SUMMARY OF THE CONSOLATION OF PHILOSOPHY

INTRODUCTION

Boethius’ work on “The Consolation of Philosophy” (De Consolatione Philosophiae) is centred on the incompatibility of the sufferings of good men, the impunity and success of bad men, with the government of the world by a good God. It consists of a dialogue between Boethius, sitting in his prison-cell awaiting execution, and a lady who personifies Philosophy. It is a work which appealed to Pagan and Christian alike. There is no Christian doctrine relied upon throughout the work, but there is also nothing which could be in conflict with Christianity.

After his death by those who thought he must have been too good a man to have been a heathen, and though the authenticity of his theological works has also been doubted, yet we may now be almost certain that he was a Christian, and an orthodox Christian. For it is true that he combated Arianism during his life, and during his imprisonment he was engaged upon a treatise on the Unity of the Trinity, as well as upon this work.[1]

Our primary task in this work is to retrieve the thoughts of Boethius as contained in De Consolatione Philosophiae (Consolation of Philosophy). Our aim is not to interpret his ideas or apply his ideas to contextual reality. With this in mind, we shall proceed to summarize each of these five books.

BOOK I

Boethius began his writing in his first book by recalling his better days. Soon, he presented himself as utterly confused and dejected by his sudden change of fortune. In his lament, he cries out: “Why, O my friends, did ye so often puff me up, telling me that I was fortunate? For he that is fallen low did never firmly stand.”[2]

While in prison pondering in silence and using his pen to set down so tearful a complaint, there appeared standing over Boethius’ head a woman's form, whose countenance was full of majesty. Boethius described her using these words: “her eyes shone as with fire and in power of insight surpassed the eyes of men, whose colour was full of life. Whose strength was yet intact though she was so full of years that none would ever think that she was subject to such age as ours”.[3] Boethius further described her as follows:

One could but doubt her varying stature, for at one moment she repressed it to the common measure of a man; at another she seemed to touch with her crown the very heavens: and when she had raised higher her head, it pierced even the sky and baffled the sight of those who would look upon it. Her clothing was wrought of the finest thread by subtle workmanship brought to an indivisible piece. This had she woven with her own hands, as I afterwards did learn by her own shewing.[4]

At the sight of this woman, Boethius could hardly discern who this woman of such commanding power was. And turning his eyes to the ground he began to wait in silence to what she would do. Then she approached him and sat down at the end of his couch. His face was heavy with grief and cast down by sorrow to the ground, and then she raised her complaint over the trouble of Boethius’ mind. The mysterious woman, alone with Boethius, sat down on his couch and recites a poem, articulating his grief, and lamenting his fall from grace. She assured him that the time had come for healing rather than lamentation. Looking upon the woman, Boethius realizes that she is Philosophy, his nursemaid of old and has come to succor him, and make his imprisonment easier.

In prose IV of book One, Boethius complains to Philosophy of his sufferings after his just life. In pains he exclaimed:

Does not the very aspect of this place strike you? Is this the library which you had chosen for yourself as your sure resting-place in my house? Is this the room in which you would so often tarry with me expounding the philosophy of things human and divine?... Are these the rewards we reap by yielding ourselves to you? Nay, you yourself have established this saying by the mouth of Plato, that commonwealths would be blessed if they were guided by those who made wisdom their study, or if those who guided them would make wisdom their study.[5]

He reminded her that he is in prison, rather than studying her wisdom in the library of his home. He complained that such was the lot of her followers and that he had gone into politics because Plato had written that a state was most favourable and blessed if she is governed by those who made wisdom (philosophers) their study. Boethius reiterated the words of the philosophy through Plato as thus: “the state should be governed by the wise (philosophers), namely that the helm of government should not be left to unscrupulous or criminal citizens lest they should bring corruption and ruin upon the good citizens.”[6]

Boethius narrated to philosophy his concerted effort for justice and fair taxation alongside how he tried to uproot corruption. He explains how his gravity and honesty made him an antagonist in the political arena, and incited the jealousy and hatred of powerful enemies. And because he had prevented an informer from producing evidence of the Senate's treason, he was judged by that same body as having committed a crime. He is angry and saddened that, while he was faithful to Philosophy, his reward is imprisonment and soon, execution.

BOOK II

At the beginning of Book II, Wisdom (Philosophy) held her peace for a while. But when her silence made Boethius’ thoughts to cease from straying, she began to speak: If I have thoroughly learned the causes and the manner of your sickness, your former good fortune has so affected you that you are being consumed by longing for it. Again, she reiterates that Boethius is pining away for his former good fortune, and the loss of which has corrupted his mind. She said that Boethius had been seduced by Fortune, and that in her many guises she had lured other people to their undoing.

Also, Philosophy (or Wisdom) illustrated how fortune is ever most friendly and alluring to those whom she strives to deceive, until she overwhelms them with grief beyond bearing, by deserting them when least expected. She further asked Boethius why he was grieved. Hence, while he enjoyed Fortune's favors, he must have known that her gifts were not very important anyway.

Consequently, Philosophy shows how fortune may plead her justification, she argues with Boethius using the words which Fortune herself might use, saying:

Do you daily accuse me with your complainings? What injustice have I wrought upon you? Of what good things have I robbed you? Choose your judge whom you will, and before him strive with me for the right to hold your wealth and honours. If you can prove that any one of these does truly belong to any mortal man, readily will I grant that these you seek to regain were yours. When nature brought you forth from your mother's womb, I received you in my arms naked and bare of all things; I cherished you with my gifts, and I brought you up all too kindly with my favouring care, wherefore now you cannot bear with me, and I surrounded you with glory and all the abundance that was mine to give. Now it pleases me to withdraw my hand…[7]

            Boethius admitted to Philosophy’s argument to have a fair form and clothed with all the sweetness of speech and of song. Philosophy reminds Boethius that he was the luckiest of men. Although he was orphaned, he was adopted into the home of a venerable Aristocrat, Symmachus and married his daughter Rusticiana, he has been blessed not only with a worthy and modest wife, but also two good sons. And he had the privilege of seeing those sons raised to the office of consul together. Boethius further lament that the worst part of this is the memory of his past good fortune. Philosophy countered that the most precious gift from Fortune was that Boethius' family, still exists unharmed. Compared to many, Fortune said, Boethius was still a very fortunate man.

            Following the debate on how happiness can be attained by man, even if he had all the gifts of Fortune, there was always anxiety in him. Hence, Philosophy points that human happiness is impossible to achieve here on earth. Thus happiness is not found in the temporal goods of Fortune. Consequently, the debate ensued unto the nature of good in the things that the world considers good fortune, such as material wealth and possessions, power and honour. Each of these things according to Philosophy was incapable of bestowing true happiness. Thus, wealth is only of value when being transferred, and such has no value in itself. She added that any acquisition of wealth is the taking away of wealth from someone else.

BOOK III

In Book III of Boethius’ work, he began his writing with an advice from Lady Philosophy while she sang: “that whosoever is desirous to sow fertile land let him first take away the thorns and the furze, and all the weeds which he observes to do injury to the field, in order that the wheat may grow the better”.[8] It is in the same likelihood that true happiness is much more pleasant to enjoy, after the calamities of this present life. She further added that Boethius would soon discover the true goods and arrive at the knowledge of them. Thus, true and perfect happiness can only be achieved by the possession of the supreme good in which all goods are possessed. Every mortal man troubles himself with various manifold anxieties, but most are lead into error by desiring false, or temporal, goods. Put differently, they desire by different means to arrive at one happiness; that is, God. He is the beginning and end of every good and He is the highest happiness.[9]

In a dialogue between the mind and reason, Boethius wrote that the mind said thus:

It seems that this (God) must be the highest good, so that man should need no other good, or, moreover, be solicitous beyond that; since he possesses that which is the roof of all other goods. Then answered Reason, and said; it is very evident that this is the highest happiness. For it is both the roof and the floor of all good.[10]

Boethius added that every man has natural good in himself, because every mind desires to obtain the true good; but it is hindered by the transitory goods because it is more prone thereto. Hence, some men think that the best and the highest form of happiness is to be rich, or to be the most honourable among their fellows, while others think that the supreme good was in power. All of these desires are for happiness; however, the problem arises when man treats these goods as the ultimate good or a means to happiness.

Speaking on the vanity of high places, Philosophy said to Boethius that “we cannot consider men worthy of veneration on account of their high places, when we hold them to be unworthy of those high places. But if you see a man endowed with wisdom, you cannot but consider him worthy of veneration, or at least of the wisdom with which he is endowed. For such a man has the worth peculiar to virtue, which it transmits directly to those in whom it is found.”[11]

Consequently, Philosophy admonished Boethius on how deceitful fame often was, and how base a thing it was. Also, justly did the tragic poet cry out:

O Fame, Fame, how many lives of men of naught hast thou puffed up!" For many men have got a great name from the false opinions of the crowd. And what could be baser than such a thing? For those who are falsely praised, must blush to hear their praises. And if they are justly won by merits, what can they add to the pleasure of a wise man's conscience? For he measures his happiness not by popular talk, but by the truth of his conscience.[12]

Alongside Philosophy, Boethius agreed that all earthly goods cannot bring true happiness; this therefore begins Boethius' partial proof for the existence of God. Given that Boethius and Philosophy agreed that humanity desires true happiness, this standard means that, a supreme good exists; and since Philosophy has shown that none of the earthly goods are the supreme good, nor are all of them together the supreme good, something outside of the earth must be the supreme good.

BOOK IV

Here, Boethius and Philosophy discussed the possibility of evil in a world created by God. While Lady Philosophy sang her song with mien and grave countenance, Boethius interrupted her within him. Boethius exclaimed that the chief cause of his grief was that, if God is perfect and the perfect good, and rules all things in the world in unity, how was it that evil is allowed to exist and is not always punished? Also, he made Lady Philosophy think how strange this fact was. But there is an even stranger attached thereto, that ill-doing reigns and flourishes, while virtue not only lacks its reward, but is even trampled underfoot by wicked doers, and pays the penalties instead of crime. He added that who could wonder and complain enough that such things should happen under the rule of One who, while all-knowing and all powerful, wills good alone?[13]

Lady Philosophy responded to Boethius’ argument that, it would be most terrible, monstrous, and infinitely amazing if it were as he thought. It would be as though in a well-ordered house of a good master, the vilest vessels were cared for while the precious were left defiled. Lady Philosophy further jogged Boethius’ memory with the following words:

If our former conclusions are unshaken, God Himself, of whose government we speak, will teach you that the good are always powerful, the evil are always the lowest and weakest; vice never goes unpunished; virtue never goes without its own reward; happiness comes to the good, misfortune to the wicked: and when your complaints are set at rest, many such things would most firmly strengthen you in this opinion.[14]

Consequently, Lady Philosophy argues that the good are powerful while the bad are weak. She admonished Boethius that he must learn; first, that power is never lacking to the good, while the wicked are devoid of all strength. “The proofs of these two statements hang upon each other. For good and bad are opposites, and therefore, if it is allowed that good is powerful, the weakness of evil is manifest: if the weakness and uncertainty of evil is made plain, the strength and sureness of good is proved.”[15]

Multiplying her arguments one upon another, Lady Philosophy agrees with Boethius that evil men are capable of evil. However, very power of theirs comes not from strength, but from weakness. Though they are capable of evil; but this evil would have no efficacy if it could have stayed under the operation of good men. And this very power of ill shows the more plainly that their power is naught. Given that evil is nothing and they are only capable of evil, then, they are capable of nothing.

More so, Boethius still feels dissatisfied with the government of the world. He thought of God's guidance and how it increases his amazement. Thus, he often grants happiness to good men and bitterness to the bad, and then, on the other hand, sends hardships to the good and grants the desires of the wicked.[16] Lady Philosophy agrees that this is indeed a mystery, and no human being can hope to understand it fully.

In a manner of conclusion, in Book IV of the Consolations, Lady Philosophy considered that all fortune, whether pleasant or difficult, is the sake of rewarding the good or exercising the virtue, and of punishing and correcting bad men. Therefore it is plain that all fortune which is allowed to be just or expedient must be good.

BOOK V

Here, Lady Philosophy made an end to her arguments with Boethius and was turning her course of discussion to the handling and explaining of other subjects. Learning by experience what the Lady Philosophy said concerning government of the world, Boethius asked if Chance exists at all and what she taught it was.

In reply to Boethius’ question, Lady Philosophy responded that if chance was defined as an outcome of random influence, produced by no sequence of causes, she is therefore, sure that there was no such thing as chance, and should be considered as an empty word.[17] She further explained: “for what place can be left for anything happening at random, so long as God controls everything in order? It is a true saying that nothing can come out of nothing.”[18]

Having listened to Philosophy, Boethius asked if in the close sequence of causes, there can be any freedom for our judgment or if this chain of fate binds the very feelings of our mind. Lady Philosophy answered that there must be free will, since there could be no rational nature without freedom of judgment. For any being that can use its reason by nature, has the power of judgment by which it can without further aid decide at each point, and so distinguish between objects to be desired and objects to be shunned.

However, human spirits are freer when they keep themselves safe in the contemplation of the mind of God; but less free when they sink into bodies and less still when they are bound by their earthly members. The last stage, for Lady Philosophy, is mere slavery, when the spirit is given over to vices and is fallen away from the possession of its reason.

Boethius was plunged with more doubt and difficulty. For him, there seemed to be an incompatibility between the existence of God's universal foreknowledge and that of any freedom of judgment. Philosophy engages in an explanation with Boethius on the mind of God. God’s understanding of the world is not the same way that human beings do. She explained that, God is outside of time, so he does not view the world in a progression of events. For God, no future event is uncertain and no past event forgotten. God knows the world in one single act, which includes knowledge of all the choices of all human beings from the beginning of the world to the end. Therefore he does not influence these choices, but knows of them as part of the whole in one single instance.

CONCLUSION

Woven amongst the myriad, tangled themes of Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy is a lengthy examination of the nature of happiness. Brought low by the turning of fortune’s wheel, Boethius turns to his muse, Philosophy, for an explanation of his misfortunes and asks her to show him what true happiness is.

In book III of his Book (which forms the hallmark of Boethius’ work), Lady Philosophy argues that the human telos (a Greek word meaning ‘end’) is true happiness and that true happiness is the highest Good. She further argued that God, in virtue of his character, must be identified with the highest Good. She concluded that, since God and happiness are both the highest Good, God is happiness itself.

---

[1] Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, trans. W. V. Cooper. Editor’s Note

[2] Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, trans. W. V. Cooper. Bk I

[3] Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, trans. W. V. Cooper. Bk I

[4] Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, Bk I

[5] Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, Bk I

[6] Cf. Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, Bk I

[7] Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, Bk II

[8] Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, Bk III

[9] Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, Bk III

[10] Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, Bk III

[11] Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, Bk III

[12] Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, trans. Samuel Fox, Bk III

[13] Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, Bk IV

[14] Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, Bk IV

[15] Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, Bk IV

[16] Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, trans. W. V. Cooper. Bk IV

[17] Cf. Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, trans. W. V. Cooper. Bk V

[18] Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, trans. W. V. Cooper. Bk V