be apart from Good and not derived from the Good which is the First Good in whom existence itself and goodness itself and good existence itself are one.
But isn’t it also the case that white things are white because they flow from God’s will that they be white? Not at all. To be is one thing and to be white another, not least because he who made them is good indeed, but certainly not white. It is in accordance with the will of the Good that they should be good through the fact that they exist, but it is not in accordance with the will of one who is not white that a thing have a property thanks to which it should be white insofar as it exists: they do not derive from the will of one who is white. And so they are white simply because one who is not white willed them to be white and they are good insofar as they exist because one who is good willed them to be.
Does it follow that all things are just because one who is just willed them to be? Not so, for good refers to essence, justice to action. In him to be and to act are the same and to be and to be just are one, but in us to exist and to act differ: we are not simple beings. For us, goodness is not the same thing as justice, but being is the same for us all. We are all good, but we are not all just.
Finally, good is something general, to be just is something special, but things can be in the same genus and in different species. That is why some are just, some are not, but everything is good.
Boethius, On the Hebdomads
After he has established the truth about the foregoing question, here he solves an objection with the upshot that created goods are goods insofar as they are similar to the first good. He does two things: first, he solves the objection; second, he summarizes what has been said: Therefore, if the First Good having been abstracted…
First he says that from the foregoing it is obvious that the question has been answered. Things are not similar to the First Good in this that they are good in that which they are, since the existence of created things is not absolutely good, in the way they have it, but only according to a relation to the First Good. But since the existence of created things can only be derived from the First Good, it is for that reason that their existence is good. But it is not similar to the goodness of the First Good, because he is absolutely good in the way in which he is, since in him there is nothing other than the essence of goodness. This is so because in him there is no perfection by way of addition, but in his simple existence he has every form of perfection, as has been said. But perhaps the created good too can be considered good in itself, even if the impossible supposition be made that it does not proceed from the First Good, that is, but by a goodness which belongs to it absolutely. But it would not be good in that which it is, since then it would be good by participation in the superadded good. But its very existence would not be good unless it is derived from the good, by relation to which the existence of creatures is good.
When he says, Therefore the First Good having been abstracted…, he gathers together what has been said, observing that if the First Good is removed by the mind from things, all other things, if they be given,would not be good nor could they be good from the fact that they exist. But since they can only actually be insofar as they are produced by the First Good, who is truly good, their existence is at once good. However, existence flowing from the first good is not like the first insofar as he is substantially good, and they, though they are good, would not be good insofar as they exist if they had not flowed from it, since the First Good is his own existence and his existence is his substance, and good itself, because he is the essence of goodness, and his existence is good because for him to be and what is do not differ.
When he says, But isn ’isn it the case that white things…, he raises two objections against what has been said, the second of which begins at, Does it follow that all things…
He raises this first objection: It has been said that all things are good insofar as they exist because they proceeded from the will of the First Good that they be good. But would not all white things, insofar as they exist, be white because they proceeded from the will of God that they be white? He replies that this is scarcely relevant because in white things to be simply, which belongs to them because of their essential principles, is one thing and that thanks to which they are white is another. The reason for this difference between white and good is that God who created good things and white things is good but he is not white.
Therefore, that they be good followed on the will of the First Good, insofar as he willed them to be good and good insofar as they are because produced by the good; the existence of created things has the note of the good from the fact that it is from the good, as has been said, but this property does not follow on the will of God that what is created, insofar as it exists, be white, the reason being that they do not flow from the will of white, as goods flow from the will of the good. We cannot say that their existence is white insofar as they are from the first white. Therefore, it is manifest that because God, who is not white, willed that some things be white, it can only be said of them that they are white, though not insofar as they exist. Because God who is good willed all things to be good, they are good insofar as they are, because their existence has the note of the good on account of this, that it is from the Good.
When he says, Does it follow that all things are just…, he raises a second objection. Someone might say all things are good because he who is good willed them to be good, but by the same reason they ought to be just, because he who is just willed them to be. He replies that this does not follow for two reasons. First, because good signifies a certain nature or essence. For it has been said that God is the very essence of goodness, and everything according to the perfection of its proper nature is called good. But one is called just with reference to an act, as with every other virtue. But in God to be and to act are the same; hence in him to be good and to be just are the same. But in us to be and to act are not the same since we fall off from the simplicity of God, so that to be good and to be just are not the same, whereas existence belongs to us all insofar as we are. Therefore goodness too belongs to us all. But the act which is characterized by justice does not belong to all, nor in those who have it is it the same as their existence. It follows that not everything is just insofar as it exists.
He gives another argument. For the good is something general, and justice is a certain species of it, as are the other virtues. But in God is found every notion of goodness, and therefore he is not only good but just. But not all species of goodness are found in all, but different kinds in different kinds. So it is not necessary that the species which is justice should derive to all beings though goodness is. Hence some beings are just while others have another species of goodness, yet all are good insofar as they are derived from the First Good.
This completes our exposition of this book. Blessed be God for ever Amen.