Say It Ain't So, Flavio!

>>I was sitting in on a lecture on Boethius and the professor said that Cassiodorus, who was instrumental in preserving Boethius's writing, may have also been part of the conspiracy that condemned him to death by torture. I thought Cassiodorus was one of the good guys with an unblemished record but a quick search of scholarly articles show that there is indeed debate over if he, through his own ambitions to rise, helped indict Boethius. I wish I had some free time to investigate this further, it will go on my to read list for beachside reading.

Lady Philosophy on Children

Summers are so short in Canada. I could be inside reading Boethius all summer long but once in a while, I like to feel the sun on my face even if turns my face red. Actually, I have been lolling about.

While Boethius is having his conversation with Lady Philosophy about what is good and results in a happiness that no one can take away from one, they turn to a discussion on children and wives in book III, chapter VII.

"Honestissima quidem coniugis foret liberorumque iucunditas, sed nimis e natura dictum est nescio quem filios invenisse tortores: quorum quam sit mordax quaecumque condicio, neque alias expertum te neque anxium necesse est admonere. In quo Euripidis mei sententiam probo, qui carentem liberis infortunio dixit esse felicem."

"In fact, the highest good should be the pleasure of a wife and children, but it is too often said of their natural temperament that someone, I know not who, invented children to be our tormentors. How bitter is the condition of any of those(parents). It is necessary to remind you who has previously neither experienced this or been anxious on that account. On which subject, I commend the opinion of Euripides, my pupil, that he who is lacking in children may be said to be fortunate in his misfortune."

One would think, since the Bible says to be fruitful and multiply and seeing how Jesus loves little children in the Apostles, that having children should be a blessing to be sought after by any good Christian. How interesting that Boethius quotes a Greek pagan philosopher and declares children to be a torment inflicted on parents. (or lays this at Lady Philosophy's feet) Even more interesting that this book was so influential to medieval thought. I know what he means; I have children too, but no one ever said it would be easy. Oprah (who knows nothing about raising children) calls it the hardest job in the world. In the words of Joe South, whose immortal words have been sung by many: "I beg your pardon. I never promised you a rose garden. Along with the sunshine, there has got to be a little rain sometime." Kids do not ask to be born. Once you have children, I do not think you are ever free from worrying about them even when they are good.

I am amazed at how differently various translators treat this and other passages. I have already said I do not like the Loeb translation and am going with my own but I have been comparing my understanding of the text with other translators and there is little agreement among them.

The quote from Euripides is from Andromache, line 420.

Words of Wisdom From Boethius

"Quae vero pestis efficacior ad nocendum quam familiaris inimicus?"(consolatio III.V.41)
In truth, what kind of pestilence is more effective at causing harm than a hostile friend?
Ain't that the truth? A friend knows all your secrets.
S.J. Tester translated this as "and what plague is more able to hurt a man than an enemy who was once a friend?"
I do not know where he gets the 'once' from. I think people can be working to undo you while still wearing the face of friendship. Which is the point I think Boethius wanted to make.

In The Interests of Fairness

Boethius does not give Fortuna a voice to defend herself but he does have Lady Philosophy give the other side of the coin: that is that people are unhappy with Fortuna because they are insatiable and never have enough stuff.

" Fugare credo indigentiam copia quaeritis"(II.V.64)

"I think you seek to escape need with abundance"

"Sic rerum versa condicio est ut divinum merito rationis animal non aliter sibi splendere nisi inanimatae supellectis possessione videatur?"(II.V.72-74)

"Is the condition of things thus turned upside down that an animal, divine by merit of reason, should seem otherwise not to be glorious to himself unless in the possessing of inanimate equipment?"

People have been materialistic ever since there has been private possessions, she is saying. She cannot be blamed for that.

"Quid igitur o mortales extra petitis intra vos positam felicitatam?..."(II.IV.72) "Igitur si tui compos fueris, possidebis quod nec tu amittere unquam velis nec fortuna possit auferre."(II.IV.76-77)

"Therefore why, o mortals, do you seek happiness beyond what is placed inside yourselves?....Accordingly, if you have control of yourself, you will own that which neither should you want ever to set aside nor would Fortuna be able to take from you."

Basically, all we really own is ourselves and nothing can take that from us. I think Orwell tried to prove in 1984, with torture, even that can be taken from us. Thoreau was never tortured when he was put in jail for failure to pay taxes (too many powerful friends) but he wrote a similar piece about the experience of prison.

"I was put into a jail once on this account, for one night; and, as I stood considering the walls of solid stone, two or three feet thick, the door of wood and iron, a foot thick, and the iron grating which strained the light, I could not help being struck with the foolishness of that institution which treated me as if I were mere flesh and blood and bones, to be locked up....they thought my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall....I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on my meditations....As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body."(On Civil Disobedience*, pg. 96-97)

Thoreau was guilty only of not paying a tax that he had refused to pay since it was going to support a war with Mexico that he did not agree with. Boethius was accused of treason, a capital offense. It is easier to be brave when you know you are not going to die and Thoreau only spent one night in jail because friends paid the tax for him so he could be freed.

However, thinking men have been urging us for millennia to be satisfied with enough. Fine clothes do not make for a fine soul. Happiness only comes from within not having a fancy car or the envy of others. It is falling on deaf ears.

*(Walden and Other Writings, Bantam Classsics)

Poem by Boethius

It's time to get out of the garden now that the typically really hot and humid Ontario summer is underway. So ..... latin verse. This one is by Boethius from Consolatio Philosophiae (Loeb Edition), Book II, Verse I.

Haec cum superba verterit vices dextra

Et aestuantis more fertur Euripi,

Dudum tremendos saeva proterit reges

Humilemque victi sublevat fallax vultum

Non illa miseros audit aut curat fletus

Ultroque gemitus dura quos fecit ridet.

Sic illa ludit, sic suas probat vires

Magnumque suis demonstrat ostentum, si quis

Visatur una stratus ac felix hora.

It does not rhyme. Latin poetry gets its rhythm from long and short stresses which would not be doable in a non-inflected language since word order would then matter. Just because an adjective is next to a noun does not mean the adjective describes that noun. This meter is said (on the Perseus site) to be in 'scazons' or 'limping iambic triameter'. I will take their word for it. I could not make the long and short fit. It matters because in a word like 'una', for example, because, if the 'a' is long, it is in the ablative form. If the 'a' is short, then it is in the nominative form. 'Vices dextra' was odd because does not mean 'wheel of fortune but has been translated that way. Checking the Oxford Latin Dictionary, vicis can mean 'a rotation' and dextra can mean 'right' not in the sense of direction but as 'fortune' however dextra is not in the genitive. It is awkward. If I was translating this without a dictionary or notes, I would be lost as to what Boethius is saying.

Euripus is a narrow strait between Euboea and Boeotia which has strong tidal currents. It is used here as poetic for 'tide'. Of course if you don't know what Euripus is, you would be lost. I hate Latin poetry. I don't like the translation in the Loeb edition. The one at Perseus is better but mine is best. And here it is.

With arrogance, this one will have turned the wheel of fortune

And it is foolishly carried away with the force of a tidal surge.

Just now the cruel one tramples down formidable kings

And the false one raises up the humble face of the conquered.

That one does not hear the wretched or care about the weeping ones,

And furthermore the harsh one laughs at those she has made groan.

Thus she will play.

In this way she tests her own strength

And she shows a great wonder to her own,

If someone is seen within the same hour

Lucky and laid low.

The voice is Lady Philosophy condemning Fortuna.

Boethius Contemplates the Larger Issues

I have been back to reading a bit of The Consolation of Philosophy and I was interested by how much Boethius and his 'Philosphy' discuss Greeks and Romans. I should not be terribly surprised that Socrates and Plato get mention as many of the early church fathers loved reading classics while at the same time wondering if it was suitable to a Christian. Also, thanks to Augustine, much of Plato's thought made its way into Christian dogma and thus Plato ends up in Purgatory as one of Dante's righteous pagans.

I was struck by his statement in Consolation I.IV, lines 105-106, "'Si quidem deus,' inquit, 'est, unde mala? bona vero unde, si non est?'" "If God exists from where comes evil? But where does good come from, if he does not exist?"

Boethius was not himself asking the question, he was merely stating that it was no wonder one of Philosophy's disciples would ask the question. The footnotes to this line (by S.J. Tester from the Loeb edition) state that "the authorship of this dilemma is unknown. Editors have generally referred to Epicurus fr. 374 ex Lactantius De ira dei 13, 21; but that is a different problem (either God can prevent evil and will not, or will, but cannot), and this one is surely not Epicurean. Its origins can be found in Plato( cf. Republic, 379 and Schol. in Remp. 379a ......)It is probably from some Neo-Platonist commentator, possibly Ammonius."

If these philosophers are speaking of Zeus as God, I do not understand why they are surprised that he does not prevent evil. Too busy boinking princesses?

Lactantius was an early Christian and was tutor to Constantine's son. According to this site, he is partly responsible for the medieval 'flat earth' theory. The writer is correct, Pliny the Elder stated the world is a globe. The writer also states that Lactantius was declared a heretic posthumously. (Who wasn't at some point?) His book was written as an attack on Epicurian philosophy. The early Church is certainly more interesting than the later one. It was like the Wild West out there. Stabbings, burnings, poisonings. And then, there was the gruesome manner of Boethius' execution. Of course, Boethius was not above taking a poke at what he thought of as heresies, like Arianism, so he was courting death one might say.

I have not finished the book yet and Boethius did not answer the question why there is evil in this world in that chapter . We shall see if he figures anything out at all by the end but I think I know why there is evil in this world.

Alfred's introduction to Boethius

I expected bias and found it. I'll put a few comments in brackets in my text but, I have to say, if Boethius sent a letter like that to the Byzantine emperor then he was nuts to do so. I try to keep my translation as close to the author's words as possible.

At that time, the Goths of Scythia, kindred to the Romans, won the Roman kingdom, having risen up and with their kings, called Raedegota and Alaric, stormed the city of Rome. (Radagaisius was dead by 406, having been defeated by Stilicho. Alaric took Rome in 410 dying that same year.) They subjugated all of the Italian kingdom that lies between the mountains and Sicily; and then after them, the aforementioned King Theodoric seized that same kingdom. (as you may see from my timeline at right, Theodoric was not born until about 45 years later. He took the kingdom almost 85 years after Alaric) This Theodoric was an Amelung. He was Christian, although he persisted in the Arian heresy. He vowed his friendship to the Romans so they might be in possession of all their old rights and he performed that vow with great evil and ended very wroth with many a crime.

That was in addition to other countless evil, he slew John, then named pope. There was a certain consul, what we call a commander, who was named Boethius. He was into book-craft (scholarship) and on worldly custom he was the wisest. He then perceived the manifold evil that King Theodoric did with that Christendom and with Roman torments. He then remembered their ease and their old rights that they had under their Caesars (under Nero? Caligula? Tiberius?) their old lords. Then he began to think and to learn for himself how they might take that kingdom from the wicked king and to bring the ruler to the orthodox and righteousness. (Boethius denied sending a letter. ) He secretly sent a letter to the Caesar in Constantinople. (Zeno had given the kingdom to Theodoric, who although king of the Ostrogoths never called himself anything but Patrician over the Western Roman Empire) There is the chief city of the Greeks and their throne because the Caesar was their lord from ancient times.

He asked him (Justin I) to help him to their Christianity and to their old rights. When the bloodthirsty king Theodoric perceived this, he commanded that Boethius be brought to jail and locked therein. Then it befell that the mercy-worthy man came to greater distress. Then he was much more troubled in his mind as his mind was much more accustomed to worldly prosperity. And he remembered no solace within that prison, and he fell prostrate down on the floor, and stretched himself out, very despondent, and sad, he began to weep for himself and thus singing he quoth,"

from here it moves into the Lay of Boethius which includes some lines that are not in the Latin version. In spite of being the slayer of a pope and of Boethius, Theodoric was immortalized in heroic verse as Dietrich von Berne. In the Nibelungenlied, he, Attila and Hildebrand are the sole survivors of the massacre at Etzelburg. It is he who tackles Hagen and ties him up for Kriemhild.

Almost forgot to add, I took this text in the OE from A Guide to Old English, seventh edition, Bruce Mitchell and Fred. C. Robinson.

Boethius

For my summer holidays, I am going to tackle Boethius in Latin. I may post some translations occasionally. As I was considering the reception of his work, I remembered King Alfred did a translation of De Consolatione Philosophiae into Old English. Yeah, yeah, did Alfred actually do the translation? Who cares? This morning, I don't. It looks interesting too. I think I will read the two side by side. Chaucer also did a translation of Boethius. It looks very interesting as well. I think I will read all three.

While reading the introduction to Chaucer's translation, in an 1868 publication with Richard Morris as translator and commentator that the university library has an online link to, I could not help but chuckle at Morris' comments about how noble Boethius was and how terrible Theodoric was to suspect him of treason. Boethius wrote a book supporting the Catholic view on the trinity and condemning Arianism. What did he expect? When your king is an Arian, you are taking your life into your hands in calling him a heretic.(Boethius probably did not attack Theodoric in print but heresy was a serious business) Morris also compared him to Cato the Younger, who took his own life, and was an insufferable prig. He also called Boethius 'the last Roman'. I thought that title belonged to Aetius.

Alfred prefaced his translation with the historical background to the book. I think I shall tackle that first. I expect some bias in his presentation.

The Influence of Boethius on Other Writers.

I was reading an article called 'Notes on Fate and Fortune'* by F.P Pickering for an annotated bibliography assignment. One always gets a sinking of the heart when one has to read literary theory, although there are some gems out there. This, I thought, was one of them. Pickering started off stating that he sorts secular writing into categories: Augustinian or Boetian. Augustinian was reserved for Christian, hagiographic writing, and Christians writing on secular subjects tend to follow Boetian ideas. Boethius, unlike Augustus, was concerned about life on earth as well he should be. He wrote Consolations of Philosophy while imprisoned by Theodoric the Great and waiting to be executed. So it was written by a man who was waiting to die in a nasty manner.

One minute he was a great man, advisor to the king, wealthy, loved, and the next minute he was accused of treason, thrown in jail and executed. Was he guilty? Probably not. He invented the idea of the Wheel of Fortune that was so influential in the Middle Ages. He wrote about Providence and Fate as well as Fortune.

While reading Medieval texts, one comes across references to Boethius. He was loved and read by just about everyone. His book was an essential part of Medieval education; he influenced many writers. Pickering followed with examples of Boetian influence in some Germanic texts that have been called 'problematic' because they were clearly written by a Christian but are not overtly 'Christian' writing. They need to be understood with reference to Boethius. Just as reading Ovid and then rereading Shakespeare changes so much of how you look at a Shakespearean play, I think I need to put Boethius on my summer reading list and then go back and read Beowulf. You should too.

* Taken from Medieval German Studies for F. Norman, 1965