man[1]. This judgment was based on a very insufficient knowledge of the sources. But it may give us occasion to enquire whether the personal character of Nestorius was the cause of his tragic fortune.
Nestorius was passionate and dogmatic. John of Antioch reminds him in a letter of a scene from their earlier life in common, which may prove this[2]. And even an account, which is friendly to Nestorius, tells about him, that he was lacking in courtesy and amiability[3]. This characteristic is really shown in his letters to Cyril. Also his letters to Rome are not exactly models of courtesy. And even from the pulpit he sometimes declaimed against his enemies in a rough and passionate manner[4].
The account, which denied him amiability, points in explanation of this characteristic to the fact that Nestorius, as a monk, had no experience of worldly affairs[5]. Indeed, it was an unpolished nature he showed. But the merits of this naturalness came out as clearly as the demerits. Even now we see something straight and open in the letters and in the polemics of Nestorius. And comparing his writings
- ↑ Comp. above, p. 21.
- ↑ Mansi, iv, 1064 d.
- ↑ ep. ad Cosmam, Nau, p. 364, 9: C'était un homme excellent et jalousé, qui n'avait pas l'expérience des affaires du monde et qui manquait de ce qu'on appelle amabilité.
- ↑ In a sermon (Nestoriana, p. 300) he addressed Cyril: Quid perturbationes ferinis rugitibus adferre conaris?
- ↑ Comp. above, note 3.
