Let no one, however, imagine that we mean anything impersonal when we call Him the wisdom of God; or suppose, for example, that we understand Him to be, not a living being endowed with wisdom, but something which makes men wise, giving itself to, and implanting itself in, the minds of those who are made capable of receiving His virtues and intelligence. If, then, it is once rightly understood that the only-begotten Son of God is His wisdom hypostatically existing, I know not whether our curiosity ought to advance beyond this, or entertain any suspicion that that ὑπόστασις or substantia contains anything of a bodily nature, since everything that is corporeal is distinguished either by form, or colour, or magnitude. And who in his sound senses ever sought for form, or colour, or size, in wisdom, in respect of its being wisdom? (Book II, Part 2)

Hypostatis is "substance" or "substantive reality". Aristotle and Plato tussled over its precise meaning.

Origen is writing at least two generations before the formula "Three Hypostases in one Ousia" or "Three Existences in one Essence" was articulated as the orthodox Trinitarian structure. He does not, I am told, distinguish hypostasis from ousia.

These words - and especially a perceived difference between ὑπόστασις (hypostatis) or substantia (Latin) - troubled the Christian world for centuries. Even today the distinctions can raise the hackles of many, especially between Christian, Jew and Muslim and between the Roman and Greek churches.

What is the character of Wisdom? Does it have color, form, or size? It is, I understand, non-hypostatic, but I personify Wisdom in the wise people I have know. It is their color, form, and size that I recall when I consider the character of wisdom.

I see the faces of those I have "known" - what does that verb entail? - as teachers, friends, writers I have read, and Jesus who is also called the Christ.