THe Romans, masters of the world in ancient times, attained the highest summit of power, which neither the vastness of Assyria nor the martial prowess of Macedon could reach, and to which the majesty of kings in time to come will never be able to exalt itself. This position they attained, either because Jupiter, feeling the burden of his age and finding it enough for himself to rule over the heavens alone, wished to retire into private life, and therefore entrusted the reins of government over mankind to the Roman people, as being in some sort gods on earth; or because, when he cast his father Saturn down into Italy, he granted him this favor to console him for the loss of heaven, namely that his descendants the Romans should have dominion over the whole extent of land and ocean.

However this may be, he certainly did not allow them to enjoy this privilege without earning it, but only granted it to them after constant wars and prolonged toil; his intention being, I suppose, to prove whether the Romans were the only nation worthy to be the vicegerents of supreme Jove on earth. And so they were compelled to live a life of abstinence and hardship, and to find the new pleasures of peace always cut short by war's alarms and the clash of arms around them. In addition to this, they were under the necessity of providing garrisons, which they had frequently to renew, for the various cities and provinces they had conquered, and of sending nearly all their young men either to distant wars or to their colonies. Moreover the victories they gained were not always bloodless; on the contrary, they often suffered grievous disasters. So for example Brennus, the leader of the Gauls, almost succeeded in destroying the glory of Rome in its early bloom, and the noble city of Carthage came within a little of wresting from Rome the governance of the world with which she had been divinely entrusted. Lastly, the Goths and Vandals under their king Alaric, and the Huns and Pannonians under their leaders Attila and Bleda passed in a torrent over the whole of Italy, cruelly plundered the abounding riches of the empire, the accumulated spoils of so many wars, overwhelmed in shameful flight the Romans, who were but now the lords of mankind, and captured the city, captured Rome herself, by the mere terror of their name. No deed in fact or fable could be more remarkable than this. It is as if victory herself had either fallen in love with them or been panic-stricken by their prowess in arms, so as to be completely at their command.

You have been wondering long enough, my hearers, what can be my reason for enlarging on all this; I will tell you. Whenever I consider and reflect upon these events, I am reminded afresh of the mighty struggle which has been waged to save Truth, and of the universal eagerness and watchfulness with which men are striving to rescue Truth, already tottering and almost overthrown, from the outrages of her foes. Yet we are powerless to check the inroads which the vile horde of errors daily makes upon every branch of learning. Error has indeed, by fair means or foul, gained such ascendancy as to be able to impose its own likeness on the snow-white form of heavenly Truth, and by I know not what artifice to assume her similitude. By this device, it seems, it has often deceived even great philosophers, and has laid claim to the honors and reverence which are due to Truth alone. This you will have an opportunity of seeing in the question at issue today, in which we find champions of no mean ability engaged, men who might win fair fame, if they would but abandon their present allegiance and serve under the banner of Truth.

So it is now my task to lay Error bare and to strip it of its borrowed plumes, thus reducing it to its native hideousness. To accomplish this the more readily, I think it best to follow in the footsteps of the weightiest authorities; for it is not to be expected that I should add anything of my own—anything, that is, which has escaped the notice and attention of so many men eminent for their learning. Therefore I will set forth briefly so much as is needed to elucidate the subject, and will add one or two arguments to fortify my position like a rampart. Then if there is any opposition or objection to my opinion, I will resolve it as best I may; but I will deal with all this in few words and only touch it, so to speak, with the tips of my wings.

We read that various opinions have been advanced in opposition to the idea of the unicity of form which the more discerning philosophers have always held to exist in one and the same matter. For some hotly assert that in an animal there may be several total forms, and this they maintain each according to his capacity; others roundly declare that though only one total form can be readily received by one and the same matter, yet several partial forms may be. For the moment I will make a truce with the former party, according to the usage of war, while I concentrate the whole strength and force of my attack upon the latter.

In the forefront let me set Aristotle, who is entirely on our side, and who, towards the end of the first book of the De Anima unequivocally lends his support to our assertion.

No long investigation is needed to find a few more arguments to add to this authority. Chrysostom Javello is the first to come to my help; from the dung-heap of his rude and unpolished style we may dig out gold and pearls; if anyone is so refined as to despise these, Aesop's fable of the cock will fit him very neatly. His argument runs much as follows: The distinction and organisation of dissimilar parts must precede the introduction of the soul, since this is the act not of any body at random, but of a physically organic body; therefore these partial forms must be corrupted immediately before the production of the total form, unless we are to disregard entirely the universally accepted axiom that "the generation of one thing is the corruption of another." The production of these partial forms is not followed by the instantaneous production of others similar to them; for this would be purposeless and at. variance with the wisdom of Mother Nature. Secondly, since every form, whether perfect or imperfect, contributes its specific being, it necessarily follows that, as long as that form remains, that object also remains the same, not varied according to its substance; therefore the total form will supervene like an accident, that is to say not by generation but by alteration. It follows moreover that the soul of the whole, whether divisible or indivisible, is not sufficient to inform every part of the living creature fully and perfectly; this no reason can persuade us to grant. It also follows that one substantial form is as it were a proximate and permanent disposition toward another, which is contrary to truth, since every form constitutes an essence complete in the genus of substance. Finally, if there is a plurality of partial forms in every part, of a man for example, from them there will certainly arise one complete form distinct from the rational soul; hence this form will be the form either of an inanimate thing or corporeity, or of a mixture (which in fact is most unlikely to exist in man in addition to the soul); or else it will be a sensitive or vegetative soul. This latter assertion would be absolutely rejected by the more learned among the philosophers. I will refrain from further proof of this, since it is generally admitted and moreover does not go to the root of the matter.

Again, our opponents bring forward the objection (and this is the crux of the discussion) that when a part of an animal has been cut off it remains in act after the separation, not through the form of the whole, since it is outside the whole, nor through the form recently acquired, since there is no agent, no perceptible action, and no previous alteration; therefore it exists in act through the proper form which it had before, while it still formed a part of the whole. By this argument they consider that they batter down and utterly demolish our position. The reply which is commonly made is perfectly valid, that a form generated de novo, since it is of small account, as pertaining to a corpse and being as it were a way to resolution, certainly requires neither a long time, nor many dispositions, nor ordered alteration to be so generated. Besides, what if some other universal cause were to combine with the previous mixture to induce some kind of form, that there may not be pure and unqualified matter? Moreover, the fact that we can perceive manifold operations in an animal is not due to distinct partial forms but to the preponderance of the total soul, which is of equal importance with the forms distinct in appearance.

I would prefer to pass over, by agreement, the other minor objections which are put forward, for they are not vital, and will be more easily countered and more satisfactorily disproved if they chance to be brought forward in the course of the disputation.

Whatever the outcome may be, even if I fail in my cause, the cause itself will never fail. For invincible Truth has within herself strength enough and to spare for her own defence, and has no need of any other help; and though she may seem to us at times to be hard pressed and beaten to the ground, yet she maintains herself ever inviolate and uninjured by the claws of Error, even as the sun, who often shows himself to human eyes obscured and darkened by clouds, but then drawing in his beams and gathering together all his splendour, shines forth again in blazing glory without spot or stain.

Translation by Phyllis B. Tillyard