Quocirca si persona in solis substantiis est atque in his rationabilibus substantiaque omnis natura est nec in uniuersalibus sed in indiuiduis constat, reperta personae est definitio: "naturae rationabilis indiuidua substantia." Sed nos hac definitione eam quam Graeci [Greek: hupostasin] dicunt terminauimus. Nomen enim personae uidetur aliunde traductum, ex his scilicet personis quae in comoediis tragoediisque eos quorum interest homines repraesentabant. Persona uero dicta est a personando circumflexa paenultima. Quod si acuatur antepaenultima, apertissime a sono dicta uidebitur; idcirco autem a sono, quia concauitate ipsa maior necesse est uoluatur sonus. Graeci quoque has personas [Greek: prosopa] uocant ab eo quod ponantur in facie atque ante oculos obtegant uultum: [Greek: para tou pros tous opas tithesthai.] Sed quoniam personis inductis histriones indiuiduos homines quorum intererat in tragoedia uel in comoedia ut dictum est repraesentabant, id est Hecubam uel Medeam uel Simonem uel Chremetem, idcirco ceteros quoque homines, quorum certa pro sui forma esset agnitio, et Latini personam et Graeci [Greek: prosopa] nuncupauerunt. Longe uero illi signatius naturae rationabilis indiuiduam subsistentiam [Greek: hupostaseos] nomine uocauerunt, nos uero per inopiam significantium uocum translaticiam retinuimus nuncupationem, eam quam illi [Greek: hupostasin] dicunt personam uocantes; sed peritior Graecia sermonum [Greek: hupostasin] uocat indiuiduam subsistentiam. Atque, uti Graeca utar oratione in rebus quae a Graecis agitata Latina interpretatione translata sunt: [Greek: hai ousiai en men tois katholou einai dunantai. en de tois atomois kai kata meros monois huphistantai], id est: essentiae in uniuersalibus quidem esse possunt, in solis uero indiuiduis et particularibus substant. Intellectus enim uniuersalium rerum ex particularibus sumptus est. Quocirca cum ipsae subsistentiae in uniuersalibus quidem sint, in particularibus uero capiant substantiam, iure subsistentias particulariter substantes [Greek: hupostaseis] appellauerunt. Neque enim pensius subtiliusque intuenti idem uidebitur esse subsistentia quod substantia.
Nam quod Graeci [Greek: ousiosin] uel [Greek: ousiosthai] dicunt, id nos subsistentiam uel subsistere appellamus; quod uero illi [Greek: hupostasin] uel [Greek: huphistasthai], id nos substantiam uel substare interpretamur. Subsistit enim quod ipsum accidentibus, ut possit esse, non indiget. Substat autem id quod aliis accidentibus subiectum quoddam, ut esse ualeant, subministrat; sub illis enim stat, dum subiectum est accidentibus. Itaque genera uel species subsistunt tantum; neque enim accidentia generibus speciebus*ue contingunt. Indiuidua uero non modo subsistunt uerum etiam substant, nam neque ipsa indigent accidentibus ut sint; informata enim sunt iam propriis et specificis differentiis et accidentibus ut esse possint ministrant, dum sunt scilicet subiecta. Quocirca [Greek: einai] atque [Greek: ousiosthai] esse atque subsistere, [Greek: huphistasthai] uero substare intellegitur. Neque enim uerborum inops Graecia est, ut Marcus Tullius alludit, sed essentiam, subsistentiam, substantiam, personam totidem nominibus reddit, essentiam quidem [Greek: ousian], subsistentiam uero [Greek: ousiosin], substantiam [Greek: hupostasin], personam [Greek: prosopon] appellans. Ideo autem [Greek: hupostaseis] Graeci indiuiduas substantias uocauerunt, quoniam ceteris subsunt et quibusdam quasi accidentibus subpositae subiectaeque sunt; atque idcirco nos quoque eas substantias nuncupamus quasi subpositas, quas illi[59] [Greek: hupostaseis], cumque etiam [Greek: prosopa] nuncupent easdem substantias, possumus nos quoque nuncupare personas. Idem est igitur [Greek: ousian] esse quod essentiam, idem [Greek: ousiosin] quod subsistentiam, idem [Greek: hupostasin] quod substantiam, idem [Greek: prosopon] quod personam. Quare autem de inrationabilibus animalibus Graecus [Greek: hupostasin] non dicat, sicut nos de eisdem nomen substantiae praedicamus, haec ratio est, quoniam nomen hoc melioribus applicatum est, ut aliqua id quod est excellentius, tametsi non descriptione naturae secundum id quod [Greek: huphistasthai] atque substare est, at certe [Greek: hupostaseos] uel substantiae uocabulis discerneretur.
Est igitur et hominis quidem essentia, id est [Greek: ousia], et subsistentia, id est [Greek: ousiosis], et [Greek: hupostasis], id est substantia, et [Greek: prosopon], id est persona; [Greek: ousia], quidem atque essentia quoniam est, [Greek: ousiosis] uero atque subsistentia quoniam in nullo subiecto est, [Greek: hupostasis] uero atque substantia, quoniam subest ceteris quae subsistentiae non sunt, id est [Greek: ousioseis]; est [Greek: prosopon] atque persona, quoniam est rationabile indiuiduum. Deus quoque et [Greek: ousia] est et essentia, est enim et maxime ipse est a quo omnium esse proficiscitur. Est [Greek: ousiosis], id est subsistentia (subsistit enim nullo indigens), et [Greek: huphistasthai]; substat enim. Vnde etiam dicimus unam esse [Greek: ousian] uel [Greek: ousiosin], id est essentiam uel subsistentiam deitatis, sed tres [Greek: hupostaseis], id est tres substantias. Et quidem secundum hunc modum dixere unam trinitatis essentiam, tres substantias tresque personas. Nisi enim tres in deo substantias ecclesiasticus loquendi usus excluderet, uideretur idcirco de deo dici substantia, non quod ipse ceteris rebus quasi subiectum supponeretur, sed quod idem omnibus uti praeesset ita etiam quasi principium subesset rebus, dum eis omnibus [Greek: ousiosthai] uel subsistere subministrat.
[59] quas illi Vallinus; quasi uel quas codd. meliores.
III.
Wherefore if Person belongs to substances alone, and these rational, and if every nature is a substance, existing not in universals but in individuals, we have found the definition of Person, viz.: "The individual substance of a rational nature."[60] Now by this definition we Latins have described what the Greeks call [Greek: hupostasis]. For the word person seems to be borrowed from a different source, namely from the masks which in comedies and tragedies used to signify the different subjects of representation. Now persona "mask" is derived from personare, with a circumflex on the penultimate. But if the accent is put on the antepenultimate[61] the word will clearly be seen to come from sonus "sound," and for this reason, that the hollow mask necessarily produces a larger sound. The Greeks, too, call these masks [Greek: prosopa] from the fact that they are placed over the face and conceal the countenance from the spectator: [Greek: para tou pros tous opas tithesthai]. But since, as we have said, it was by the masks they put on that actors played the different characters represented in a tragedy or comedy—Hecuba or Medea or Simon or Chremes,—so also all other men who could be recognized by their several characteristics were designated by the Latins with the term persona and by the Greeks with [Greek: prosopa]. But the Greeks far more clearly gave to the individual subsistence of a rational nature the name [Greek: hupostasis] while we through want of appropriate words have kept a borrowed term, calling that persona which they call [Greek: hupostasis]; but Greece with its richer vocabulary gives the name [Greek: hupostasis] to the individual subsistence. And, if I may use Greek in dealing with matters which were first mooted by Greeks before they came to be interpreted in Latin: [Greek: hai ousiai en men tois katholou einai dunantai. en de tois atomois kai kata meros monois huphistantai], that is: essences indeed can have potential existence in universals, but they have particular substantial existence in particulars alone. For it is from particulars that all our comprehension of universals is taken. Wherefore since subsistences are present in universals but acquire substance in particulars they rightly gave the name [Greek: hupostasis] to subsistences which acquired substance through the medium of particulars. For to no one using his eyes with any care or penetration will subsistence and substance appear identical.
For our equivalents of the Greek terms [Greek: ousiosis ousiosthai] are respectively subsistentia and subsistere, while their [Greek: hupostasis huphistasthai] are represented by our substantia and substare. For a thing has subsistence when it does not require accidents in order to be, but that thing has substance which supplies to other things, accidents to wit, a substrate enabling them to be; for it "substands" those things so long as it is subjected to accidents. Thus genera and species have only subsistence, for accidents do not attach to genera and species. But particulars have not only subsistence but substance, for they, no more than generals, depend on accidents for their Being; for they are already provided with their proper and specific differences and they enable accidents to be by supplying them with a substrate. Wherefore esse and subsistere represent [Greek: einai] and [Greek: ousiosthai], while substare represents [Greek: huphistasthai]. For Greece is not, as Marcus Tullius[62] playfully says, short of words, but provides exact equivalents for essentia, subsistentia, substantia and persona—[Greek: ousia] for essentia, [Greek: ousiosis] for subsistentia, [Greek: hupostasis] for substantia, [Greek: prosopon] for persona. But the Greeks called individual substances [Greek: hupostaseis] because they underlie the rest and offer support and substrate to what are called accidents; and we in our term call them substances as being substrate—[Greek: hupostaseis], and since they also term the same substances [Greek: prosopa], we too may call them persons. So [Greek: ousia] is identical with essence, [Greek: ousiosis] with subsistence, [Greek: hupostasis] with substance, [Greek: prosopon] with person. But the reason why the Greek does not use [Greek: hupostasis] of irrational animals while we apply the term substance to them is this: This term was applied to things of higher value, in order that what is more excellent might be distinguished, if not by a definition of nature answering to the literal meaning of [Greek: huphistasthai]=substare, at any rate by the words [Greek: hupostasis]=substantia.
To begin with, then, man is essence, i.e. [Greek: ousia], subsistence, i.e. [Greek: ousiosis, hupostasis], i.e. substance, [Greek: prosopon], i.e. person: [Greek: ousia] or essentia because he is, [Greek: ousiosis], or subsistence because he is not accidental to any subject, [Greek: hupostusis] or substance because he is subject to all the things which are not subsistences or [Greek: ousioseis], while he is [Greek: prosopon] or person because he is a rational individual. Next, God is [Greek: ousia], or essence, for He is and is especially that from which proceeds the Being of all things. To Him belong [Greek: ousiosis], i.e. subsistence, for He subsists in absolute independence, and [Greek: huphistasthai], for He is substantial Being. Whence we go on to say that there is one [Greek: ousia] or [Greek: ousiosis], i.e. one essence or subsistence of the Godhead, but three [Greek: hupostaseis] or substances. And indeed, following this use, men have spoken of One essence, three substances and three persons of the Godhead. For did not the language of the Church forbid us to say three substances in speaking of God,[63] substance might seem a right term to apply to Him, not because He underlies all other things like a substrate, but because, just as He excels above all things, so He is the foundation and support of things, supplying them all with [Greek: ousiosthai] or subsistence.
[60] Boethius's definition of persona was adopted by St. Thomas (S. i. 29. 1), was regarded as classical by the Schoolmen, and has the approval of modern theologians. Cf. Dorner, Doctrine of Christ, iii. p. 311.
[61] Implying a short penultimate.