8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

1/180

/';-=09 )(8*=-0/']

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

2/180

vi vari um

AJOURNALFORMEDIAEVAL PHILOSOPHY ANDTHEINTELLECTUALLIFE OF THE MIDDLE AGES

REVUE CONSACRELA PHILOSOPHIEMDIVALE ET LA VIEINTELLECTUELLE DU MOYEN GE

ZEITSCHRIFT FRPHILOSOPHIEUND GEISTES LEBENIMMITTELALTER

VOLUME 10, 1972

i

VAN GORCUM- ASSEN- NETHERLANDS

Reprinted with permission ofVan Gorcum, Assen by

SWETS & ZEITLINGER B.V.LISSE - 1985

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

3/180

vi var i am

A JOURNALFORMEDIAEVALPHILOSOPHYANDTHEINTELLECTUALLIFE OFTHEMIDDLEAGESvivariumsdevotednparticularotheprofane ide ofmediae-valphilosophynd he ntellectualife f heMiddleges.

editors C.J. deVogel,Utrecht)L. M.deRijk,Leyden)J. Engels,(Utrecht)H.A. G.Braakhuis,Nijmegen).Secretaryf he ditorialoard: rof. . M.deRijk,Witte ingel71,Leyden,heNetherlands.

publishers VanGorcum Assen,heNetherlands.subscription Per nnum: fl. . 7,oo/.)SINGLECOPIES Hfl..00 . 4,2.1. )published Twiceyearly, ayndNovember;a 160pages early.

ContributionsubmittedovivariumhouldewrittenreferablyinEnglish,renchr German.hemanuscriptshoulde type-writtennddoublepaced, xceptor ong uotationsndfoot-notes.Adequatemarginsiinch) hould e left t eachedgeof he heet. ootnoteshouldenumberedontinuouslyhrough-out achrticle. heymay eplacedither t the oot f hepageor t he nd f he ext.Contributorseceivegoff-printsree.REVUE CONSACRE LA PHILOSOPHIEMDIVALE ET LAVIEINTELLECTUELLEDU MOYENGEvivariumst onsacrout pcialementuxaspects profanesde aphilosophiedivaletde a vientellectuelleumoyenge.ZEITSCHRIFTFR PHILOSOPHIE UNDGEISTES-

LEBEN IM MITTELALTERvivariumstbesondersenprofanenAspekten ermittelalter-lichenPhilosophiend desgeistigenebensdes Mittelaltersgewidmet.

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

4/180

CONTENTSOF VOLUMEX (1972)

c. j. de vogel BoethianaI 1Utrecht

harry F.REijNDERS

AimericusArs ectora2) 41Amersfoort

pierre GASNAULT UneettreautographeeJeanThenaud. . 103Paris

j. ENGELS Notice urJeanThenaud(3/fin) .... 107Utrecht

harry F. reijnders AimericusArs ectora(3/finis) 124Amersfoort

REVIEWS I02

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

5/180

oethiana

ilC. J. DEVOGEL

Boethius'hilosophiaeConsolatio

, not a,consolatioas it is suggested

Fidei.in the title, was a Consolatio

Philosophiaenot a consolatioFidei.It is true that n manyChristianwriters of the early centuries theword "philosophia"became anequivalentof somethingike "moral ifeor "spiritualife",or even of Christian aith. inceClementofAlexandriareferred o the Old Testament and thereligionof the Jewsby the termof apapixY)piXoao

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

6/180

ForBoethius,who wasa Platonist, hilosophy odoubtimpliedtheabove-mentionedttitude. Whenhis outer lifehadcrashed nd he found

himselfn prison a man bereft f all hisformergoods- , it was,so tospeak,a naturalthing hatPhilosophjouldremindhim of thatwhichshehad taughthim throughout ife. Nothing, ndeed,was asnatural s thatshewouldremindhimofher teaching bout the true Good,afterhavingprecedingly emindedhim of the non- alue of all outwardthings.Was itnot Philosophy'sproper task to raise her pupil'smindto things eyondthisworld?- And bothto Philosophynd to the Christian eliever thiswas theascentto GOD.

Soto Boethius, s it had been to St.Augustine, ruephilosophyndChristianfaith tended in the samedirection. To AugustineChristianfaithhad been the fulfilment f that which philosophyhad promised.He did not identify hem.Did Boethius?

Fromthe fact hathe was botha philosophernda Christian, nd inhisdepressionet Philosophyffer erconsolation,he dentificationoesnot necessarilyfollow. What is interesting s: how his "Philosophy"expressesherself doesshealways speakin purelyPlatoniclanguage,or doesher speechsometimespassover almostimperceptiblynto termswhichactually re of Christian r of biblical origin?Andnext, t isofthegreatest nterest o observehow Boethiushimself ehavesn the dialoguewithhis severeMistress what kindoflanguagedoes hespeak,ust that fhumanweakness,forgetful f the stern essons both of philosophyndofChrist, r doeshe show at times definitely agan ttitude f mind,whileagainthere are momentswe findhimspeakingn a wayonlya Christiancould?

Suchare myproblems. know, of course,that the existence ofanydefinitely hristian r biblical elements n the Consolatio asbeenfairly

recentlyenied

byseveralof the most

respectablecholars1In the main

agreewith Courcellewhoverywiselynoticed that t was a questionofmethodicaldistinction ohavePhilosophypeakthe languagef philoso-phyand not of Christian aith2.From that point of view, however,the1P.Courcelle,es ettresrecquesn ccidenteMacrobeCassiodoreParis1948,p.301-304;the ameuthorn:LaConsolatione hilosophieansa traditionittraire,aris967,p.339-344.O.Gigonnhis ntroductiono heevisedditionith ermanranslationf he onsolatiot heArtemiserlag,rich969,sveryategoricaln ayinghatn he onsolatioot singleentencecan efoundrom hichne ouldnferhatheuthor as Christian.ikewise.Cilento,MedioevomonasticocolasticoMilano-Napoli961,h.V,speciallyp. 3-81.Boezio,osienero-so n itazionilassiche,onttinge ai una onteacra,vangelica,postolica,atristica",ohedeclareso.e.,p.$i).2"il surtoutouluarderparsansesuvrese domainee araisont e domainee afoi"(LaConsolatione hil.,.342).

2

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

7/180

usageof such a pagan-Platonisterm s "primadivinitas" ouldhardly equalifieds a "lapsus"n the speechof Philosophia.Sucha qualification

would bejustified nlywhenBoethius ssupposedto have hadthe nten-tion of more or less Christianizing is Philosophia.But if that was hispurpose,onecould notreasonablylamehimforhavingher use theterm"creare".

I onlymention these points to show that there are some furtherproblems. n fact, Courcelle thinks hatBoethiustried to givea kindofsynthesisf the AlexandrianNeoplatonismofAmmoniusandChristianity,in the same way as later St.ThomasAquinasproposeda synthesis fAristotle'sphilosophyand Christiantheologywithout mixingup the

fields f reason nd faith.Thus,wecan understandhat uchanexpressionasthe "primadivinitas", ven on the lipsof Philosophia,ppearsa lapsusto Courcelle.On thewhole,again, thinkhis viewof Boethius s right:in fact, the "last of Romans",who wasa Christian, penthis life n theNeoplatonic philosophyf his age,and he did so rathertechnically. venin his theologicaltreatiseshe tackled the problemsas a philosopher,applyinghedistinctions f Aristotle'slogicto the terms sed in theology.Was it sostrange hen,that to him, when in prison,philosophyppearedto have a word to speak,a word which must have appealedto him themore since its tendencywas in agreementwith what he believed as aChristian.

No doubt this is the main-point.But there are a few unsettledproblems. wish to disposethem under the following hreepoints.

1. Are hereanyclearly hristianeaturesn theConsolatioAnd if so,whereandwhich are they?

2. Whatabout the locisacraeScripturae9atheredby Fortescueandmentioned s parallels n Bieler' new edition of the ConsolatioAre allof them ithervagueparallels r usta matter f coincidence,or will therebe foundone or two casesin which a verypeculiarbiblicalthought rexpressionccurs n the Consolationprecisely hesameform? his wouldbe an interesting hing o us. I think t has to be carefully hecked.

3. In whichformdo the "pagan",non-Christianlementsresenthem-selvesn theConsolatioArethey onfined o the part n whichPhilosophiais speaking,or do they ometimesoccur in our Christian-philosopher'sownpart aswell?Anotherquestionmightbe raised n this context is itnecessary o believethat Boethiusacceptedeveryword spokenby hisMistresswithout

anyreservation, r can he be

supposedo havehad some

reservationswith regardto certain details of her teaching

3

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

8/180

I Thefirstproblemraisedbrings s to the astbook of heConsolatioare there or are there not anyChristian lements n the Consolatio Ido

not hesitateto answer the questionin the positive.It does seem to methat at least one important eature n Boethius' ownwayof puttinghisproblemshas beenoverlookedbythosewho takethe negative tand.Myreference s to ConsV3, towards heend,where he bursts ut "If hat sso - if all things,which will happen n the future, hallhappenneces-sarilybecausethey re foreknownby God- , there s no freedom henfor man, neither n counsels nor in actions; in vain are rewards andpunishments roposedto goodand evil virtue nd vice will be nothingno room s left or hope ndprayer thatonlyway f ntercourseetween en

andGod.nWith analmostpalpableemotion he goes on: uiJ ndeedbythepriceofright umblenessedeservehenestimablegift fGod1grace- whichstheonlymannerbywhicht seems hatmen antalkwithGod andbytheveryup-plication e oinedto that naccessibleight venbeforehey btainanything.Now ifthenecessity f future things e admitted, f consequentlyrayersof supplicationwould be believed tohaveno force, whatmeans hall wehave ocomento ontact ith hat overeignord f ll thingsBywhat hall webe able to adhere o Him - The necessary consequencewill be thatmankind, eparated nd severed from ts source,will fadeaway.

Whatevermay be said, this is not the way in which the Greekphilosophers,rom ocrates nd Plato- mostpiousandreligiousmen-up to Proclus,used to think nd speakaboutprayer. Ourpassages veryimpressivendeed.Moreover,it is of the greatest nterestwithregard oour presentproblem.

We knowpreciselywhatSocratesandPlatothought boutprayer1It was alien to their mindto think hatanythingn the course of events

mightbe altered

bythe interference f human

supplication.On the

contrary, hey eventhought t impiousto believethat such a thingwaspossible,becausethiswould besupposinghat he mind f Godwereopento any nfluence rom below"2.Prayerdidmeansomethingothem,butsomething ifferent rom whatBoethiushad in mind.

1Of ocrateseknowhreerayers,ne romenophon'semorabiliaI,3,2),anotherromdialoguettributedoPlatotheMinorlcibades142 143a)nd third romlato's haedrus

b-c). he eaderan indheextf hemnmy reekhilosophy,nr. 19. latoodoubtadmiredhepiritf heserayers.2Platoualifiedhe eliefthatheGodsan eeasilyonver y fferingsnd rayers"sonekindf aeiocLaws88$). tmuste dded ere hathe indfpracticesehadnmind,religiouslypeaking,erendeedf low evelnd ifferentromhristianrayer,n ofar sthisssentiallyresupposespersonalelationoGodnwhichhemorallements lwaysncluded.

4

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

9/180

Let us now notice the wordingof Boethiusn this remarkablepas-sage.To himprayermeant a commerciumsperandic deprecandithat s: a

"traffic"asthe 17thcentury nglish ranslation as)"ofhopingfor omespecialthing nd askingthat some other thingmaynot happen"- spe-randialiquidnddeprecandi liquid , and this heonlyuchcommerciumthat is givento man (unicumllud commercium. Certainlythis "traffic"is not to be taken in the sense of a do ut des But it doesmean a "two-directionstraffic : a real intercourseetweenwo arties manbegging orsomething r beggingoff ome other, and God listeningto man andansweringisprayers.This is essentialto Boethius.Now, if by "God" ismeant "the Lord of all things" we shallhave to saya word about this

expression),then this wasimpossibleto anyPlatonistof the day.But let us followBoethius.The "commercium" sexplainedby the"siquidem"-sentence,which for that reason mustnot be separatedfromthe preceding inesby putting full stop after deprecandi,as the textreadse.g. in Stewart-Rand. incethe followingines(102-107in St.-R.,from "Siquidem"to "rationeconiungi")cannot tandbythemselves,hetraditionalinterpunctions rather confusing. ortunately ielercorrectsit byputting commafterdeprecandindasemicolonafterpromeremurThus, the sentence runswell. Beginningt "Aufere ur igitur"we read:

"Thus thatonlyexisting raffic etween menand God,whichcon-sistsof hopingfor something nd beggingoff omeother, will be takenaway,- a traffic, f at leastby the price of due humblenesswe deservethe unestimablegift f God'sgrace " -

Ifwemight eel alittlebit shockedat this traffic dea, in whichmanis regarded s receiving the nestimablegift f God'sgrace"in returnfor(vicem)heiustahumilitasiusta: "due"or "fitting"), ffered s a kind ofprice, andthus s saidto "deserve"that gift, we must know that we arenot the first o dislike the word pretio n this sentence: in the IXthcentury omeonewrote in his copyof the Consolatio"praeconio insteadof pretio, andBielernotesin his apparatus:nescio nrecte.

However,Boethius ivedmany enturiesbeforeLuther, nd what sinteresting n his caseispreciselyhowunhesitatinglye takesthe part ofan utterly unphilosophicaldea of prayer. He does so notby way ofargument,but spontaneously.n this he appearsto us as an intenselylivingmanwho, in the daysof his heaviest rial, snot willingto give upthat whichhe knowsby inner experienceto be sure that here s a realintercourse etweenmenand God,an intercourse n whichman,whenhumblybeggingfor somespecialfavouror deprecating omething lse,willbe heardby Godandansweredanactualcolloquy,a "talkwith God"

5

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

10/180

(asit is said in the next ine)in whichby the simplefactthathe asksforsomething ipsa supplicandiratione)mancomes intocontactwith that

inaccessibleLight,evenbefore he obtainsanything f that whichhe hadasked for.One smallremark o the last part of this sentence.Allof us know

the text of Tim. .16 where it is said thatGoddwells inaninaccessibleLight.The Vulgataand other earlyLatintranslations ave here luceminaccessibilem.oethius, in writing inaccessamyxpressesthe biblicalthought n the languageusedby Latinpoets, from Virgilonwards.Nodoubthe did so deliberately.Nonethelesst is a biblicalexpression,onlyslightly aried1

Boethiusconcludesbya kindof S.O.S. :our prayers f supplicationcannotbe sheernonsense.f we had to givethemup on logical grounds,that would be the end of the humanrace: mankindwouldperish bydespair.

Again,this s not the languageof a Greekphilosopher.The Latintext reads "Quaesi receptafuturorum ecessitatenihil virium haberecredantur, uid erit quo summoilli rerum Principiconectiatque ad-haererepossimus?Quarenecesseerit humanumgenus,uti pauloantecantabas,dissaeptumtque disiunctum uo fontefatiscere."

Was it correct to render the words summolli rerumPrincipi y"thatsovereign ord f all things"? f oneprefers Prince" for "principi",I havenothing gainst t2 But think Lord is a correctrendering, ndsoI do for the followingreason: I cannottranslate t into Greekby anyother term than Kpio.ITpcToould not do, still less wouldeitherto 7up6>Tovr py'. Now this is a rather important matter. For theNeoplatonistphilosophers, romPlotinusup to Proclus,never used theterm Kpiofor their First Principle.They avoidedsuch a term on

purpose,andwe can

clearlyee

why because,justas

manypresent-dayphilosophersn India,they felt that the personalform would standforsomethingmore limited that the impersonal.Plotinus did his utmostto placehis FirstPrinciplebeyondBeing,thinking nd deliberatewill orpurpose*, nd in this he was followedby later Neoplatonists4.oethius,1The ointsnotedyKlingnernhis ommentary,. ioi2 nGermanhat ould eFrstnsteadf Herr",not Prinz")nDutchvorst",not prins)3Fromhe umerousassagesn he nneadshatould ementionedn hisontextciteust ne,whichsveryharacteristic:1,6.4-30,heret s aidhat,f omethingecondasrisenfterthe newhich,f ourse,ustot eunderstoods genesisn ime,ince es peakingboutthings

ternal),hisameo ubstantialeing

u7UoaT7)vai)ot

y nynclination,or

yeliberate

purpose,or y ny ind f motiono7rp0aveaavT0uSpouX7)$vTOuSXoxivyj&vTO).reekhil.II,nr. 366.4For roclusee lementaheologiae6 on hebsoluteriorityf he ne)on he radesf ar-

6

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

11/180

on the other hand, who in our passage fightslmostviolentlyfor thepossibility f a real colloquyetween men and God, naturally sed the

personalform: Princepsomniumrerum, .e. Kpio.We haveto notice that t is not onlyhere that the formula ccurswe find t several times in the Consolatio also wherePhilosophiaisspeaking.I am thinking f III, pr. 10. HerePhilosophiantroducestheterm "Deum rerum omniumprincipem", - but she does so whilereferring o the "communishumanorum nimorumconceptio"(1.23 ff.Stewart- and Bieler 20ff., 2gf.). A few ines further n shealsospeaksof "rerum mnium Patrem", term which had a goodtradition n Greekphilosophynd was alsousedby Plotinus1 Theinteresting oint is that,againa few lines further, he shifts rom "princeps"to "principium"(St.-R.60,Bieler2). This is characteristic f philosophy.

I come back to Boethius at the end of V 3. "Ifprayer s an actualcolloquyhad to be abandoned,what shall we haveby which we couldcome into contactwiththathighest ord of things, ndbywhichwecouldadhere to Him?"- Even ifwehad not a single ther ext oconfirm hatBoethius was abelievingChristianup to the end of his days,these fewlines lone wouldbe sufficientproof.This snot the tone of Neoplatonismit is unmistakablyheethosof Christian aith.A thing o notice is thatthepassageoccurs almosttowards heend of th Consolatio.Wehaveto gobackfor a whileandsee whatother elementsthere are in the work as awhole.

Are thereanyotherdefinitely hristian eaturesither n the thoughtor in the languagef the ConsolatioTheyare certainly ot abundant.Yetthere re a few.

Ill,m.9has beencalled aNeoplatonichymn oGod,and also "awholepart of the Timaeusersified".Klingner n a carefulanalysispointedoutthat t is not onlythe Timaeushich wasfollowedbythe author,but thatmanydetails of the text canonlybe understoodbyreference oProcluscommentaryn the Timaeus,hilealsothe religioushymns f GreekandLatinpoets,bothpaganandChristian, ffer omeparallels, n particularto the final part (22-28).There is, I think, one rather important ar-ticularly hristian eature n thishymn.Let usnoticefirst hatPhilosophiais speaking.At the requestof Boethius hespeaksthisprayer, ddressedto God,the Father f earth ndheaven,whoplacedthesoulin the world,

ticipation63-165:,ithhechemerawny odds,lem..282,eproducednmy reekhil.Ill, r. 466d,.77.heermpios substantiveoesot ccurt ll n he lements.herethe ermoesccur,t suseds n djectivetwice).1E.g.Vi, i, the peningentence.

7

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

12/180

createdhuman oulsandanimals ndplants,andgavethem "bya benig-nant aw" to return o Him. At the end this Creator-Gods glorified s

thefulfilment f allrestlessstriving, s the "beginning""Source")andtheend ("goal"),asthe one "who holds allthings n his hands" vector), theGuide(this eemsa Hermeticfeature1theWay. He wasinvoked n orderto givehis lead to the seeking oul and show herwhereand how to findthe seat of the "sovereignGood";at the end he is found o be the Goodhimself.He is GOD.

To a Christian his dentificationmight eem amatter f course,-to a philosopher t was not. In Plato's Timaeus hereis no reason foridentifying he Demiurgewith that First Principlewhich is elsewherereferred o as the Goodand, as the Source of all Being,is placeditselfbeyond t. There isa difference f evel between the two in RepublicIPlatowasconcernedwith the ultimateground f intelligible eing,whilein the Timaeus e is speakingbout the genesisof the visibleworld. TheDemiurgewho createsthe Soulmust himselfbe placedat the level ofintelligibleBeing;he is not the Causeof that Being.Soit was for aterPlatonists s well neitherfor Plotinusnor for Proclus was itpossibletoidentify he God-Creatorwho was theDemiurge,with the One or theGoodwhich was the First Principle.It was reservedto Christians ounitethe Oneand Nos on one and the sameevel.This s whatSt.Augus-tine did when he said that we know by the ChristianrevelationthateternalTruth or Wisdom,whichis the Word, is equalto the Father2.

Thisis the spiritual limate n which Boethiusived as an orthodoxChristian.For him the Creator was God, and God was the sovereignGood.For a Christian herewas noproblemin that, for a philosopherthere was.The remarkablethingwe haveto notice here is, that n theprayerof Philosophian III 9 the synthesiss made.

I do notsuggestby

this that Boethius wished to ChristianizehisPhilosophia.f this hadbeen hispurpose,he wouldcertainly avedonemuchmore.Ill9 shows usinmanydetails thathe took Philosophias shewas.At least this s the generaltendency f his work.That,nonetheless,he came to suchan important hing s the identificationf the Creator-God with the Good-itself, s, I think, not a questionof consciouslyintroducing Christian iew forhimself, odoubt,the "Father f earthand heaven" was theCreatoraeli et terrae f the Christian reed. It is thisformulawhichhe rendershere n thelanguagef Latinpoets.Forhimthe

1ToimandresCorpusermeticum) 2$.Hermesalls imselfa-O'oSrjyouyvououv^p

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

13/180

Creatorofheavenand earthwas the unusDeuswhoassuch couldnot bedifferent rom he"sovereignGood",the summum onum ofphilosophy.

A certainsyncretism,madeimperceptibly,wasso natural n this case,that t washardly voidable.Thus,at theheight f her meditating rayer,in the glorificationf the invokedFather- od-Creator of the world, theCreator becomesin Philosophia'svision the One-and-all,beholdingwhom sthe true fulfilment Tecernereinis),the "beginningndthe end",Vector, GuideandWay.

In thesenamespaganand Christian lements oin. We maybe surethat n usingthe terms rincipiumnd terminusBoethiusremembered hea and toof Apocal. 8. ButPhilosophyoulduse these terms: ipyy nd

teXoor TeXeuTY]ere as classicalas possible.They are in the pro-oemiumto Plato' s Laws1nd almostcertainly obackto an early Pytha-goreantext. "Vector" s tracedbackbyKlingner o theclassicalyairjo^o,but he does remember the text of Hebr. I 3 which reads: cpepcovr 7vTa opyjfJuxTiyj $uvfxea)urou, - and next to it Seneca,Epist.1.10, where it is said that God himself"carries al things"2.Wefoundxa&o&Y)Yn the PoimandresWe might also rememberProclus,who says in De phil.Chald p.2, i ff. 7uocTY)pS-ryet >poSova7TTiiaa^ai3Here the idea of "guide" is certainly present. TheGuide "opens"a way. One could notsay that he is called "the way"himself. think emitan Boethius' textdoesrecallJohn 14,6.

Of great nterest o the presentproblem s Klingner'scommentaryon the last ines of II,m.9. Fromvs.22onwardshe cancite manyparal-lels fromhymns, othpaganandChristian. n the whole herecognizeshestyle f the carmina acra.However,fromvs.26onwards,with the wordsTunamqueerenumBoethiusseemsto him to separatefrom the classicalgenre nd to go a differentway. He refers o Nordenwho in the work"Ayvcocttoe remarkedthat suchpraedicatesas serenumnd requieswere alien to the ancient languageof Greeksand Romans ntheir sacracarmina nd must temfromEgypt,Babylonr from heJews.- I havemydoubts about thispoint. Thereis something mazingn the fact hat,half century go, outstanding lassicalscholarscommentedon the Turequiesranquillaiisbyarguing:"Plato didnot feeltired, Proclusdid, asappearsfrom the verse n one of the hymns

"Op(xov ut

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

14/180

Ergo,thisfeeling f fatigue f the soulmust havehadits origin n someoriental influence." n which it is forgotten hat such an unsuspectedGreekphilosopher s Epicurusfound the utmost of r8ovrn 7rovaand ocTapaa "the peaceof the mind" - ; that the Stoicsstroveafter rc^eiafor the sake of that same untroubledstate of inner rest,and that, somewhatearlier, the founder f the ScepticSchoolrefrainedfromjudgingfor the sake of this sameuntroubledness(derapala).It isforgotten y thosescholars hat uch aclassicalRomanasCiceroemphat-ically proclaimedphilosophyto be the medicine of the soul,by curingher fromperturbationes

Soclassicalwasthe dealoftheserenumndof the peaceofthe mind.And let it not be said that all this belongedto the Hellenisticage, atroubledtime indeed,and full of vexed souls.Is there anything s clas-sical,I should ike to ask,asthe deal of the serenumWhetherPlatoneverfelt ired, am not sure but this much sbeyonddoubt,that hephiloso-pherwhocondemnedhe "Homericlaughterassomething nworthy ndwished to banishtragedyfrom his republiclest his citizensshouldbeexposedto the dangerousexampleof violentpassion,could rather becitedasa classicalexampleof the ideal of the serenum.

In so far Klingner'scommentary n the serenum s not quite con-vincing ome. Buthis commenton the namques highly emarkablendone of the best specimensof a penetrating nd delicateinterpretation.With this namquehe remarks, he authorpassesonfrom hesupplicationfor his own spiritualneedsto the praiseand glorification f God. Thenamque oes not havethe function t had in the ancientcarmina acra- in Cleanthesor Aratus, n Lucretiusor Virgil, or evenin Proclus.With all those poets it introduced, so to speak, the reasonwhy thesubjectof the prayer rusts hat he God willgrantwhathe isbegging or.Boethius'

Philosophia,however,abandons

completelywhat she was

praying or nd in praiseandglorificationiftsher mindup to the divineMysteries.t is somethingike the Quoniamusolusanctusn the Gloria fthe Romanmass;or again,like the doxologyat the end of the Lord'sprayer.

Klingnerconcludes,and rightly, o it seems to me, that n theselines the author does not followany classicalexample,but is findinghimselfn the spiritual limateof the Hebrewpsalms nd Christianpiety.

Klingner,who is highly ensitive o the forms f religiousexpres-

1Philosophyanimiedicina".o.nTusc.Disp.I4.1 111.5-6;II6.13IV27, 8. eelsohepraisef hilosophynTtisc.2.whichoncludes:Cuiusgiturotiuspibustamuruamuis"(philosophias ddressed),quaet itaeranquillitatemargitaobiss t erroremortisustulisti?"

IO

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

15/180

sion, notices one other term, used twice in III9, whichmighthave itsorigin n the samespiritual limate it is the iubesn vs.3 and the iubens

in 9. In 3 the "Father of earth and heaven is invoked asquitempusbaevojireiubes The text of the Timaeus37d) reads: ex>S'irevsixivYjTvivaatcovoroij

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

16/180

Klingner lso seemsto take it in that sense he quotesTimaeus2 d as avery close parallel.The text reads: va 8Xovti [xXiaTa&ovtXsiovexTeXsicovcovxep&vebq.This is in the Timaeusindeed.But cannotfind t in Boethius.Whathe says s in my opinion, when I go on after "he carries - and "heframes - :

"and orders the perfect world to perform ts functionperfectly."This is what the text says.Tartes bsolveremeans"to playa role" or toplayone's part. Venire ad partes means: to enter upon one's duties.

Klingnermaybe right, fter ll, in finding hestyle f the Psalms nthe repeted use of the verb iuhere.However, that such a usagewasentirely alien to the Graeco-Romanmind, is sayingtoo much. Forinstance, Epictetusspeaksexactly so in his diatribe on Providence(Diss. 14,3)1. But the order itself of performing ts task perfectly- doesnot thisrecall themanner n which, accordingto Genesis, Godspoketo the newlycreated men? I do not mean,of course,the contentsof the order, n so far s it is addressedo man but do mean thegeneraltendency f t, as it might lso be addressedo thenewly reatedworldif thisbe conceived as aliving nd ensouledbeing.Such a worldcould beaddressed

byits Creatorand be ordered to fulfil ts

specialtask with

perfection.Thus, this line offers a most curious instance of Boethiansyn-

cretism:an order n biblicalstyle ddressedto a Platonicuniverse.

II. The listof oci sacrae cripturaegatheredby Fortescue andtakenoverby Bieler,whogivesthe references s parallelsat the bottomof thepagesofhisedition,hasrathergenerally eenrejectedas afailure.Yet itdeservescareful ttention.

The listopens

with Genesis26,

mentioned s aparallel

to Cons.ll,m.9, vs.7 (tu cunctasuperno)ducis abexemplo.Ofcourse,theparallel

is very general. The text is certainlynearer to the Timaeus han toGenesis26. However,as I noticedabove,the wordssimiliquen imagine

formans f the next line do remind of the ad imaginemt similitudinemnostramf Genesis.Withoutmaking t a formalquotation,we are ustifiedin supposinghatBoethius,n particular n writing s.8, had that text nmind. Since the same words in a slightlyvaried form also occur inSapientiaI 23, those linesoffer nother parallelof the same kind.

In Cons.I 2,9 f. St.-R. Fortuna s madeto address Boethiussaying:1 shalluotehe assageurthern in/ra,. 19).

I 2

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

17/180

Cum ematris teronaturaproduxitnudum ebus mnibusnopemqueuscepiymeisopibusJovi etc. I am not sure whether we have to find there a

reminiscence f Job 21 which reads in the Vulgata: "Et dixit: nudusegressusumde utero matrismeae etnudusreyertar lluc." Theparallelis not preciseandmaybe quitewell a matterof coincidence.

Stronger s the parallelof the coronaapientiumn Proverbia4,24toCons.ll 2.14St.-R. : "Quantumlibetgitur aeviantmali, sapientitarnencorona non decidet, non arescet. There is, however, one ratherconspicuousext n the Consolatiohichunmistakablyasitsprototype nthe book of Wisdomit is that well-knownword usedbyBoethiustowardsthe end of Cons.II(12,63 f. St.-R.) with reference to the summumbonum:regit unctajortiteruaviterqueisponit. Sapientia,1 : "Attingitergo sapientia) fineusqueadfinem ortiter, t disponit mniasuaviter.

Theformula ssostriking nd uncommon,that n this case wemaybe sure that we donothaveto do witha chancecoincidence.Again,whatis remarkables the manner n which Boethiususessuch a scriptural x-pression he doesnot directly uote the text he just uses itswording,adaptingt to hisown train f thought. t is,so we must bserve,a literaryquotation.

Interesting s also Sapientia9.15;: "Corpusnimquod corrumpituraggravainimam et terrena nhabitatiodeprimit ensum1multacogitan-tem." Bieler cites thistext as a parallelto Cons., m.2. 24-27

Nunciacet efifetoumine mentiset pressusgravibus ollacatenisdeclivemquegerensponderevultumcogitur,heu, stolidamcernereterram.

However,here the context s different the brightness f the poorman's mind is dimmedby sorrow the "heavychains"by which he isforced to look to the "dullearth" insteadof

lifting phis

eyesto the

heavens, re the chainsof his imprisonment.t is not ust the "perishablebody"whichpullshim downwith its desires.Thus, the parallelis notquitegoodhere. A trueparallel s found owards heendof the prayer nCons.ll, m.9, vs.2^, in which Philosopniaprays to the Father of allthings o "Cast off he earthlyweightwherewith amopprest"2.

The ponderaerrenaemolisoffer, n fact, a preciseparallelto the"corpusquod corrumpitur ggravaianimam". It is worth noticing,however,that the above-cited textof Sapientias more akin to Greekthan to Hebrew

thought,whichis

by no means an isolated casein

the1 ensussused ere orntellectas toftens, .g.nCicero,enaturaeorumI.2Thus heeventeenthenturynglishranslationrintednthe oeb ditionf tewart-Rand.

13

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

18/180

Hellenisticworld, even in Palestine,butparticularly requent n such acentre of Hellenistic cultureas Alexandria.It is generallyadmitted

nowadayshat he authorofSapientiawas aHellenisticJewwho livedoutof Palestine,probably n Egyptand in Alexandria,n the first centuryB.C.Thiswas,ofcourse,anenvironmentnwhichthe nfluence f Greekphilosophical thoughtwas particularly trong and syncretism uite acommonthing, t leastamongst ntellectuals.

Lessconvincings in my opinion the analogyof Ecclesiastes 8withCons.IV,pr.6, 197-199St.-R. (= 176Bieler).Boethiushas:

"Nequeenim fas est homini cunctasdivinaeoperaemachinas velingeniocomprehendere el explicaresermone."

Eccle.I 8 "Cunctaeres difficiles on potest eas homoexplicaresermone.The two lastwords are literally hesame.However,they re not so

striking r unusual that literary eminiscencemustbe admitted n thiscase.The analogys too general,the formula t the end too common.

One mighthesitate about the warningof Cons II, m.4, vs. ighumili domummemento/ certusfigere axo.

The firm nd low spotonsolidstony round sopposedto the "periculosasors sedisamoenae" "thedangerousase ofan untrieddelightful lace".Is therea reminiscence f Mt. 7. 24f., in which the wise man who hasbuilt his house on a rock (super etram)s opposedto the vir stul usquiaedificavit domum suam supra harenam? The two texts are ratherdifferent, oth in thought nd in expression in Boethius thedangerouscharacter f the sedesamoenais first f all situated n itshigh ositionona montaintop, whereit will be exposedto the protervusAuster.Next,the builderof a house mustavoid"bibulasharenas",for "theseshiftingsandsrefuseto bear the weight aidupon them". PerhapsBoethius didhave the text of Matthew n his mind and varied somewhat

freelyn the

themeof rock opposedto sand.Suchis, after ll, the wayhe uses biblicalwords andexpressions.

A similar ase occursn I, 1,28ff. here t isthe Muses whokill thefertile eed of Reason by the spinae ffectuumIt reminds,of course,ofMt. 13.22: "quiautem estseminatusn spinis" . Hereagain,thewholeof the context sdifferent. et, the wordingusedbyBoethius,recalls thetext of Matthew o inevitably, hatwe canhardly oubtthat he had thistext n mind.

Theselast-mentionedases bothwere

typicalof the kind of

literary132-34t.-R.

14

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

19/180

quotationswhichcertainly onfirm he alreadyattested fact that theauthorwasfamiliarwith the Scriptures ndhad the wording f their text

present o his mind. Astronger asefrom he pointofview ofChristianelementsin Boethius' thought might be found in Cons., m.,3^/36,whichreads

iustusquetulit j crimen niqui."Therighteousman carries the guiltof the unrighteous ne." - Isnotthis an echoof the iustus ro niustis

It does make thatimpression, if we either hearor read the above-quotedwordsdetachedfrom heir context. However,let us be carefuland see howthey tandthere. In this songBoethiushimself s speaking.He addresses the Creatorof the sky "O stelliferi onditororbis")andglorifies he cosmicorder: the regular courseof the heavenlybodies("legemquepatisideracogis"),the interchanginghasesof the moon,thesuccessiveappearanceof the evening- nd the morning-star; heregularsuccessionof the seasonswhichbringwith hem number fwell-orderedand alwaysre-occurringnatural phenomena.Nothing in Nature isexemptfrom he Creator'sordained aws.Heactuallygoverns ll things- excepthe ctsofmen. n the world where men live together aw andorder seemto be altogether acking chanceappearstorule, sslippery, shaphazard,s cruelandunjust spossible.Innocents re oppressedbythepunishmentdue to the guilty, wicked manners are seated on a loftythrone and tread unjustly n the necks of innocents."Shining irtue shiddenin obscurity nd the righteousman carries the guilt of the un-righteous ne."

Latet obscurisconditavirtusclara tenebrisiustusquetulitcrimeniniqui.

Thisis the context n which the wordsreferred o have theirplace."Therighteousman saccusedinstead f theguilty thewickedonesrule,

justice is trampleddown." Suchis the picture of humansocietyas itactually s. God'sprovidenceseems to be far from t: man seems to beleft ohimself nd to the blowsoffortune.Nocare ofdivineProvidenceseemsto extendto human ffairs. There s noreference o the Justwhotook uponhim the burden of the guilt of men and willingly uffered ntheir placeandfor their sake.

After ll, this s not a literary uotation. Not onlythe contents re

different,ut the words are different

oo. Boethius does notspeakof a1 Petr.,18.

IS

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

20/180

iustussuffering ro niustis n the ense of "for he akeof". t seemsbetter,then, not to look for anyanalogy n this case at all. There is just norelation.I could conclude ourexamination fpossible Scripture uotations tthispoint. However,let me add ust one morethathas beenput forwardas either quotationor at least a parallel.It is the following.n Cons.V,i, 2o ff. Philosophiasays: "It would indeed be infinitely trangeandsurpassingll monsters, f, asyou think, n the extremelywell-orderedhouse of so greata householderthe vilestvessels weremadeaccountof,while the preciousones were neglected(vilia vasacolerenturpretiosasordescerent. But t is not so."

More and lesspreciousvesselsre mentioned, fcourse, ntwo well-knownpassagesof the N.T. letters. The first s Rom.9,21 ff., whichopensasfollows1

"An non habetpotestatem igulusuti j ex eademmassafacerej aliudquidemvas in honorem, aliudvero in contumeliam -

And a few lines further n (in 22) the writer opposes"vasairaeaptata n interi urn" o "vasamisericordiaequaepraeparavitn gloriam".

The other passages in II Tim 2,20, whichreads:"in

magnautemdomo

/non solum sunt vasaaurea et

argentea,/sedet

ligneaet fictilia,/ et quaedam quidemin honorem, quaedamautem incontumeliam.

True, in both Boethiusand the N.T.lettersmore and lesspreciousvessels are mentioned.But there is hardly any further analogy.Thewriter of II Tim. is thinking of the more and less precious vesselswhichare alwayspresent n a greathouse.It is quitepossible,of course,that Boethiushadthispassageat the back of his mind.It wouldbeagainarather vague iterary eminiscence,f there s anyat all. Thisis, I think,all we can

sayto

it.The final conclusion of this part of our investigation, hen, is asfollows

There isat leastonepassagewhichbyits literal similarity oa verystriking nd particularbiblical text proves that Boethius was familiarwith the book of SapientiaHe uses this text freely, n the way of aliterary uotation.There are a numberof other passagesn the Consolatioin whicha formula r expressionrecalls the wordingof some biblicaltext either of the Old or of the New Testament.For the greaterpart the

similarities re limited to just a few words, not to be taken in their1 giveheext f he ulgata.

16

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

21/180

biblical context.Yetthesimilarityfexpression,whichoccursrepeatedly,is probably n mostcasesnot a matter of mere chancecoincidence.We

ratherhave to take suchexpressionss a literary eminiscence.The textof the Bible must havebeen quite familiar o the author. He doesnotactuallyquote t, but he does have it in his mind, and its words andexpressionsccur to him n writing islast work as naturally s anyveryfamiliar nd cherished text would present tself to anypersonwritingsucha workunder such circumstances.

III.Our thirdproblem oncerns hepagan lements n the Consolatio.Theyare certainlynot confined o thoseparts in which Philosophias

speaking.Theyare in the veryheartofBoethius'mostpersonalproblems.We saw how heburst out in I m. where he addressedthe stelliferiConditororbis

"Omniacerto fine gubernanshominum olosrespuisactusmerito rector cohibere modo.Nam cur tantas ubrica verstFortunavices? Premit nsontesdebitasceleri noxiapoena,

e.q.s.Thisis the problemtormenting im while all things n the universe rewell ordered by the Creator's providentialcare, man only is exemptfrom this care and exposedto the tricks of Fortune, that arbitrary nddespoticMistress f humanaffairs.

Such isBoethiusview of man and human ife. Againand againitre-occursthroughout he books of the ConsolatioFirst n I pr.6, wherePhilosophiaasks him her questionsin order to diagnosehis disease.- To the questionwhether the world is

governedby haphazardor

rather s ruled by reason,he answerswithout anyhesitation "I knowthat the Creatorgovernshis work, and never a daywill come whichcoulddrive me awayfrom his truth"2.

It might eemstrange o us, that a man who so firmly elievedindivineProvidencecould thinkthat men onlywerevoid of that care. Itmight seem the more strange, since neither the Stoic nor Platonistphilosophypointedin that direction.For in Stoicismmanas a rationalbeingwasactually kin otheDivinity, is ndividualeasonbeingapart fthe divine

Logos,while in Platonism

too, byhis

"higheror

thinking1 ,m.g 2-3-*1,pr. .g-iiSt.-R.=4-10Bieler).

17

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

22/180

soul manwasliterally kin to divineNoswhence it had sprung nd towhich t was supposedto return, f t least t did not turn awayfrom hat

whichwas aboveit. True, the poor Boethiusn his depressionmayhaveforgotten omething f the lessons of Philosophy, but, after ll, is itnot strange hathe regardsmanand human ffairs s he does asentirelyabandonedbydivineProvidencewhich,both n the views ofStoics andofPlatonists,did comprehendmanmostclearly nd explicitly?

Anumber f earlier nd later Greekphilosophersmaybe present oour mind in this context. Socratesand Plato, of course,were veryfarawayfrom hat ate Roman senatorwhowasBoethius,but theywere atthe outset of the Platonisttradition.To them divine Providence wasamatter f absolute certainty. he belief n it wasat the verybasisof theirlife.Socrates,unjustly ccusedand at the moment f beingcondemnedodeath, speaksto his judgesin perfect erenity, eminding hemof thefact hat "for goodman there sno evil,neitherduringhis ifenor afterhis death, and his affairs re not neglectedby the Gods.Andcertainlythatwhichhappens omenow hasnot happenedby haphazard, ut this sclear to me, that t wasbetter formenow to be dead anddeliveredfromall troubles"1.

AndPlato, when he classed thedenialof Providence as a formofocaeei2, did certainly ot only think of the divinelyordered celestialand cosmicphenomena,but of the lives of individualmen as well. Hesaidthat, n view of the unavoidablestruggle etweengoodandevil,Godassignedto humanbeingstheir placesin such a way, that vilmightbeovercomeas easilyand as effectively s possible3.In that struggle,hesaid,men will ever have the Godsand daemons attheir ide, oiningandsupporting hem*.Platoknew, of course,the problemof those who intheir surroundingsawsomepeopleby impiousactsandinjustice"fromsmall ones become

great":from uch cases

theynfer hat the Gods do

not care about these things. t is in particularyoungpeoplewhom headmonishess follows:"You,boy, andyou,youngman,whothink hatthe Gods don't carefor you, do not thinkyouwill escapethe order ofDivineustice whenever personbecomesmorallyworse,he willcomeinto the company f worse souls,whenhe becomesbetter, hisplacewillbe amongbetter ones.Soit will be in life andin all forms f death: hewillalwaysuffer nddo thatwhich s fitting hat imilar haracters o totheir equals"s.

1Plato, pol.ic-d. 2Plato,aws88cb.3Plato,aws904a-b. 4Plato,aws9o6a-b.5Plato,aws94e-90a.

I8

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

23/180

Hemeans whenever manwillconstantlyommitdeeds of terribleinjustice,hewillnotend his ife n prosperity ndpleasure,but eitherhere

or hereafter, e willmeet with a form f lifefitting or hewicked onesjustasthatmanwhoreaches highdegreeofvirtuewillenter nto higherand moreblessed kind of ife. Andnobodywill everescapethisorder.

Soimportantwas inPlato'seyesthebelief n divine Providence on-cerninghuman ife, that n his opinionno manwhopersistently eniedthat Providence couldbe a goodandacceptablecitizenof his state.

Certainly, Boethiusis separatedfrom Socrates and Plato by anenormousspaceof time. Yet, the Neoplatonistswho were his masterscommented n the myths n after-lifen Plato's Grgiasnd Republicandwe maybe sure that he wasperfectly amiliarwith their thought.PlatonismsoneSchoolofancientphilosophy, hough n importantone. Ifwe wish to haveanimpression f what he ttitude f the dominat-ingSchoolsofphilosophyn aterAntiquity aswithregard otheproblemof Providence ndFate,wemustturn o the Stoa aswell. A documentofbasicimportance s, of course,Cleanthes'Hymnto Zeus.Here wehavethe whole of Stoicphilosophyof Nature, God and man in a nutshell,thoughmarkedby a particularreligiouscharacterwhich is not to thesameextentproper to all Stoicphilosophers.Cleanthes'universe,ruledbythe eternal nd almighty eus, whois addressedwith traditionalepicepithets, s in fact no different rom he universe s it was conceivedbyZenoand Chrysippus, universeentirely ermeatedby, or evenidenti-fiedwith, the Logos- God - si^apfJievY)1which was describedas a"creativefire" (nuptxv^ov)and as a fiery breath running throughthe whole cosmos2.ThoughCleanthesnvokes thesupremeRuler asthepXTff Nature who "governsll thingswith Law",and to whom thiswhole world, turning ound the earth, "obeys",while it is willinglyruled

by Him,the Law is no other than the xo

vXyo,nd

againthis is said to "permeateall things". Moreover, Cleanthes' Zeus isclearlyrcpovoia,n identification hich wasmadeby Zeno (SVF I 176)andby all later Stoics afterhim^

"Nothing n earth s done without You, o God," sayshe,"neither n the divine etherianheavens norin the sea,-exceptthat which wickedmen do in their foolishness."4

1Zenop.Stob.,el.n, $a,p.132.26W = SVF87);cf.CalcidiusnTim..294SVFb.).DeVogel,reekhil.II,nr. 00. ee lso iog. aert. II134;Greekhil. r. 99.2Aetius7,33SVF

I1027)Diog.

aert. II7

Cicero,c.ost.

11,39;eVogel,

reekhil.Ill,nrs. 02, 03.Cleanthes,ymnoZeuss.12-13SVF 7;DeVogel,r. hil. r. 43):xoLvvyov,8i7rvTcv/

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

24/180

Formen candisobeythe divine Law- for while at least.Theycantryto escapethe divine Will and ignore t. Whendoingso theywill show

themselves oth bad and foolish, nd the consequenceof suchbehaviouris that theywill becomeprofoundly nhappy.Therefore, hepoet praysthat the almighty ather may protect men from perniciousfoolishnessand give them insight nto the law of justice with which He rules allthings.

Certainly, this is faith n divineProvidence,not limited to thecosmosas awhole,but extending o manandhispersonal ife. It is truethat not all Stoic philosophersfelt this with equal depth. Seneca'sdefence f Providencemay ppeartomany modernreadernotaltogetherconvincing.Manyyearsago, when commentingon this topicin GreekPhilosophyII, I noteddown to DeprovidentielI 9: "Seneca's Godlooksat humansuffering ith the delightof the spectator n an arena"1 True.But there s also the voiceofEpictetus. t is the voice of a manwho feelsdrivento thank GodandpraiseHimfor hisbenefitsthroughout islife,at anyact he performs, ncluding he most simpleones,suchas diggingandploughing, ating nd drinking, leeping nd breathing he wantstothankGod for ll thosethings, ecauseHegaveus the means and organsto

performll thosefunctions, nd most of all, because He

gaveus the

capacityofbeingaware of all thosethings nd methodicallyusingthosemeansandorgans.2

In one of his diatribes the same author deals explicitlywith theproblemraisedbya manwhoapparently ame to him and asked "Howcould one bepersuadedto believethat everything hat s doneby us isseenby God?" Tothis manEpictetus says: "Doyounot think that allthings orm unity?" "Ido", saidhe. - "And whatabout thispoint:do younot think hat the things n earth and the things n the heavensare in constant ommunionof

feelings roduced byanything appeningto anypartof theirs?" "Ido," he said."Whence,then, do theybehaveso orderly, s if theyactedat the commandof God? Imean,when Hetells the plantsto flower, they flower,when He tellsthem to sprout,they sprout, when to producefruit, heyproducefruit, whento ripenthem, they ripen, when to drop them, they drop them, when to shedtheir leaves,they shed their leaves andlastly,when to shrivel up and,shrunktogether,have a time of rest, they remainquiet, andhave theirrest. And fromwhereis the impactof the waxingand the waningof the

moon,andthe approachand retreat f the sun to and from he things n1Greekhil, ,nr. 42,ub .2Epictetus,iatrI 16, 5-18;eVogel,reekhil. I, 29a.

20

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

25/180

earth, which we can continually ee with our eyes, a very mportantchangeofearthly henomena, nd evena changento their opposites?Or

areonlyplants nd trees and our own bodies sofirmly oundup with thewhole asto feel the reaction of anything appeningwithin t, but oursouls not much more?Or are our souls,becausethey re parts f God andfragmentsorn off from Him, so firmly oundup in God andtouchingHim,but does God himself otperceive everymovement f theirs inceit belongsto Him and sbynatureHis own ?Arejouableto think bout thedivineworld-order nd everydetail of t, as well asaboutthematters on-cerningman,canyoureact to influences oth of the senses andof the in-tellect,canjou eitheragreeordisagree r refrain rom judgement, ndcanyoukeepthe impressionsf so many nd so various matters n yourownmind and be rousedby themto form imilar concepts,andkeepvariousarts nd memoriescoming rom hem,but sGodnotableto seeeverything,to bepresent t everythingnd share n everything s then the sun able toenlighten ucha hugepart of the universe- excepted onlythat smallpiecewhichfallsunder the shadowof the earth , but He whohasmadethe sun itself nd leadsit in its course, is He not able to perceiveallthings?"1.

That Godof whom we arejust torn-offpieces,would He notcarefor those who literally re His flesh and blood? That man wouldbeexceptedfrom hefieldof divine Providence,couldhardlybe a Stoic'sview. And so we are not surprised o findMarcusAurelius,meditatingin his tent n Dacia,reflecting n life and death in this way

"To pass awayfrommen is nothing errible, if there are Gods.For they ould not involveyouin evil.But f the Gods eitherdo not existor do not care for theaffairs f men,what doesit mean to meto livein aworld emptyof Gods or emptyof Providence?But, no, they do existand

theydocarefor human

things"2.This is how both Stoic and Platonistphilosophers ookedup todivineProvidence,both in the Hellenisticageand in the first enturiesof our era. Plutarch himselfwas a firm believerin the providenceofGod- he mostly sesthe singular, &e- , as maybe seen fromhiswork Deseranuminisindicta. e does not doubt for momentthat Godis concerned with the lives and deedsof individualmen, and that thewickedones willnot escapetheir due punishment.Godis a strict ndseverejudge, but to man He is also anexampleof long-suffering: e

1Epictetus,iatr. 14, -10; eVogel,reekhilIE,929b.2MarcusntoninusI1

21

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

26/180

caresfor the souls ofsinners nd givesthem time to repent. But if theypersevere n wickedness,their reward willl be the worse1

For Plutarchas much as for the piousEpictetus"God" had anun-doubtedlypersonalcharacter. t is true that the inner attitudeof thesemen towardsGodcomesverynear to that whicha believingChristianfeelsbeforehis God. In Plotinus we shall find muchmore impersonalconceptionof divine Providence.But beforepassingon to the officialpxvjyf Neoplatonism,let us first deal with a different iew ofProvidence,suchas isfound n several,mostly nonymous hilosophicaltreatises,beginning t least as earlyas the pseudo-AristotelianreatiseIlepx,nd extendinguntil Proclus Elementsof theologynd DeProvidentiatJato.SinceFestugire'sgoodargumentsn Le Dieucosmique2he treatiseIlepxafxoi)s rather unanimouslydated towards the end of the firstcenturyB.C. If that holdsgood- and I think t does- we haveherefor the first ime the distinctionbetween the sovereignRuler of theuniversewhois comparedto the Persiankings, ndanother, ubordinateruler who actually xercises thegovernor'sfunction, n the name of andinstead f the Kinghimself. or it would not suitthe Lord of the universeto exercisea direct and all-embracingrovidence,

"enduringhetrouble

ofan animalwhichworks nd toils tself" r of a slave3 "It s moreworthyof his dignity nd more befitting hat he should have his place in thehighest egion, nd thathispower,extendinghrough hewholeuniverse,should movethe sun and moon and make the whole heavensrevolveandbe the cause ofpermanenceto all that s on this earth"*.The con-ception partly greeswith Aristotle'stheory, n so far s the Prime Mov-er onlymoves the outer heavensandmightnot illogicallybe supposedto be indirectlyhecauseof all furthermotion n the universe.However,Aristotle ntroduced wholeseriesof unmoved

Movers,one for each of

the heavenlypheres,which would have beensuperfluousf n his viewthe motion of the outer ouranspropagatedautomaticallyhroughoutthe universe.For Aristotle hat was apparently ot the case.In fact, hemadehis Prime Mover as radically^copLcnrs he had judged Plato'stranscendent orms to be. The Hellenistic author of the treatise lepx6(T(jlou,owever, makes the supremeRuler of the universe move un1 nmy reekhil.ll,nrs. 315-17,he eader ill indfewnterestingassagesromhe e eravindicta.heworkaseenranslatednto renchndommentedn yG.Mautis,ausanne935(Putarue, es laisea usticeivine.2A.J. estugire,arvlation'HermsrismgisteI,LeDieuosmique,aris949,p. 77 f.3IleplXCTU.OUh. ,397b2o-24;98a6-n. b.,398b6-io.

22

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

27/180

and moon turn hewhole ur ns nd be the ause fpermanenceo all that s onearth and this because "Hispower permeatesthrough the whole uni-

verse . Thisis

clearlya

Stoicizedversionof Aristotle'sview.Our chapterof the Ilepi xqxouis highly nteresting ndeed.Theabove-quotedpassageshow that the chapter penswiththe dea that thesovereignRuler of the universedelegateshis more and less importantgoverning asks to a whole staff f subordinatefunctionarieswho aresuperintended y an actualsub-governorwho is comparedto the satrapor vice-roy f the great Kingsof Persia.Thesimile is workedout in therest of the above-quotedpage398a-bIandunderlies helast-quotedineswhich on us make the impression f giving moreor less Stoicizedver-

sionof Aristotle'sview oftheuniverse. n fact, hepowerf the sovereignRuler which s said to "pervade"the universe, s, so to speak,embodiedin a host of subordinate rulers, higher and lower, according to thegoverning asksdelegatedto them. Our author usesother similesby wayof llustration.He speaksabout "thesingleharmony roduced byall theheavenly odiessingingnddancing ogether" it springs rom ne sourceand endsbyachieving ne purpose,so that an actualxctjjlos formed,insteadof xocrjia.Just s in a chorus, where upon the leader'sgivingthe signalto begin, all members oin in the song, mingling singlestudiedharmony mongmanydifferent oices,so it is with the Godthatrules the wholeworld. "For at the signalgivenfrom n highbyHimwhomaywell be called theirchorus-leader, he stars nd the wholeheavenalwaysmove, and the all-illuminatingun travels forth on his doublecourse dayandnight re divided,the four seasonsappear,rain, windsanddewoccur andalltheotherphenomena ccuring n the regionwhichsurrounds he earth, - they re all due to the first ndprimary ause ofall things.He, the Ruler and Parent of all thingsgivesthe word to allnature, so that "the whole revolvesunceasinglyn its own circuitsandwithin ts own bounds"2.

Again,the writer comparesthe motions of the universeto thoseof an army n times of war, when the trumpet ounds3.Finally,whensumming p the matter, he uses the imagesof the steersman n the ship,the charioteer n the chariot, the leader in the chorus,lawin the city,andthe general n the army: "even sois God inthe universe In PhiloofAlexandria hesame andsimilarimagesreappear,that f the charioteerconducting thepowers s, andthat of the Logosasthe Shepherd, et by

1398i -b6. 2399*12-3$.33 9a3 "~t> 4400D6-8.5Philo,e ugat nventione9,101C.W.III,. 132).

23

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

28/180

Godover the flock f the elements nd all livingbeings,theheavens, unand moonand "the harmoniousdance ofthe stars": the Logostakes on

himself he careof "thatholyflock","justasthe satrap f a greatKing"1Evenfor Philo the heavenlybodies are "the holy flock"; man and thethings n earth are cared for, but they are obviouslyplacedat a muchgreater istance.

Soit was for the author of the Ilepi xa(xou:amongthe governingtasksmore worthy f the dignity f the supremeRuler of the universehe mentioned those of movingthe sun and moon, makingthe wholeheavensrevolve,andlastly, hat of "becomingthe cause ofpermanenceto all that is on earth". That means: it is thoughtbefitting hat theGreat Ruler shouldguaranteethe permanenceof the genera nd speciesof the things n earth. The careor individualmen nd their ffairs s notmentioned

That does not mean that the writer tendedto denythat care. Heonlythought bout it as delegatedto subordinategodsanddemons.Atanyrate, man and human ffairs ereobviouslyituated t a muchgreaterdistance nd hence were classedas fallingmore indirectlyunder theProvidenceof God.

On the whole, the doctrine of De mundo implieda philosophicaljustification f polytheism, uch asfrequently oundboth in Stoicand inPlatonistphilosophers.One instanceis Seneca,De beneficiisV,7-82,another s found n Celsus,ap. Origenem,C.C.,particularlynbookVIII.Senecaexplainsthe manygodsof the Greco-Romanreligious radition sdifferent amesfor hesameDivinity, iewedin its differentprovidentialworks manreceivesthe manygifts e needs for ife through hepowerof the Divinitywhich operates in manyforms. The secondcenturyPlatonist Celsus seriouslyblames Christiansfor not taking part insacrifices to the daemons"- the

godsof the Greco-Romancults were

calledSafjiovey Christians, term which to them had a definitelyunfavourablerings . To them Celsusreplies* "Ifthey re daemons ofsomesort, obviouslyheseoobelongoGodynd we oughtto believethemand sacrifice o them accordingto the laws."- Throughthese "dae-mons", indeed,so he goeson, "manreceivesall thenecessarygiftsforlife,all foodanddrink, nd eventhe very ir he breathes,for t is to the

1Philo,e gricultura,51C.-W.II,.io$-io6).othassagesrc nmy reekhil.D,nr. 03bc,withomments.2DeVogel,reekhil. i, 24a.3 Cor.0, 0-21.*Orgenes,ontraelsumIII4, ransi..Chadwick.

24

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

29/180

daemonsthat the administration f all thesethings asbeenentrusted"1.Celsusalso comparesthe "daimones"to the satrap and subordinategovernoror officer r procuratorof the Persian or Romanemperor2.Manhasnecessarilyodo with them n all the majorandminorfunctionsof his life, and so it is both ungrateful nd unintelligent ot to honourthese divine powers^.Plotinustakes a similarstand with regard topolytheism*.And Proclus, of course, had his yxafjuoieoor vSewho fill, as he says,the entire cosmos andhave a providentialpowers.

Alongtheselinesof thoughtBoethius couldhardlyhavearrived thisideathat God's Providence sstrictly onfined o the universe,whilemanis totally xempt from t. It is true that n Greekthought, t leastsince the Hellenisticera, divineProvidence wasprimarily oncernedwiththeuniverse s a whole andwith the heavenlybodiesin particular,whilemanhadhisplacenotonlywithin heframework f he universe utactuallyn function f t. But t could notbe saidthat for anykindofGreekphilosophy exceptthat f he o muchdecriedEpicureansndScepticsmanfell out of the reach of divineProvidence.For somephilosophersProvidencemight rather have an impersonalcharacter, as it had forPlotinus,whotaught hatdivineNos wasbeyonddeliberation ndhence"Providence"

onlymeantthat

thingswere

"accordingoNos"6.For the

same and many other Greek philosophers Providence concerningmanoperated ndirectly, eingdelegatedto "souls",subordinatedivini-ties or daemons.Butanyhow, t was divineProvidenceworking throughthem, and man was on no account supposedto be exempt from it.Neoplatonistsuchas Proclus couldsaythat man in so far s he livedonthe levelof nos wasbeyond tychand thus wouldnot dependon herfavours.Thus,the Stoics saidthat "the wise mandoes not needHowever,when commentingon Timaeus26e-27a, in which Plato's

Socrateswishes "good luck" to those who have to speak, Proclus1Orgenes,ontraelsumIII8, 3.2 bid., c.3 bid., $8,66.4Enn.I9,9, 6-64.5Proclus,lem.heol.6.6See nGreekhil.ll he rs. 368-70,376nd 426.It s nterestingnoughonote hat lotinuslamedheGnosticsor oldinghat od sconcernedwithndividualen atherhan ith he niverseEnn.I,9,9.65-79).his eproach,irectedagainsthe nostics,pplieso hristiansswell.n act,orhe od f hristiansherioritieserethe ther ayound.7Proclus,nTimaeum197,28. Diehl)uoteshe toichilosophersaying:1 xkoY)xoTv7T0uSat0VuSv0caiea&atrj t>x?).uthe8oesnbyopposinghisoPlatonTim.6e-ij2L.

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

30/180

remarks hat Plato did not share the somewhathaughty ttitude of theStoics,but rather thought hat, on difficultenterprises in which the

activity f the ntellect had to oin withactivity f thebody nproducingthat whichcomesforth", men needa happy nspiration, hat the wordsthey re goingto speakmaybe favourable nd tend to the benefit othof the speakerand of those who will hear him. "Soit is in individualcases, Proclusadds "withregard o the whole of things, owever,the"goodluck" (yoc&Y) is the Divine dispensation,accordingtowhicheachgets the post that befitshim from he Father nd the wholeorderof creation1 .

ThuswefindProclusincorporating ycheas agood geniusnto theframework f the divine world-order nd consideringher to be subser-vient to that order. In fact, this is rather the ancient Greek view oftyche, expressedin the formula 0EOI - TYXH, later ya&f)tx7)>which the Athenians sedat the head of their official ecrees:to themthe term had a religiousovertone. No doubt the Hellenisticview oftyche had a different ccent. But Proclus deals with the matter nthe fashionof Platonistphilosophers.For his view of thingsBoethiuscouldactuallynot refer o them.

How, then, did Boethius come to his idea of Fortunebeing

thesovereignMistress f human ffairs The question s the more intriguing,sincein this matterBoethius'views andfeelings re veryfar ndeedfromChristian aith.Therewassomereasonfor us to supposethat hispaganoutlook on life might be founded on Greek philosophy.However,itappearsthat this s not the case.We haveto look for the source of theseideaselsewhere.We find t, curiouslyenough, in a very widespreadnon-philosophical,emi-intellectual, erhapssemi-religiousr more orlesspseudo-religiousopularbelief. In the Hellenistic era Greekxp)andsomewhatater Roman

fortunaecame

very mportantshewasmore

and moreregarded s the leadingruler of human ffairs. epeatedly heT)x?l f ndividualpersons s referred o- famouss the case of "Caesarand hisfortune",mentionedn Plutarch2 ; also the ofa cityor astate in Latin Geniuscivitatis).n the first centuryA.D.Pliniustestifiesto the almost excessiveplacewhich Fortunatook in the thoughts ndhearts of the people. Plinius, N.H.II 7,22: "Toto quippe mundo etomnibusocisomnibusquehoris omniumvocibusFortuna olainvocaturet nominatur, naaccusatur,rea unaagitur,unacogitatur, olalaudatur,

1Thewholeassageunsrom197,28o198,10.2Deortunaomanorum19 .

26

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

31/180

solaarguitur t cum conviciisoliturvolu

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

32/180

The first s in Cons.ll, pr. 10.Philosophiahasarguedthat there can-not exist two summabona,the onediffering rom heother. Now ithas

beenprovedthat beatitudos the highestgood,andof course Gods thehighest good. Ergo, summaeatitudomust be identical with the summadivinitas. To thisargument oethius ubscribed. Next,Philosophy,followingthe exampleof the mathematicians, dds a corollarium1"Sincemen are madebeatiby obtaining eatitudo,andbeatitudo= ipsadivinitas, t is clear that men are made beatiby acquiringthe Divinity(divinitatisdeptione. Now, since men are madejust byobtainingusticeandwiseby obtainingwisdom,it is clearthat by obtaining ivinitymenare madebeati.Moreover,asmenare made ust byobtainingusticeandwise by obtainingwisdom, those who obtain divinitymust likewisebecomegods. -

A somewhatstartling onclusion,at least to modern ears.To us itmight ven seemmore or less shocking, incewe are usedto take theterm "God"only absolutely, o that there s no room for any "godsbyparticipation".However, this was not so eitherfor Philosophyor forBoethius.Philosophydeclaresthat bynature here s onlyone God; butthere maybe manyby participation.This was agoodPlatonistthought,of which we know how it was worked out

byProclus.We shouldnot

wondertoo much, then, when Boethius declares that this is indeed abeautiful nd preciousargument r corollarium.

It is another nstanceof that Boethian syncretismwhich we metalreadyearlier. It is justified,no doubt, to askwhether uch a usageofthe word "god" and the notion of deification could be legitimatelyadoptedbya Christian. t is true that such expressionss&eo7roieerrai,to become SextlxovtkryjTOnd even to become &eoiwere notunfrequently sed in the Greekspeakingworld since the earlyfourth

century.Athanasius'

Ayoiagainstthe Arians offer no less than four

instances2.n other writings f hisIfindeasilyfour thers^ However,inall thesepassagest is either the Logos-Christwhois saidto havetakenbody n order to "deify" hatwhichhe hadput on4or "inorder to makeman susceptableof divinitys, or it is man who is said to "touch the1Cons.ll, r. o.80-90t.-R.2Athanasius,r. ontrarianos42, I59,II24 nd II25.3Or.dencarn.Verbi4,EpistoladSerapionem24twonstances),pist.e ynodis1.4C.Ar.42 ouypYjXaTTctb)Ayorcosa acov,XXxXXoval*>e07T07)aev7repveSaaTo.sC.Ar,S9 w

AyopyveTo",vatv

cv&pco7uovexxixv

ettjtoCf.Or.de ncarn.erbi4:Autyp v7)v^pa>7TY)aev,va7)(xeeo7roi7)&>ixev.pist.deSjnodisi StjXovti cutov &eo7uolval pamaTixvouIlaTp,v & x 7rvT

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

33/180

deity by participation n the Spirit1 r to be "sons andgods"throughthe presenceof the Logoswithin them2.

Thedifference romBoethius nd hisPhilosophiasclear Christiansspokeof "deification"nd men becoming "gods"only "in"and throughChrist nd the HolySpirit.A manlike Athanasiuswouldcertainly avejudgedit an illicit presumption o use theseterms detached from theconnectionwithChrist. n spiteofhisorthodoxyBoethiusdoesnot seemto havehad this sensitivity,which I would rather call a sensitivity fChristian aith han ust a sensitivity f theological expression.

Anotherpaganfeature n Philosophia' speechis found n IV,pr.6.Inthe

beginningf the

chapterhe

explainshowProvidentias relatedto

Fatum.She doesaccordingto the same view which isadvocatedin thepseudo-Plutarchiantreatise Defato* 7rpvoioc,hich is the vtjctiof the "First God*, is higher and more-embracing han e(xap[xvY).SimilarlyBoethius' Philosophiadeclares that Providenceis "DivineReason-itself,eatedin the highestRuler"- the text reads: in summoomnium Principe onstitua, which literally means: "in the supremeLordof all things" "whichdisposesall things", whilefatum s "adispositionnherent n movablethings,by means of which Providence

connects ll things n their dueorder". The two aredifferent, ut in thissensethat the one dependson the other "forfatalorder proceedsfromthe simplicity f Providence".The order of Fate maybe exercisedby awhole numberof subordinatespirits moreover, t is alwaysunfolded ntime. Providence, however,is the sovereignRuler himself;he is thetranscendentNos,whichis abovetime and change.Hence,all that sunder Fate, is alsosubjectto Providence;but some thingswhich fallunder Providence are above thecourse of Fate. "These are the thingsthat re near to the FirstDivinity primae ropinqua ivinitati; they restable andfixed, nd exceed theorder of fatal mobility.

In this class ofthings he reader easilyrecognizesthe order of in-telligible Being, the voYjTf Platonism, which by Plotinus werereferred o as "a great God, but not the First God": it was God independenceon the First, hence, a SeTepoe,just as Soul, which

1Ot.c.At.11,24:7ou IvetjLaTOietoyt}TuvaTTTixe^ay sttti.2 bid.m g: KalciTreplolxal &eol8i tvvy'[Lvyov,utcovtcYl>alvto)IlaTplajxe&a.Cf. pist.aderap.24on he olypirit):jto>Ive(xaTOxeTOuaraivfXE&aoivcovol-8-ea aeco.xalvoleYveTat,Stol&eo7roiuvrt.3Plut. e ato,72F-$73B;eVogel,reekhil. 321a.

29

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

34/180

againdependson DivineNous, is "God" in a seconddegreeof depen-dence, i.e. a third God.1

It is quite a natural thing that Boethius' Philosophiathinks andspeaksn theseterms.Theywere so commonand,indeed,soessential oNeoplatonismthat we can hardly wonder that Boethius did not feelinclinedto "correct" Philosophiaon this point. However,there is acertain mountof syncretismn the passage the veryfactthat Philoso-phia's "First God" is Providences a striking nstanceof it. We are farfrom heNeoplatonic"One" here.

Again,it is onlynatural that Philosophia'steaching boundswithpaganelements.Let me mention ust a few of its mosttypicalfeatures.Oneof them s the prominent lacegivento that sort of studieswhichSenecacalled the spectaculumerum aturae.At the outsetPhilosophydescribes the state of mind of the unhappymanasfollows2

"Thisman,whooncein freedom ndertheopen skyusedto observethe comingandgoingof the heavenly odies,whomarked hebrightnessof the rosy sun and the pale light of the chilly moon, he whoachieved todescribe n versethe differentspheres nd wandering ourseof the stars,who alsousedto investigate hecausesof all kindsof othernaturalphenomena"- a numberof them are summedup, all of themsuchasdependon the motion of the stars , "henow liesdown with anexhaustedmind,his neckpressedbyheavy hains,hisfaceturneddown,so that he is constrained o look at the stupidearth.

That is an approachwhich shighly haracteristic f Greekphiloso-phy, not onlyin late Antiquity, ut from the early oniansonwards toPlato's Timaeusnd Aristotle n the Protrepticusnd Ilepl cpiXocrcxpafromwhere the line is continued n the cosmicphilosophy f the Stoa,whichactuallywasa kind of cosmicreligion^,to be takenup towardsthe

beginningf our era

bya revived

Pythagoreanism,hich atermixes

with Neoplatonism.In the Protrepticuswhenpraisingmanas "the mosthonourableof the animals n the world",Aristotle eclares thatknowl-edge is that for the sake of whichNature and God havebrought s intobeing. He goeson: "Pythagoras,whenaskedwhat this endis, said "toobserveheheavens, andused to sayhe was anobserverof Nature and itwasfor this that he hadcomeinto being.Andthey ay that Anaxagoras,

1Plotinus,nn.V,,3.-21DeVogel,reekhil., r. 382c ;ee he eferencesivennderhetext. nSoulsthe secondircle"roundheOne,nn.V, ,17.1-16 Greekhil.365b.f.Enn., , . 16-22;reekhil. 370b.2Cons.,m.2.3SeeA.J.Festugire,arvlation'HermsrismgisteII,LeDieuosmiqueParis949.

30

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

35/180

whenasked for what end one wouldchooseto come intobeingand tolive, replied "to observeheheavens nd the tars moon nd sun n them",

everything lse being nothingworth*1.In Plato's Timaeus t waslookingup to the stars and their regularcoursewhichfor man was the beginning f wisdomand permanentlyoffers im a standard or regulating is own thinking2.Abovemanandearthly hings he stars are a divineorder. Aristotlerefers o them asx Sta tc)vaabjTvand thus secures to them an intermediateplace between perishablethings and the transcendentorder of thexvYjTa3.Heregardsthe human mind, voo,as consisting f the samedivinestuff s the heavenlybodies andhence akin to them*. Cicero inTuse.,18, followingPosidonius,describeshow the soul - whichac-cordingto the Stoicswasfiery reath - ascendsthrough he thick air(crassumtqueconcretumwhich surroundsthe earth, unto that regionwhichhas a nature imilar o herself naturam ui similem, which s bothlighter and warmer. There she stops and, havingacquireda state ofequilibrium, taysthere permanentlywithoutmoving n anydirection,sincethere s her natural eat. Shefeeds there on the samesubstance sthe stars*

That is the kind of "celestialimmortality which a Stoic couldimaginewithin the framework f his materialistphilosophy.Up to acertain extent they oin the Platonistswho, after Platoin Tim.id8-e,held that, before enteringhumanbodies, the souls of individualmenabide in the Milky waywhere they enjoy a completeinstruction on-cerning he laws ofthe universe6.They are supposedto return o theirabode in the heavensafter their life on earth. Thus in the SomniumScipionise find he soul of ScipioAfricanusMaioraddressingheyoungerScipiode excelsotplenotellar m illustri t claroquodamoco ndexplaininghim that "he" is not mortal,but

onlyhis

bodyhis true self ishis

spirit,which is divineand, quaself-movingrinciple,cannever die.7Seneca,Epist.^,16speaksof the bodyasanimi onduscpoenabythe

1Aristotle,rotrept.fr.Rosstransi.oss).2Tim.7a-c.3Metaph.9, 9iaio;cf.A1,106930f.4Cicero,cad.post.7,26=Ar., .philSv.ijoss).eVogel,reekhil.I, 3id.5On he tarss nimatedeings,eedingn ether,eeCicero,enaturaeorumI1,42 1 ,43in16, 3-44,he ivinityf he elestialodiessprovedy heirrdernd egularotion.eVogel,reekhil.1, a; Aristotle,I.

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

36/180

weightof which the thinkingmind is oppressedandasit were bound infetters, unlessPhilosophyomes inand setshimfree, biddinghimto

be relievedby the spectaculumerum aturae. Thus she"dismissedhimfrom earthly nto divine things . "This is the freedomof the mind",Senecadeclares,"this ts escapeinto higher egions in thisway t with-drawsfrom he captivityn which t was heldand srestored oheaven.

Corpus ocanimipondusc poenaest We are very closeindeedtoSapientia.1: Corpus uodcorrumpiturggravai nimam.Behindboth ofthem s Plato,e.g. in the Thaedo wherehe speaksabout the life of thephilosopher s a continuous xercise ndetaching neself rom he body,or the Vhaedrusmythwith its upward ourney, or also Rep.VIIwith theprisoners n the cave1.In Boethius'Consolationot only I, m.2, butalso III, m.9, vs.i: ponderamolis.Exactlyas Cicero in the SomniumScipioniSyenecais evena little bit more spiritualist hanPlato when hesimply dentifies manhimself"with "the soul": for Plato manwas the

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

37/180

Marciahe says Don't rushto the tomb to seek yoursonthere. Onlyhismortalremains re there not he himself.Heisno longer n thisplace:

aloft, n heaven he walks,togetherwith the holysouls of men like theScipiosand Catos.Your father, Marcia,will yonder oin his grand-sonand, though ll is akin there to everyone,he will explainto him, whoenjoysthe new light, the coursesof the heavenlybodies.No longerbyguess-work, ut from completeknowledgehe willgladlyntroducehiminto the secretsofnature and ust as aguideiswelcome tothe visitor funknowncities, so he will be a home-interpreter o him who inquiresafter he groundsof the celestialphenomena1

Similarthings re said in the AdPoljbium2.o the Stoicsthe stars

andthe heavenswere divinan the first nd absolutesense,to Plato andhisfollowerstheywereGods,but not n the primary ense.ForBoethius,no doubt, theywerecreatedbeings, s theywere for Philo ofAlexandria,for Origenandfor anyChristians but mostprobablyhe did believe thatthey were livingand intelligentbeings, "by participation n the trueLight",asOrigensaid* Forhim, the study f the cosmiclaws,howeverimportant,wasnot cultivated or ts own sakebut, asit was in the Neo-platonist chools(in the track of Plato in ep.VII),as a preparation osomething eyond.However,it is a striking hing hatagainandagain nher songshis MistressPhilosophiafocusseson the theme of the laws ofthe Universe.Thisstrong mphasison the studyof the cosmic laws as akind of initiation nto "thingsbeyond"must certainlybe marked as atypically aganfeature.

Anothercharacteristic eaturemaybe noticedat a more advancedphaseofPhilosophia'teaching, iz. thatof the upwardstriving ros n allthings.Here wearefully nvolvedn Neoplatonism,moreparticularlynPrclus'theory f marpoT).We find t clearly expressedin IV, m.6,44-48whichreads

Hie estcunctiscommunis morrepetuntqueboni fineteneri,quianon aliter durarequeantnisiconversorursus morerefluant ausaequaededit esse.

1AdMareiame onsolatione5;Greekhil.ll, 602Seneca,d olybiume onsolatione,2 DeVogel,reekhil.U, 223.3Origensquitelearn he ointnContraelsum,7-io,ut edoes elievehathe tarsreintelligentivingeings,s lso hiloid,whoseimilef he hepherdeadingheholylockwementionedbove.heyouldeferoPs.48,3-4:Praiseimllye tarsndight",nd PraiseHim,eheavensf eavens",hichrigenuotesnC.C.V,i3.C.C.Vil.

33

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

38/180

Lessprominent ases of "paganism"mightbe mentioned,such asthe somewhatstartling onsequencedrawn in IV pr. 2, where it isasserted hatthe wicked ones,by leaving hecommonendof all things,ceaseto exist1.Butwe do not aim at completeness.t is time to con-cludethis studyby summing p its main results.

We have, then, to note down the followingresults.1 InBoethiuspartwefound n the gth ook,pr. 3 towards heend,

a passagen whichthe authorspeaksaboutprayer s an intercoursewithGodin such a wayas onlya Christian oulddo. The essentialplaceofsupplicationn prayerwasalien to the mind of Platonistphilosophers.Moreover, n thesamepassagewe foundGod- philosophicallypeakingthe summumbonum- referred o assummuserum rincepswhichwerendered- correctly, think by "Lord".Somewhatfurther n wefoundPhilosophiain V,pr. 10)in her part alsousingthe term "rerumomniumPrincipem, but we hadto notice that his was done inreferringto the "communishumanorum nimo um conceptio",and that a fewlines further heshifts rom "princeps" o "principium".

In severalpartsof Philosophia'teachingwefound certain mountofsyncretism.n III, m.9wenoticedthat he First principleor summumbonumwas identified ith the Creatoras a matter f course.SimilarlynIV,pr.6, the "primadivinitas"was identifiedwith Providentia,whichwas not at all in accordancewith the Neoplatonistview of the firstPrinciple.We were not inclinedto consider suchidentificationsomeform f correction madebyBoethiusdeliberately. t was rather certainsyncretism ccurring mperceptibly.

We found that, towards the end of III, m.9., the glorificationintroducedby namquehad its parallelsin Christianhymns.The termsprincipiumndnis in the last ine of thissongrecalled theA and2of the

Apocalypsewhilethe semitaecalled

John14,6.That the repeatedusageof the verb uberen III,m.9 was due to theinfluenceof the psalms,seemedpossiblebut not necessary,since anauthor uchasEpictetuswrote imilarthings butthe order ofperformingits function with perfection, which the Creator gave to the newlycreatedworld,didappearto us as anothercaseof syncretism a kindofOld Testament rder givento a Hellenisticworld.

2. Whenconsideringhe locisacraeScripturaee foundone case atleast in which the connection wasbeyonddoubt: Sap. 8,1, used byBoethiusn Cons

Ill, pr. 12.63f. St.-R.

(=4 f.Bieler).However,the

text ofSapientias not so muchquotedas usedfreely, n the manner f a1Cons.V2.99-101t.-R.Bieler7-89).

34

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

39/180

literary eminiscence.Probablythere are a few more of such reminis-cencesof biblicaltexts n the Consolatioboth from he Oldandfrom he

NewTestament.3. We found remarkablepaganelement n the heart of Boethius'ownproblemsof ife,viz.in his idea that God'sProvidences concernedwith the universeonly, not even withthe universeincludingman,butso that man and his affairs re completely xemptfromProvidence andexposedto Fortune. We found that such a viewwas neither held byStoics norby Platonists;on the contrary, ven in the latest phaseof theancientworldphilosophy rotested gainst hewidespreadpopularviewof Tyche-Fortunas a deity, and even analmighty eity, who rulesthe

humanworld. It is thispopularbelief- the belief of the greatmassofeither non-intellectualsr semi-intellectuals,f either non-believers rsemi-believers , whichapparently adgothold ofBoethius'mind.It isnot so much in anylate Greekphilosopher'sschoolthat Boethiusmayhave beeninspired o sucha view,- on the contrary, ere he musthavefound omeantidotum , but the idea of almighty ychewasso to speakin the air. This wasso in particular n that great world-centre n theEasternpart of the MediterraneanAlexandria.

That there are somepaganelements n the part of the ConsolatiowherePhilosophysspeaking,eemedonlynatural o us.Forthe rest, wenoticedin that same part a fewcasesof syncretism s well. We didnotexplainthembysupposinghatBoethiuswanted to correct the speechofhis Philosophy,but were rather nclinedto regardthem as instancesofBoethiansyncretism ccurring o the author imperceptibly.With refer-enceto the passageon menbecominggodsbybecomingbeati (III,pr. o)we noticed the difference rom the Christian way of speakingabout"deification"f man.In the passageabout theprima ivinitas(IV,pr.6)wefound an instance of syncretism n that the "First Divinity"(pagan)isidentifiedwith Providence(Christian).The important laceattributedto thestudy f the cosmic awsas anintroductionntothedivinaappearedanotherpaganfeature n Philosophia'steaching. t waspointedout to beof earlyGreekoriginand fullypresentboth in Plato and in Aristotle,though t becameparticularlymportant n the Stoa.The laterPythago-reanand Neoplatonistschoolsclearlybear the tracesof Stoicthought,not the least in this matter. Boethius'Consolatioctuallyabounds withStoicallymindedhymns n the cosmicorder. But in III, m.2 already,clearerin II, 11 and 12, and in

perfectclearness nIV, m.6, the Neo-

platonist 7U(TTpo

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

40/180

To oneof the questionsraised n the beginning did not yet reply:havewe to imaginethat Boethiusacceptedeverydetail of Philosophy'steachingwithoutanyreservation Or shouldwe supposethat he took asomewhat critical attitudetowardshis Mistress' doctrines,makinghisreservationson those points in which she represented Neoplatonistdoctrineswhichwere incompatiblewith Christian aith? The alter-native, n particular he latter part of t, wasput in this formbysome ofthe Medievalcommentators.That is to say, there were a few amongstthem who took some details of the Timaeus suchas the description fthe World-soul,of human oulsbeingcreatedbythe Demiurgeall at thesame time ndpre-existing o thebody,and ofthe eves urrus hich stemfrom Proclus, in a strictly dogmaticalsense. Others amongstthemunderstood heslxgx;Xyoharacter of the Timaeusoo well to havegreatdifficultiesbout the "threefold ature" f the World-soul1or thecreationofthe soulsof man and their beingplacedin light hariots.One12 h century ommentator ven remarkedjudiciouslyhatthe theory fanamnesisdoes notnecessarily mplythe pre-existence f the soul. I donot intend to deal extensivelywith these matters n the presentpaper.Replying hortly o the above-raisedquestionI shouldlike to say-

makingbstraction f the few

importantubjectsdealt withunder 3) - ,

that there re not reallymany hingsn the Consolatiohichare "incom-patible" with Christianfaith. But in sayingso I do presupposethatBoethiuswas a man who knew thatwordsare symbols, hat the Timaeuswasmeant to be anebcwau&o,and that in a poeticalhymn poeticalmetaphorasmaybe used.Thisappliesnotonly oIII,m.9.E.g., when onthe basisof IV,m.3 it is suggested hat Boethius*Philosophyaught hetransmigration f the souls of men into animals,or even that Boethiushimselfheld this doctrine, this s a case ofmisunderstandingpoetical

metaphora.Butagain,there are a few actually mportant ases of "paganism"in the Consolatio.hope to have brought them out sufficientlyn theprecedingpages.

1AccordingoTim.5ahe emiurgeomposedheWorld-soulrommixturef hreelements:Being,amenessnd ifferenceouaa,TauTvnd frocTepov).dalboldf Utrechtxplainedthe triplicisaturae"uite orrectly.or he bc&Xyoharacterf he imaeusee lato,Tim.9b-d,nwhichheuthor,eforetartingis ccountf he enesisf heworld,eginsymakingmethodicalemark,iz.hat ifferentindsf ubject-mattersreknownn differentways.n ther ords:heres parallelismetweenhenaturef hat hichsknownnd hedegreef xactnessf he nowledge.n he resentase ehaveoput pwithn tacwau&o.

36

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

41/180

POSTSCRIPTTOBOETHIANA ANDFINALCONCLUSIONS

At the end of this study,whichdoes notyetpretend o beexhaustive,I haveto go back to the beginning nd, beforecomingto myfinal on-clusions,make a few corrections and additions.With regard to theproblemof "whence didBoethiusderivehis Greekculture" startedbypresenting fewgeneral argumentsn favour f Athens that t wasstilla most famouscity and for philosophersalmost a sacredplace; thatProclus successor Marinus wasapparentlynot as bad a philosopher sDamascius and Aeneas ofGaza wished to makeusbelieve.Next, I used atestimony bout Boethius,who, as quitea youngboy ,would have beensent to Athensbyhisguardiansogoto schoolthere. found he testimo-ny n SpeculumV, 1929,p. 199,in an article of R.Bonnaud,whorefersprimarily o EnnodiusVII 13and, as corroborating vidence,to Cas-siodorus,Var. 4^, which is the letter of Theodoriconthehorologium.Now, while I wasworking n a rather emote andisolatedplacewhereIhad no opportunity o rereadthose etters, supposedthat somethingnthe etter of Ennodiushadbeenoverlooked,othby myself ndbyothers.However,this s not the case. On rereadingEnnodiusVII 13I do not

find here,nor anywhere lse, that Boethiusasa schoolboywassent toAthensby hisguardians.What the letter does say, is what in the Indexto M.G.H.I,Auctorumantiqussimoumt. XII,p.489, s.v. Boethius, ssummarizeds follows "litterismature um sededisset amLatinisquamGraecis,scientia claruitpuer etiamtum". In Ennodius'letter t is saidexplicitly hat, at the ageoj a schoolboylready1Boethiusacquiredquiteanunusualeruditionbyreading heoutstandingworksofboth GreekandLatinauthors.From the letter of Theodoricwe knowprecisely n whatfields heyoungBoethiusexcelled besides themathematicaldisciplineslogic and philosophy(Plato theologus)are mentioned. Thus, if onethinks t improbable,or even impossible,that he shouldhavelearned allthat n Rome,the inference hat he wassent to schoolto Athens s nearat hand. In fact, a certaindegreeof probability annotbe deniedto it.But t is not o that here sprovingvidence.

Inp.3ofmyBoethianabyaregrettable rror henameofProfessorU. Pizzaniwaswrongly rintedwith o at the end, for whichI sincerelyoffermy excuses.(For the rest, a certainmishapabout the use of her

1The ormulainrmisuerilibus"hichfoundn he bove-citedassagen peculum929,ustbedueo misprint.he extf nnodiuseads:n nnisuerilibus.

37

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

42/180

nameoccurredto the author herself n the samepaper,namely hat t wasnot mentioned t all .. 1

There is one other thing n Boethiana which I then expressedsomewhattentativelyn a formwhich n the definitive onclusionsmustbe corrected.It concernsthat curiousview Boethiushadof the humanworld as beingtotallygovernedby Fortuna.While at the beginning fthis study wrote that Boethius"lookedat the world in the paganwayof a late Neoplatonist,who seesthe Providence of God in the cosmicorder but cannotfind t in the life of ndividual men", I should nowsayit is true, no doubt, that for a Neoplatonistdivine Providenceon thewholehad a much lesspersonalcharacter, and with regard to man amuch less direct character than for a Christian; but nonetheless,Boethius'view was not thatof a Neoplatonistphilosopher.Thiscuriousbelief acted a prominent art in publiclife n late Antiquity. ince thiswasthe casein particularn the city f AlexandrianEgypt,whenhe livedin that city for a fewyearsas a young man Boethiusmay have beeninfluencedmore or less unconsciouslyby the spiritualclimateof thatmetropoliswith ts dominating ychecult. It cannot be;said,of course,that, sincehe had that view of human affairs, e must have stayedforsome timein Alexandriabut, the other wayround, since it is probablethat, as a student of philosophy,he came over to Alexandriato hearAmmoniusndspent fewyearswithhim, he rmvhave been affectedbythe wordlyclimateof the city.

I think the precedinginvestigation ermits us some conclusionconcerningBoethius'moralcharacter.The criticismhe met on the partofmodernhistorians as notalwaysbeen favourablehe has been blamedfor disloyalty nd insincerity owards the Gothic King Theodoric2.Otherstookhis

partand found

fairly oodgroundso defendhim3 The

fact that, whenin prison,he chosePhilosophyo offer er consolationwasintelligently xplained byCourcelleas a methodicalapproach,madefirst f all becausehe hadspenthiswholelife n the study f philosophyand next, becauseby this method he could be understoodnot only byChristians ut byallthinkingmen.What has not been remarked illnow,so far s I know, is the following.1This asimplyueo he acthat,t he imeheopy as ento he rinterswhich asearlierhanhad ntendedboth r.deRijknd werebsent.2W.Bark,heodorics. oethiusVindicationnd

pologyinAmer.istoricaleviewLIX,943/44,

pp.10-426.3C.H.Coster,heall f oethiushis haracterin:AnnuaireeV nstitutePhilologiet 'Histoireorientalest lavesXII1952),p.4^-81,Mlanges.Grgoire),russels955.

38

8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 10, NOS. 1-2, 1972

43/180

The manBoethiuswhopresentshimself ous in thebeginning f theConsolati