Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius ([ Boet (s) iʊs even] Boëthius written; * to 480 / 485 ; † in the period from 524 bis 526 either in Pavia or in Calvenzano in today's province of Bergamo ) was a late antique Roman scholar, politician, Neoplatonic philosopher and theologian. His activity fell during the reign of the Ostrogoth king Theodoric , under whom he held high offices. He came under suspicion of promoting a conspiracy directed against the Ostrogoth rule by supporters of the Eastern Roman emperor. As a result, he was arrested, sentenced as a traitor and executed.
Boethius endeavored to implement an ambitious educational program. He intended to make all of Plato's and Aristotle's works as basic texts of Greek philosophical and scientific literature accessible in Latin translation and to comment on them. He also wrote textbooks. With this he wanted to secure the core stock of the traditional educational goods for the future, as knowledge of Greek had declined sharply in Latin-speaking western Europe. In addition, he planned to then show the correspondence between Plato and Aristotle, which he assumed according to the then prevailing view. Because of his untimely death, the huge project remained unfinished, but he became the most important mediator of Greek logic , mathematics and music theory in the Latin- speaking world of the Middle Ages until the 12th century. The greatest after-effect achieved his work Consolatio philosophiae (" The Consolation of Philosophy "), which he wrote during his imprisonment , in which he presented his ideas on ethics and metaphysics . He also wrote theological treatises.
Origin, youth and advancement
The four names of Boethius and their order are well attested. The alleged further name Torquatus is not authentic. On his mother's side, Boethius, as his name Anicius shows, came from the Anicier family, who had been Christian since the 4th century and were among the most influential senatorial families in late antiquity .
Boethius was probably born in the early eighties of the 5th century; a different dating suggestion (between 475 and 477) has not prevailed. The place of birth is unknown; the assumption that it is Rome has no good justification. His grandfather (or great-grandfather?) Was under Valentinian III. Praetorian Prefect and was killed in September 454 in connection with the murder of Flavius Aëtius . His father Manlius Boethius later also became Praetorian prefect , city prefect of Rome and in 487 consul without colleagues ; he must have died soon after his consulate, because Boethius grew up fatherless. After his father's death, Boethius was accepted into the house of Quintus Aurelius Memmius Symmachus , the consul of 485, who belonged to the famous Symmachi senatorial family and worked as a philologist and historian.
Boethius received excellent training. Because of the perhaps already limited educational opportunities in Rome at that time, the assumption is being discussed in research that he stayed in the Eastern Roman Empire for study purposes. Athens is being considered as a place to study, but there is a lack of convincing evidence. Parallels between Boethius' way of commenting and reasoning and that of the Neoplatonic school of Alexandria should alternatively support the assumption that he studied there, but this hypothesis put forward by Pierre Courcelle can hardly be proven, and the proximity to the Alexandrian tradition is denied by other researchers. After completing his studies, Boethius married Symmachus' daughter Rusticiana. He adored his father-in-law, who - following a family tradition - intensively cultivated conventional Roman education. Boethius began writing his scientific works early on and gained fame as a scholar.
Boethius also played an important role in politics; he rose to the highest government offices. In 507 at the latest he received the high honorary title of patricius , and in 510 he was consul without colleagues. For the year 522 his two sons Symmachus and Flavius Boethius were appointed consuls by King Theodoric, although they were not yet adults. This requires the consent of the Eastern Roman Emperor Justin I , who was entitled to occupy one of the two consul posts and who also had to formally appoint not only the eastern, but also the western consul. On the occasion of his sons' entry into the consulate, Boethius gave an eulogy for the Gothic king. In the same year Theodoric placed him at the head of the imperial administration by appointing him magister officiorum . Boethius thus reached the height of his political power. In his own account, his work in public administration appears to be exemplary. He claims to have worked exclusively for the common good of all good people; as a fighter against injustice, he has drawn the enmity of dishonest powerful people. In any case, it can be assumed that his energetic approach and self-confident demeanor earned him influential opponents.
Fall and death
Important details of the circumstances that led to Boethius' impeachment, arrest and execution have not survived, are only known from his own account or are not clear from the sources. The background, the legal assessment and the political assessment of the court proceedings have long been a controversial topic of research. In any case, the main factor was the tension between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Ostrogoth king residing in Ravenna . This contrast was reflected in the formation of two rival schools among the politically active Romans (or Italians, as the Romansh population of Italy is also called after the end of the Western Roman Empire ).
Theodoric had come to Italy with his Ostrogothic foederati in 489 on behalf of the Eastern Roman Emperor Zenon to end the rule of Odoacer , who in 476 had brought about the end of the Western Roman Empire . After Zeno's death there had been conflicts with his successor Anastasius , and although he formally recognized Theodoric's position of power in 497/8, the Goth always had to fear an attempt by the Eastern Romans to remove him and bring Italy back under their direct control, because they held always stuck to the continued existence of the Roman Empire in the West and to its claim to supremacy in Italy.
In addition to this power-political rivalry, there was the religious antagonism. The Romans of Italy, like the majority of the Eastern Romans, were followers of the Nicano-Constantinople , while the Ostrogoths professed Arianism . For tradition-conscious Romans, in addition to their political views and personal reasons, their religious convictions were also a motive for opposition to Theodoric. Thus the suspicion could easily arise at the royal court that these circles hoped for the destruction of the Ostrogoth Empire by the emperor and conspired with him. Therefore, politically exposed Romans, who were considered friendly to the emperor, were in a potentially delicate position. If the latent conflict between the courts of Ravenna and Constantinople came to a head , they could get into a conflict of loyalty or at least be suspected of lacking loyalty to the king.
When there was a split in 484 between the Eastern and Western Churches ( Akakian schism ), this alienation between the West and the East led to a reduction in the potential for conflict between the Roman and Germanic subjects of Theodoric. In 498, however, the fault lines emerged again clearly when, after a conflicting papal election, the candidate Symmachus, supported by Theodoric, was able to prevail against his opponent Laurentius , who was favored by the Eastern Romans . In the Roman Senate, politicians with an imperial mindset had sided with Laurentius. The eastward-friendly direction consisted primarily of members of old, conservative senatorial families. This was the milieu to which the Boethius family and the clans who were friends and related by marriage belonged.
After the arrival of the reign of the Eastern Roman Emperor Justin I , the Akakian schism was ended in 519 and church fellowship between Constantinople and Rome was restored. Theodoric initially agreed; He wanted a good relationship with the emperor, also from the point of view of the Eastern Roman recognition for a settlement of his succession, because he had no son and the continued existence of the dynasty depended on his daughter Amalasuntha and her descendants. In 519 he managed to get the emperor to accept his son-in-law Eutharich as a "son of arms" and thus recognized him as the designated successor. In terms of ecclesiastical politics, however, the agreement reached that year increased the isolation of the Arian Ostrogoths in Italy, which could have a detrimental effect on them in the event of an Eastern Roman attack. Even then, Justin's future successor, Justinian , played an important role in Eastern Roman politics , and less than a decade after Theodoric's death, he would actually begin the invasion of Italy. Justinian presumably took the initiative to fill both consul posts with the sons of Boethius in 522; thus he was able to gain additional sympathy in Italian senate circles that were friendly to the east.
The opponents of this eastward-friendly direction, who brought about the overthrow of Boethius, were not Goths, but Progotic Romans. They were devoted to the Gothic King because they owed their careers to him; Theodoric had entrusted key positions to such Romans in order to create a counterweight to the senate circles that were friendly to the emperor. They had nothing to hope for from a regime change in Italy and viewed the Eastern Roman Empire as a hostile power. Already in the western Roman Empire of the 5th century the division of the Senate and the Court into two warring groups struggling for power was a typical feature of the political situation; it did not only occur with the establishment of Gothic rule. However, the polarization intensified when Theodoric's relationship with Ostrom deteriorated in the last years of his reign.
Course of events
When Eutharic died (probably 522 or 523), this weakened Theodoric's position, who no longer had an adult successor, and heightened the political unrest. This phase saw the beginning of the chain of events that led to Boethius' death: a partisan of the Romans loyal to the king intercepted letters that Senator Flavius Albinus iunior had addressed to the emperor. The content of the letters is unknown, but there is no doubt that it was a compromise for the sender. Presumably, topics such as the now extremely delicate Ostrogothic succession question were discussed from the point of view of the senators who were friendly to the east. The sequence of the subsequent processes is controversial. According to one interpretation, Boethius, who was under royal administration, tried to suppress the evidence and thus cover up the matter in order to cover up Albinus. But this intention was thwarted by one of his subordinates, the referendarius Cyprianus , who stood on the other side. According to another interpretation, Boethius kept the incriminating material from the king, but also did not try to prevent Cyprianus from speaking to Theodoric. In any case, Cyprianus presented the letters to the king who was in Verona at the time. The circles hostile to the East at court saw in it evidence of highly treasonable relationships between Albinus and his like-minded people and the emperor. The king had Albinus arrested. Now Boethius publicly showed solidarity with the accused before the king by declaring that if Albinus should have done something, then he - Boethius - and the whole Senate would have done it too. But Boethius had misjudged the situation and his influence. Cyprianus felt compelled to include Boethius in the indictment, if only in order not to endanger his own position. Boethius lost his position at court and was placed under house arrest in Verona.
The king had the events investigated in Boethius' absence. The defendant was incriminated by the statements of several of his subordinates. In addition, letters were submitted in which he spoke out in favor of the freedom of Rome - that is, against Gothic rule; according to his account it was forgeries. The Senate refused to take an official position in its favor; only a small group of friends, including his father-in-law, stood up for him. He was brought to Pavia, probably because he still had some support among his peers in Rome, while northern Italy was a stronghold of his opponents. The court of the king, presided over by the king, would have jurisdiction for ordinary treason proceedings. In view of the high rank of the accused, Theodorich preferred to hand the case over to the Senate Court, which was responsible for capital trials against senators. The chairmanship of this state Court of five senators (iudicium quinquevirale) had the prefect Eusebius . The Ostrogoth king probably left no doubt that he wanted a guilty verdict, but officially held back. The court sentenced Boethius to death in absentia and ordered the confiscation of his property.
The chronology is controversial. According to the traditional dating, which still has supporters, Boethius was arrested as early as 523 and executed in 524 or 525 at the latest. However, some researchers follow a different approach proposed by Charles H. Coster, according to which the arrest in 525 and the execution of the death sentence only took place in 526, shortly before Theodoric's death. The execution was appropriately carried out with the sword, either in Pavia (which is more likely) or in Calvenzano, east of Milan (Bergamo province). The sarcophagus is in the Church of San Pietro in Ciel d'Oro (Pavia). The assertion handed down by Anonymous Valesianus that Boethius was first tortured and then killed with a stick is an invention; it comes from an unknown work by an opponent Theodoric, on which the anonymous in the second part of his description of the reign of the king relies. Symmachus, Boethius' father-in-law, was also executed.
The fall of Boethius led to a change in Theodoric's personnel policy; at court the prosecutor Cyprianus was promoted to head of the financial administration. King Cassiodorus , who like Boethius was an important Roman scholar, but politically unsuspecting, was appointed head of the imperial administration .
Theodoric's daughter Amalasuntha , who had taken over the reign after the death of her father, later returned the confiscated property to the Boethius family. After the Eastern Roman invasion of Italy, Boethius' widow Rusticiana is said to have made sure that the Eastern Roman generals removed the images of Theodoric.
His traditional work consists of the writings of his educational program (translations, commentaries and textbooks), the Consolatio philosophiae and theological treatises. Some works, including the poems he wrote in his youth, are lost today.
In his scientific works, Boethius initially wrote a classical Latin based on the model of Cicero , later he decided on a technical style and used the late Latin philosophical terminology of his time, whereby he also introduced new terms. As a translator, he adheres to the principle of exact, literal rendering. In the Consolatio philosophiae , his way of expression mostly corresponds to the classical usage, but also shows characteristics of late Latin.
- The translation of the Isagogue of Porphyry .
- The translation of the categories of Aristotle in two versions, both of which are from the author and both reproduce only about two thirds of the Greek text.
- The translation of Aristotle's De interpretatione . The handwritten tradition shows that Boethius later revised the first version of this translation.
- The translation of Aristotle's Analytica priora , of which two versions are available, a rough version and a smooth revision, which also shows an effort to be more precise. The tradition is anonymous, but the authorship of Boethius could be shown by a terminological analysis.
- The translation of Aristotle's Analytica posteriora mentioned by Boethius has not survived or has not been identified.
- The translation of Aristotle's Topic , a carefully worked out late work that has come down to us in two versions.
- The translation of Aristotle's Sophistici elenchi , a late work. The authorship of Boethius is nowhere attested; it has been inferred by a philological analysis.
- The translation of the elements of Euclid is mentioned by Cassiodorus in 507, so it belongs to the early works. Except for fragments, it is lost. Possibly it can be identified with Boethius' geometry textbook. Menso Folkerts has published the Latin Euclid excerpts that are believed to have originated from her.
- Two commentaries on the isagogue of Porphyry. When writing the first commentary, Boethius started from the Latin translation of the isagogue that Marius Victorinus had made in the 4th century. After doing his own translation, he wrote the second comment. He used an unknown Greek comment as a template, some of which corresponded to that of the Neoplatonist Ammonios Hermeiou .
- Two comments on the categories of Aristotle. One of them is preserved; it is mainly based on the category commentary by Porphyry. The other is only anonymous and fragmentary.
- Two comments on Aristotle's De interpretatione . The first comment in two books was written in 513 at the earliest, the second in six books at 515/516. While the first comment is a general introduction, the second is intended to provide a deeper understanding. Topics to be covered include the discussed by Aristotle whether all future events of a purely logical reason determined are (logical determinism). Boethius deals intensively with this problem.
- A commentary or draft commentary on Aristotle's Analytica priora , which has been preserved in the form of anonymous scholia ; the attribution of the Scholia to Boethius is not certain, but probable.
- A Commentary on Cicero's Topica in Seven Books; only the first five books and part of the sixth have survived. The extensive work is also an introduction to the topic.
- A comment on Aristotle's topic lost today .
- Possibly a comment on the Sophistici elenchi that is lost today .
- De syllogismo categorico ("On the categorical syllogism ") is the common title of a treatise in two books, which is not the author's name, and which is probably one of Boethius' early works. The first book introduces the doctrine of judgment, the second summarizes the systematics of the syllogisms according to Aristotle. Syllogisms are called categorical, the premises of which are exclusively categorical statements . Boethius starts from the relevant explanations of Porphyry.
- The Introductio ad syllogismos categoricos ("Introduction to the categorical syllogisms"), also referred to with the handwritten title Antepraedicamenta , represents the doctrine of judgment. This text can be regarded as an incomplete revision of De syllogismo categorico , because the subject matter is that of the first book of the older treatise.
- De divisione ("About division") deals with the various types of division, including the division of genres into species and words into meanings. Boethius states that the basis are relevant statements by Porphyry.
- De hypotheticis syllogismis in three books deals with hypothetical reasoning . Inferences in which at least one premise is not a categorical statement, but a hypothetical one, are called hypothetical. Boethius classifies the types of hypothetical statements and inferences. The first book appears to be a compilation from various sources. A main Greek template is lost.
- De topicis differentiis ("About the topical differences") in four books, a classification of the "places" (tópoi) in the topic. A place is understood to be the "seat" of an argument, that is, the one from which an argument appropriate to a question asked is taken. Such a place can be, for example, the definition of a term, then one speaks of a “place from the definition”, or an effective cause . Knowing the places should help to find arguments. The concise presentation of Boethius is not an introduction for beginners, but requires the reader to have previous knowledge.
Textbooks in mathematics, science and music
Boethius wrote textbooks for all four subjects of the Quadrivium (arithmetic, music, geometry and astronomy), of which those on arithmetic and music have been preserved. The study of these subjects was seen as a propaedeutic for philosophy.
- De institutione arithmetica (“Introduction to the theory of numbers”) is, as Boethius communicates in the preface, his first work; it was completed before 507. He dedicated it to his father-in-law Symmachus. Arithmetic is the subject of his first textbook because it was the subject with which any philosophical education had to begin. It is a partly shortening, partly expanding arrangement of the “Introduction to Arithmetic” by the Middle Platonist Nicomachus of Gerasa . In De institutione arithmetica , the term quadruvium (“fourfold way”) can be found for the first time to designate the four “mathematical” subjects (quattuor matheseos disciplinae) ; The division of the Seven Liberal Arts into the Trivium and the Quadrivium later became decisive for medieval teaching. According to the Neoplatonic theory of numbers, Boethius does not regard a number as something purely quantitative, but asks about its properties, which give it an internal structure and thus a certain quality.
- De institutione musica (“Introduction to Music”), a textbook on music theory, is incomplete in five books. Of the thirty announced chapters of the fifth book, only the first eighteen and part of the nineteenth have survived; a sixth and seventh book probably originally existed or were at least planned. The main sources that Boethius drew on were the music-theoretical writings of Nicomachus of Gerasa and Ptolemy .
- Boethius differentiates between three types of music: audible music (musica instrumentalis) , which is "arranged in certain instruments", "human" music (musica humana) , by which he means the "musical" harmony in the soul and body of the person, and World music ” (musica mundana) , by which he understands the music of the spheres produced by the heavenly bodies and inaudible to humans . All three types of music should be based on a mathematically expressible harmony.
- The subject of Boethius' textbook is not the liturgical , unanimous musical practice of his own time, but mainly the mathematical representation and the resulting classification of the relationships between the tones. In presenting the musically relevant numerical relationships, Boethius is not concerned with the purely external relationship of the numbers, which he relates to one another, but rather with their relationship to one another from the point of view of their respective internal structure, which results from his number theory. He assigns this internal structure a constitutive role for the relationship between the numbers and thus also for its music-theoretical consequences. The resounding intervals are, as it were, "embodiments" of the numerical relationships, they relate to them like matter to form. The numerical ratio is the form cause of the audible interval. Boethius ascribes a certain number (numerositas) not only to the relationships between tones, but also to each individual tone . Every tone has a complexity and thus a mathematical internal structure. The ultimate authority in the field of music theory is for Boethius Pythagoras , who, according to legend, discovered the mathematical basis of musical consonance . When reproducing this legend (“ Pythagoras in the forge ”), Boethius attaches particular importance to the progress in knowledge, which should enable the turning away from the sensually perceptible and turning to an incorporeal reality behind the phenomena. In his representation of the notation he gives the conventional Greek tone symbols to denote relative pitches, whereby he always places the symbol of the musical notation above that of the instrumental notation. When explaining the tone system and the division of the monochord , he uses Latin tone letters. He calls the lowest note A and progresses up to Z instead of - as is customary today - starting the next higher octave space again with the same letter; after Z he continues with the characters AA to LL.
- De institutione geometrica ("Introduction to Geometry"), a textbook of geometry based on the "elements" of Euclid, is now lost. Perhaps it can be identified with the Euclid translation of Boethius mentioned by Cassiodorus, from which fragments have been preserved.
- De institutione astronomica ("Introduction to Astronomy") was probably the title of Boethius' now lost textbook on astronomy. From a statement by Cassiodore it appears that Boethius presented astronomy on the basis of Ptolemy ' Almagest .
- Boethius mentions a now lost work on physics (physica) in his second commentary on De interpretatione . It is believed to have been written on the basis of Aristotle's physics . Cassiodorus notes that Boethius also made Archimedes' knowledge accessible in Latin translation.
The Consolatio philosophiae
The main work of Boethius is the Consolatio philosophiae ("Consolation of Philosophy") in five books. In addition to this title, the form De consolatione philosophiae ("On the consolation of philosophy") occurs in the manuscripts. The work was created after Boethius' arrest. With the design as a prosimetrum (prose with inserted poems) Boethius took up a form popular in late antiquity. He uses 28 different meters. The Consolatio philosophiae consists of 39 prose texts and 39 poems, which alternate one after the other. The philosophical ideas presented come mainly from the works of Plato, Aristotle and the Neo-Platonists, but stoic ideas have also been incorporated. The teachings of Plato are repeatedly referred to with approval. The work fits into the tradition of ancient consolation literature and is at the same time a protrepticos , a script that encourages philosophy.
It shows the healing of the mentally ill prisoner in his distress. The work is divided into two halves, with the famous ninth poem of the third book (beginning: O qui perpetua ) , placed roughly in the middle, forming the transition and turning point. In the first, negative part, the reader is shown the futility of earthly goods and the futility of striving for them. In the second, positive part, the focus is on the alternative to these futile efforts: the search for the only true good, the good par excellence, which leads to success . Whether the abrupt ending is coherent and whether the work is to be regarded as completed is a matter of dispute in research. It is also unclear whether the text was written before the conclusion of the legal proceedings or only after the death sentence was imposed, and whether Boethius was in dungeon or in relatively comfortable house arrest with library access. Since it is a literary work, the possibility of fictional elements is to be expected; the situation of the first-person narrator is not necessarily identical in all respects to that of the author.
The first book begins with an elegiac poem in which the author laments his sad fate and the faithlessness of happiness; He hates life, but hopes in vain for a redeeming death. Philosophy appears to him as a venerable female figure. She takes on the task of healing him through teaching. The work thus takes on the character of a dialogue between the author and the allegorical figure Philosophia . First of all, philosophy drives out the poets who are accused of being whores who nourish sterile passions and instill their “sweet poisons” in the philosopher. Then she turns to the sufferer. She reminds him that philosophers have always been persecuted, pointing out, among other things, the fate of Socrates , who was sentenced to death . The prisoner describes in detail how he was thrown into misery by slandering malicious enemies; the Senate let him down and the public now consider him guilty, which is the height of his misery. Philosophy rebukes him. He is not far from his home country because he has lost his place of residence and is in custody, but because he left his real fatherland (in the spiritual sense) of his own accord. For he has forgotten what he is and he also lacks knowledge of the end of things and insight into the work of providence.
The second book focuses on Fortuna , the goddess of luck and fate in Roman mythology . Boethius suffers from the loss of earthly goods, which Fortuna used to give him in abundance, but now refused. Philosophy reminds him that he has entrusted himself to the rule of Fortuna; he has chosen the faithless goddess voluntarily as his mistress and therefore now has to endure her customs. Those who have fallen into disaster are instructed that Fortuna's merit lies precisely in her lamented instability, which is the only reliable thing about her. By turning away from their favorites, Fortuna offers them the opportunity to see that perishable goods are by their nature unsatisfactory and undesirable. In this way, man sees himself referred to the highest good and actual happiness, which is beyond Fortuna's area of responsibility. It can only be found in himself.
The third book is about the path to true happiness, which leaves nothing to be desired and which everyone is actually looking for, even if mostly on the wrong track. These wrong ways - striving for wealth, prestige, power, fame and physical lusts - are now exposed individually. Then philosophy leads its interlocutor in dialogue to the point where it turns out that God is to be equated with the highest good (summum bonum) . This follows from the fact that God is the origin of all things and nothing can be better than the origin to which it owes its existence. If perfect good were elsewhere than in God, it would not be the origin of everything; rather, it would have to have its origin in something higher, with which an infinite regress would occur . Since there can only be one single highest good, God can be identified with bliss (beatitudo) , which man rightly regards and strives for as the highest good. To attain bliss is to attain God. By attaining (adeptio) the deity man becomes happy; “So everyone who is blessed is God” (Omnis igitur beatus deus) . Since God is a unity, it is not a matter of a plurality of gods, but of the deity of happy people through participation (participatio) in the one God.
In the famous ninth poem of the third book (O qui perpetua) , philosophy praises God as the exclusively benevolent Creator, who created the world according to an archetype that he carries in his spirit. God made the cosmos a beautiful world on the pattern of his own perfect beauty. He has given the universe and its individual parts a perfect mathematical order and made sure that the opposing influences of heat and cold, dryness and wetness keep the right balance.
In the fourth book the two interlocutors deal with the question of theodicy . Boethius asks how it is possible that the perfectly good God not only allows evil but also allows it to flourish and rule, while virtue not only remains unrewarded but is even punished. Philosophy explains to him that all people, good and bad alike, have the same goal, because they all strive for good. But only those who are good themselves can achieve the goal. The wicked are prevented from doing so by their own wickedness, which by definition is opposite to good. Hence their efforts are necessarily in vain; they must miss the mark and fail. So everyone is inevitably given what corresponds to his ethical qualification. The good has its own reward, just as badness is its own punishment. These findings lead to the conclusion that every destiny is entirely good. In addition, people lack the capacity for the full insight they would need in order to understand all the details of the fateful order and to be able to judge competently what is beneficial or harmful for them.
In the fifth book the problem of chance and the relationship between divine foreknowledge and human free will is discussed. It turns out that there is no such thing as a coincidence in the sense of causelessness; what appears to be a coincidence from a human point of view is really just a gap in human knowledge. The apparently random events are components of unknown or not fully understood series of causes. Everything is precisely arranged by Providence and is carried out according to God's will. This raises the question of how such a concept is compatible with human free will, on which philosophy attaches great importance. The solution to this problem is to accept the establishment of all events by the causal chains that carry out the providential plan, but to exclude the acts of will from them. Thus the acts of will as such are not determined, but their conversion into physical events is determined. Another argument is that the problem arises from the fact that God's knowledge is conceived in the manner of human foreknowledge; this would lead to a wrong path, since God's knowledge, in contrast to previous knowledge, is timeless.
Philosophical and religious background
In this philosophical work, which deals with metaphysical and ethical questions, Boethius does not reveal himself anywhere as a Christian. He doesn't mention the Christian faith at all. Only a few allusions and a few words and phrases that are reminiscent of the language used in the Latin Bible indicate that he lives in a Christian milieu. This is all the more noticeable as the author makes his own hopeless situation the starting point and pivotal point of his remarks. In such circumstances, it would be natural for an ancient Christian to focus on the biblical promise. Instead, Boethius discusses his fate exclusively from the perspective and in the terminology of the ancient philosophical tradition. He turns out to be a supporter of Neoplatonism , the dominant direction in late antique philosophy. His metaphysics is more Neoplatonic than Christian, which can be seen, for example, from the fact that he assumes the existence of a world soul . As a Platonist he is convinced that the individual souls were not created together with their bodies; they did not arise at a specific point in time, but exist forever and descend into their bodies, which means imprisonment for them. Boethius even seems to assume a temporal eternity of the material world, which he contrasts with the timeless eternity of God; in any case, he lets instructive philosophy point out corresponding statements by Plato and Aristotle, to which it implicitly agrees. His idea of a cosmos without beginning and end in time is hardly compatible with the understanding of the biblical creation story and eschatology at that time . But there is no doubt that Boethius was a Christian, since at least some of his theological works are certainly genuine and since a non-Christian at that time could not assume any state offices. In contrast to the pagan Neo-Platonists, he does not separate the one as the supreme deity from the good and the existing, but equates the good with the highest reality, like the Christian theologians and the Middle Platonists.
The alleged reasons for this explanation-needy attitude of the philosopher in view of his imprisonment and threatened execution have been discussed intensively in research for a long time. There are two possible interpretations to choose from. One says that he went through a religious development, in which he finally - perhaps only in captivity - inwardly alienated himself from the faith and the church. In the last phase of his life he therefore resorted to Neoplatonism, the only religious and philosophical tradition still alive in late antiquity that offered an alternative to Christianity. The other interpretation assumes that he was still a staunch Christian, but deliberately renounced all Christian references in this work for a didactic reason. He wanted to show that by means of purely philosophical considerations, without presupposing or taking into account a doctrine of faith, in misery and in the face of death one can arrive at an attitude that is basically the same as the Christian one.
The five theological treatises are known as Opuscula sacra ("Theological Small Writings"). They deal with topics that were topical in church politics at the time (dispute over the question of how many people and natures exist in Christ, as well as the discussion about Arianism). Their authenticity was previously unjustly disputed; Since 1877 it has been documented for four tracts, only with regard to De fide catholica is it still occasionally doubted.
- De fide catholica ("On the Catholic Faith") is probably the oldest of the theological treatises; it was probably written before 512. The common title is not authentic, but modern. The author differentiates his beliefs from various heresies such as Arianism, Nestorianism and Monophysitism, as well as Manichaeism . The work was probably conceived as an introduction to church dogmatics for lay people.
- Contra Eutychen et Nestorium ("Against Eutyches and Nestorius"), apparently the second treatise, was probably written between 513 and 519. Here Boethius turns against two famous theologians: Nestorius , after whom Nestorianism is named, and the Monophysite Eutyches . He presents Catholic Christology as the middle ground between the two extremes of Nestorianism and Monophysitism. His definition of the term person, which is presented here, is known, according to which a person is an individual substance of a rational nature (naturae rationabilis individua substantia) .
- Quomodo substantiae in eo quod sint bonae sint, cum non sint substantialia bona (“How the substances are good in what they are, although they are not substantial goods”), usually quoted with the inauthentic short title De hebdomadibus , is well originated around 519. The theology presented therein is strongly influenced by Neoplatonic ideas; the question of the participation of good things in good (God) is examined.
- Utrum Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus de divinitate substantialiter praedicentur (“Whether 'Father', 'Son' and 'Holy Spirit' are essentially predicated of the deity”) dates from around 519. The argumentation is based on that of the Church Father Augustine . The question posed in the title of the work is answered in the negative; 'Father', 'Son' and 'Holy Spirit' are relative statements with no effect on the substance.
- Quomodo Trinitas unus deus ac non tres dii ("How the Trinity is one God and not three Gods"), usually quoted with the short title De Trinitate , was Boethius' last theological work between 519 and 523. It is intended for Symmachus, the author's father-in-law. Boethius relies primarily on statements made by Augustine.
In the Middle Ages there were a number of spurious works that Boethius allegedly wrote or that he was said to have translated from Greek. These are:
- Two medieval versions of a treatise on geometry (Pseudo-Boethius, Geometry I and Geometry II ). They contain excerpts from Euclid's elements , which probably come from a lost work by Boethius - his geometry textbook or his Euclid translation.
- De disciplina scolarium , a widespread writing that originated in the 13th century, the author of which poses as Boethius. It deals with teaching, the duties of pupils or students and how teachers deal with them. In the late Middle Ages , there was no doubt about its authenticity. It was not until the 15th century that the humanist Alexander Hegius recognized the inauthenticity.
Late antiquity and the Middle Ages
Contemporaries such as Ennodius and Cassiodorus expressed their high esteem for the education of Boethius, Cassiodorus praised his achievements as a mediator of Greek science to the Latin-speaking world. This mediating role became even more prominent in the Middle Ages, as knowledge of Greek and original Greek texts had hardly existed in the West since the end of antiquity. It was thanks to Boethius that part of the ancient Greek philosophy was preserved in the Latin Middle Ages.
Assessment of the execution
All ancient authors who commented on the execution of Boethius, including the important Eastern Roman historian Prokopios , were convinced of his innocence. Prokopios narrates a legend according to which Theodoric regretted his decision so violently that this emotional movement brought about his sudden death. Since Theodoric was an Arian, that is, from a Catholic point of view, Boethius was considered a martyr in some circles in the Middle Ages ; it was assumed that he had been persecuted and executed by the heretical Ostrogoth king because of his faith. This is what the chronicler Ado von Vienne claimed as early as the 9th century . A Boethius cult was born in the Pavia area. Various legends, including miracle stories, were circulated about the circumstances of death. There were even depictions in which Boethius was described as a freedom fighter who wanted to free his homeland from Gothic tyranny with Eastern Roman help. In the 12th century, the extremely influential theologian Petrus Lombardus placed Boethius among the saints.
The Consolatio philosophiae was extremely widespread in the Middle Ages. It was part of the school reading and was one of the most commented texts of the Middle Ages. Before the 9th century, its influence can only be proven sporadically, but in the course of the 9th century interest in it increased sharply; Writers and poets were now familiar with the work; the great scholar Lupus von Ferrières wrote a treatise on the meter of the consolatio .
Numerous translations of the Consolatio also testify to the great interest in it. These are the following languages and translators:
- German: Old High German translation of the monk Notker III. from St. Gallen from the late 10th or early 11th century; five German translations from the period 1400–1480, including by Peter von Kastl and Niklas von Wyle .
- English: Two versions of the Old English translation have survived, the older in prose and the younger as prosimetrum. In the prefaces of both versions, King Alfred the Great is named as the translator , but this attribution is doubted in recent research. In any case, both versions were made in the late 9th century or in the first half of the 10th century. The Middle English translations by Geoffrey Chaucer (14th century) and John Walton (in verse, 1410) date from the late Middle Ages .
- French ( Old French and Middle French ): twelve translations, some anonymously, including the particularly well-known one by Jean de Meung ( Li livres de confort de philosophie , late 13th century).
- Hebrew : Two Hebrew translations were made in the 15th century. One of them was made by Samuel Benveniste in 1412, the other by Bonafoux Bonfil Astruc in Italy in 1423.
- Italian : 14 translations, some anonymously, including those by Alberto della Piagentina ( Della filosofica consolazione , 1322/1332), Grazia di Meo ( Il libro di Boeçio de chonsolazione , 1343) and Giovanni da Foligno ( Consolazione di Boezio , 14th century) .
- Catalan : two late medieval translations, one by Pere Saplana (1358/1362), the other by Pere Borró (14th century, not preserved).
- Greek: The Byzantine scholar Maximos Planudes , who emerged as a translator of Latin literature, translated the Consolatio into Central Greek in the nineties of the 13th century . The relatively high number of manuscripts - 35 have been preserved, six more have been destroyed or disappeared - testifies to the appreciation in the Greek-speaking world of the late Middle Ages and the early modern period.
- Dutch : two late medieval Middle Dutch translations; one was made in 1466 by Jacob Vilt, the other comes from an anonymous translator in the second half of the 15th century and was printed in Ghent in 1485, together with an extensive commentary . This famous incunable is known as the “Ghent Boethius Print”.
- Spanish : several anonymous late medieval translations.
The rich medieval interpretative literature began as early as the Carolingian era. From the 9th century onwards, Consolatio manuscripts were provided with glosses, mostly anonymously handed down (explanations of individual text passages), some of which are attributed to the scholar Remigius von Auxerre . Commentators included Wilhelm von Conches (12th century), Nikolaus Triveth (or Trevet, around 1300), Renier von Saint-Trond (late 14th century), and Dionysius the Carthusian (15th century). The poem O qui perpetua , which occupies a central position in the Consolatio , was often the subject of separate commentaries ( Bovo von Corvey , Anonymus Einsidlensis, Adalbold von Utrecht and others; the comments are mostly anonymous). The commentators used to interpret Boethius' philosophy in a Christian way, but the incompatibility of some of his thoughts with the theology of the time was occasionally pointed out (Bovo von Corvey). Petrus von Ailly wrote a treatise in quaestion form on the consolatio in the late fourteenth century .
Numerous authors were inspired by the Consolatio in terms of form or content . Sedulius Scottus ( Liber de rectoribus Christianis , 9th century), Liutprand of Cremona ( Antapodosis , 2nd half of the 10th century), Adelard of Bath ( De eodem et diverso , early 12th century) and Hildebert are particularly influenced by it von Lavardin ( Liber de querimonia et conflictu carnis et anime , early 12th century), Laurentius von Durham ( Consolatio de morte amici , probably 1141/1143), Alanus ab Insulis ( De planctu Naturae , second half of the 12th century), Petrus by Compostela ( De consolatione Rationis , 14th century) and Johannes Gerson ( De consolatione theologiae , early 15th century).
Dante held Boethius in high regard as the author of the Consolatio . In the Convivio he describes how, after Beatrice's loss, he turned to reading the Consolatio in order to find consolation. In his Divina commedia he places Boethius in the fourth heaven among the representatives of wisdom.
The poems of the Consolatio were set to music, as shown by musical notes in a manuscript from the 9th century ( Psalter Ludwig the German ). Scenes from the Consolatio were frequent subjects in medieval book illumination . In the late Middle Ages, numerous magnificent manuscripts with valuable miniatures were produced.
Medieval logicians obtained their methodical and terminological tools from Boethius; for the Latin-speaking world, the Aristotelian terminology was permanently fixed through its translations. The terms he introduced include, for example, “act” and “potency” (Latin actus and potentia ), “ Akzidens ” (Latin accidens ) and “ contingent ” (Latin contingens ).
Before the Carolingian era, no knowledge of the logical works of Boethius can be proven. The first medieval author to whom it can be shown that some of the translations from the Greek were available was Alcuin ; he used the translations of the Isagogue and De interpretatione . In the late 10th century the scholar Gerbert von Aurillac, who called himself Pope Silvester II , studied Boethius ' translations, commentaries, and treatises in the field of logic, and Abbo von Fleury wrote a treatise on syllogisms in which he spoke of Boethius' Representation went out. After the turn of the millennium, the then already known part of Boethius's logical works increased. Until the 12th century, Aristotle's logic, which is set out in the Organon , the group of his logical writings, was only partially known to the Latin-speaking world and only through Boethius. There were Boethius' translations of the categories as well as De interpretatione and the Isagoge des Porphyrios as well as his commentaries on these three works. They formed a corpus which later, after other texts became known in the 12th century, was given the name Logica vetus ("Old Logic").
Notker III. von St. Gallen translated Boethius' translations of the categories and the writing De interpretatione into Old High German in the late 10th or early 11th century .
In the 12th century Boethius's translations of the Topik , the Sophistici elenchi and the Analytica priora became known. These newly discovered works of Aristotle, to which the Analytica posteriora were added, were called Logica nova (“New Logic”).
The famous philosopher and theologian Petrus Abelardus considered Boethius to be the most important Roman philosopher. He wrote a comment on De topicis differentiis . Even in the 13th century the topical was discussed by the authoritative textbook author Petrus Hispanus on the basis of De topicis differentiis . Even in the 14th century the logical writings of Boethius were still relevant; Wilhelm von Ockham often quoted them, and Albert von Sachsen's influence is clearly evident.
In the 13th century in the Byzantine Empire, the scholar Manuel (Maximos) Holobolos translated the treatise De topicis differentiis into Greek and furnished its translation with scholias. Another Greek translation was made by Prochoros Kydones in the 14th century. It is doubtful whether a Byzantine treatise on this work was written by the scholar Georgios Pachymeres (13th century) to whom it is ascribed. A Byzantine translation of De hypotheticis syllogismis has survived in two manuscripts; it is probably attributed to Manuel (Maximos) Holobolos.
De institutione musica was one of the most important textbooks in music theory. Reception began in the 9th century. The work of Boethius contributed significantly to the fact that Greek music theory - especially Pythagorean ideas - shaped the medieval conception of music. The manuscripts of the textbook were glossed as early as the 9th century (provided with explanations in the form of glosses). This anonymous commentary on glosses, which is important in terms of reception history, is known as the Glossa maior . It has been revised many times over the centuries. There were also other, independent glossings. The extensive “Oxford Commentary” on De institutione musica , which was apparently used in teaching at Oxford University , was written in the 14th century . The practice-oriented author Guido von Arezzo (11th century) pointed out, however, that the book of Boethius "is not useful for singers but only for philosophers" because of its speculative character.
De institutione arithmetica was a fundamental textbook on arithmetic in the Middle Ages, the widespread use of which is shown by the 188 wholly or partially preserved manuscripts as well as numerous commentaries and introductory writings.
Boethius' method of interpreting Christian dogmas philosophically using the methods of Aristotle served as a model for scholastic theology of the Middle Ages. His definition of the term "person" was often quoted in the Middle Ages.
The work on the Trinity was already used by theologians of the 9th century such as Hinkmar von Reims and Paschasius Radbertus ; Paschasius also used the treatise on the substances, Ratramnus von Corbie dealt in detail with the writing against Nestorius and Eutyches, Gottschalk von Orbais quoted in detail the treatises against Nestorius and Eutyches and Utrum Pater . From the Carolingian period there are glosses on the Opuscula sacra , which Remigius von Auxerre probably wrote or compiled. In the 12th century Gilbert von Poitiers commented on four Opuscula sacra . In the school of the philosopher Thierry of Chartres , in particular, there was great interest in Boethius' theological works. Thierry's student Clarembald von Arras wrote commentaries on the scriptures on the Trinity and on Substances. Thomas Aquinas later commented on these two writings , who regarded Boethius as an important authority.
Early Renaissance and Early Modern Times
Early Renaissance humanists ( Francesco Petrarca , Giovanni Boccaccio , Coluccio Salutati ) found the negative assessment of poets' muses in the first book of the Consolatio problematic; they argued that this criticism, which was offensive from a humanist perspective, did not apply to poetry as a whole. Lorenzo Valla passed a mixed judgment on Boethius. He considered him the last scholar of antiquity and admired his education and diligence. On the other hand, he criticized a number of things in the works of the late antique philosopher. Above all, he criticized him for the non-classical language of his logical writings; he had adapted himself to Greek in such a way that he lost the feeling for his own mother tongue, and his linguistic inadequacies also had consequences in terms of content. But among the humanists were also enthusiastic admirers of Boethius such as Julius Caesar Scaliger and Angelo Poliziano , who asked: Who is more astute in dialectics than Boethius or more detailed in mathematics or richer in philosophy or more sublime in theology?
The Consolatio continued to be a core part of school reading in Italy in the 15th century. The first edition appeared as early as 1471; In 1473 Anton Koberger published the first edition with a German translation in Nuremberg, which was followed by dozens of other incunabula . In 1498 the humanist Jodocus Badius published a commentary on the Consolatio intended for school operations , in which he did not focus on philosophy, as was usual up to now, but on philological aspects.
The first edition of De topicis differentiis and the commentary on Cicero's Topica appeared in Rome in 1484, De institutione arithmetica was first printed in Augsburg in 1488. 1491–92 the first complete edition was published in Venice; it also contained spurious works.
Queen Elizabeth I of England translated the Consolatio philosophiae into English in 1593.
In the 18th century, Edward Gibbon coined the later popular catchphrase of Boethius as “the last Roman”, by which he meant: the last Cicero and Cato would have considered compatriots.
Assessment of the cultural and scientific achievements
In the 19th century, the influential historian of philosophy Carl von Prantl passed a damning judgment on Boethius' achievements in the field of logic; together with Martianus Capella and Cassiodorus he was “the main bridge to the incomprehension of medieval logic”, his presentation shows “the most disgusting breadth and loquacity”, because it was “expressly calculated (...) even the dumbest minds a certain number of In the rules ”.
The question of the extent to which Boethius is an independent philosopher and not just a mediator of older ideas who translates and compiles manual knowledge is a controversial issue in research. John Marenbon, in particular, pleads for its originality. With regard to logic, Jonathan Barnes and James Shiel deny a philosophical contribution of their own.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, Gibbon's catchphrase was picked up by the “last Roman” Boethius. The reason given was that he was the last to combine the political virtues that had been considered typically Roman since Cicero's time and, with his work, handed over the legacy of antiquity to the Middle Ages. In this sense, Franz Brunhölzl set the epoch boundary between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages between Boethius as the last ancient Roman who was conscious of tradition and Cassiodorus as the first medieval writer .
Boethius is sometimes referred to as the "first scholastic" because his logical writings were groundbreaking for medieval logic and its terminology and because he applied logic to theological questions. However, this term is problematic and misleading, because scholasticism did not emerge until the High Middle Ages.
Assessment of the legal process
The view of church circles, which has been widespread since the Middle Ages, according to which Boethius was persecuted as a Catholic by an Arian ruler and thus suffered as a martyr for his faith, has also had an impact in modern times. His traditional local veneration as a blessed in the diocese of Pavia was given by Pope Leo XIII. Confirmed in 1883. The Pope set October 23, the alleged day of his death, as his feast day. It was not until 1931 that Giovanni B. Picotti showed in an investigation of the process that it was a purely politically motivated process and certainly not religious persecution.
In the research, different hypotheses regarding the assessment of the legal proceedings and the role and motivation of Theoderic are discussed. The statements of the sources are clear: Boethius protests his complete innocence, and the ancient authors who comment on it unanimously share this view. Even in modern research there is broad consensus that there was no conspiracy to eliminate the rule of the Ostrogoths in Italy. The charge of treason that led to the execution is considered by the vast majority of historians to be unfounded. It has only been suspected that Boethius was working towards the overthrow of Theodoric. But it is also a fact that Boethius identified himself unreservedly with Albinus' suspicious behavior through his demonstrative, general public solidarity with Albinus, with which he suspected a lack of loyalty. The research literature emphasizes that he acted clumsily during the crisis. By appearing harsh and provocative before the king, he let it come down to a hopeless trial of strength. This shows his misunderstanding of the situation. Because of this and other evidence, some historians consider him to be a politically untalented scholar. Critical assessments of his role are presented primarily by historians, while researchers who consider the processes from a philological or philosophical-historical perspective tend to believe Boethius' self-assessment.
With regard to the legal aspects, it is noticeable that the accused was denied a trial before the actually competent royal court and that the court hearing was conducted in his absence. Thus, he was not given the opportunity to comment on the results of the investigation and to defend himself; there was no comparison of witnesses and defendants. This approach makes the procedure appear as politically motivated arbitrary justice.
Modern assessors agree that Theodoric was convinced that he had to defend himself against a real threat to his rule and that he would scare off treacherous forces with harshness. However, the execution of the death sentence is seen as a serious political error. However, Andreas Goltz points out that, under the impression of the intense reception of Boethius since the Middle Ages, posterity overestimates the effect of the execution on contemporaries and does not pay enough attention to the fact that Boethius was very controversial in the Italian elite.
The asteroid (6617) Boethius , discovered in 1971 , the lunar crater Boethius and the Mercury crater Boethius are named after the scholar.
Text editions and translations
- Claudio Moreschini (Ed.): Boethius: De consolatione philosophiae, opuscula theologica. 2nd edition, Saur, Munich 2005, ISBN 3-598-71278-2 (critical edition of the Consolatio philosophiae and the five theological treatises).
- Gottfried Friedlein (Ed.): Anicii Manlii Torquati Severini Boetii de institutione arithmetica libri duo, de institutione musica libri quinque. Minerva, Frankfurt am Main 1966 (reprint of the Leipzig 1867 edition; still to be used for De institutione musica , obsolete for De institutione arithmetica ).
- Hans-Ulrich Wöhler: Texts on the universal dispute. Volume 1: From the end of antiquity to early scholasticism. Akademie Verlag, Berlin 1992, ISBN 3-05-001792-9 (contains partial translations of six logical and theological works by Boethius).
- Ludwig Bieler (Ed.): Anicii Manlii Severini Boethii Philosophiae Consolatio. 2nd edition, Brepols, Turnhout 1984, ISBN 978-2-503-00941-4 ( Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina. Volume 94) (critical edition).
- Ernst Gegenschatz, Olof Gigon (ed.): Boethius: Consolation of Philosophy. Consolatio philosophiae. 6th edition, Artemis & Winkler, Düsseldorf et al. 2002, ISBN 3-7608-1662-2 (uncritical edition with German translation)
- Ernst Neitzke (Ed.): Boethius: Consolation of Philosophy. Insel Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 1997, ISBN 3-458-32915-3 (uncritical edition with German translation).
Old high German translation
- Evelyn Scherabon Firchow (Ed.): Notker der Deutsche von St. Gallen: Latin text and Old High German translation of the consolation of philosophy (De consolatione Philosophiae) by Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius. 3 volumes, Olms, Hildesheim 2003, ISBN 3-487-11811-4 .
Medieval English translations
- Malcolm Godden, Susan Irvine (Eds.): The Old English Boethius. An Edition of the Old English Versions of Boethius's De Consolatione Philosophiae. 2 volumes, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2009, ISBN 978-0-19-925966-3 .
- Tim William Machan (Ed.): Chaucer's Boece. A Critical Edition Based on Cambridge University Library, MS Ii.3.21, ff. 9 r –180 v . Winter, Heidelberg 2008, ISBN 978-3-8253-5432-9 .
Medieval French translations
- Isabelle Bétemps et al. (Ed.): La Consolation de la Philosophie de Boèce dans une traduction attribuée à Jean de Meun d'après le manuscrit Leber 817 de la Bibliothèque Municipale de Rouen. Université de Rouen, Rouen 2004, ISBN 2-87775-380-8 .
- Glynnis M. Cropp (Ed.): Le Livre de Boece de Consolacion. Droz, Geneva 2006, ISBN 2-600-01028-9 (critical edition).
- Rolf Schroth (Ed.): An old French translation of the consolatio philosophiae of Boethius (Troyes manuscript no. 898). Edition and commentary. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main 1976, ISBN 3-261-01845-3 .
Medieval Greek translation
- Manolis Papathomopoulos (ed.): Anicii Manlii Severini Boethii De consolatione philosophiae. Traduction grecque de Maxime Planude. The Academy of Athens, Athens 1999, ISBN 2-7116-8333-8 (critical edition).
Medieval Hebrew translation
- Sergio Joseph Sierra (ed.): Boezio: De Consolatione Philosophiae. Traduzione ebraica di ʿAzaria ben R. Joseph Ibn Abba Mari detto Bonafoux Bonfil Astruc 5183–1423. Turin et al. 1967.
Medieval Italian translation
- Helmuth-Wilhelm Heinz (ed.): Grazia di Meo, Il libro di Boeçio de chonsolazione (1343). Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main 1984, ISBN 3-8204-7325-4 .
Translations of Boethius
- Lorenzo Minio-Paluello (Ed.): Aristoteles Latinus . Volume I 1-5: Categoriae vel praedicamenta. Desclée de Brouwer, Bruges et al. 1961 (contains Boethius' translation of categories ).
- Lorenzo Minio-Paluello (Ed.): Aristoteles Latinus. Volume I 6–7: Categoriarum supplementa: Porphyrii isagoge, translatio Boethii, et anonymi fragmentum vulgo vocatum “Liber sex principiorum”. Desclée de Brouwer, Bruges et al. 1966 (contains Boethius' isagogue translation).
- Lorenzo Minio-Paluello (Ed.): Aristoteles Latinus. Volume II 1–2: De interpretatione vel periermenias: translatio Boethii, specimina translationum recentiorum. Desclée de Brouwer, Bruges and Paris 1965 (contains Boethius' translation of De interpretatione ).
- Lorenzo Minio-Paluello (Ed.): Aristoteles Latinus. Volume III 1–4: Analytica priora: translatio Boethii (recensiones duae), translatio anonyma, Pseudo-Philoponi aliorumque scholia, specimina translationum recentiorum . Desclée de Brouwer, Bruges et al. 1962 (contains p. 1–191 the two versions of Boethius' translation of the Analytica priora ; the p. 293–372 edited scholia are also by Boethius).
- Lorenzo Minio-Paluello (Ed.): Aristoteles Latinus. Volume V 1-3: Topica: translatio Boethii, fragmentum recensionis alterius, et translatio anonyma. Brill, Leiden 1969 (contains Boethius' translation of the topic ).
- Bernard G. Dod (Ed.): Aristoteles Latinus. Volume VI 1-3: De sophisticis elenchis: translatio Boethii, fragmenta translationis Iacobi, et recensio Guillelmi de Moerbeke. Brill, Leiden 1975 (contains Boethius' translation of the Sophistici elenchi ).
- Samuel Brandt (Ed.): Anicii Manlii Severini Boethii in isagogen Porphyrii commenta. Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York 1966 (reprint of the Vienna 1906 edition; critical edition of both Isagoge commentaries).
- Karl Meiser (Ed.): Anicii Manlii Severini Boethii commentarii in librum Aristotelis ΠΕΡΙ ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑΣ. Parts 1 and 2, Teubner, Leipzig 1877-1880 (reprint Garland Publishing, New York 1987, ISBN 0-8240-6904-8 ; critical edition of both commentaries on De interpretatione ).
- Andrew Smith: Boethius: On Aristotle, On Interpretation 1-3 . Bloomsbury, London 2014, ISBN 978-1-4725-5789-6 (English translation)
- David Blank, Norman Kretzmann (Ed.): Ammonius: On Aristotle On Interpretation 9, with Boethius: On Aristotle On Interpretation 9, first and second commentaries. Duckworth, London 1998, ISBN 0-7156-2691-4 (contains pp. 129–191 an English translation of excerpts from the two commentaries on De interpretatione on logical determinism).
- Jacques Paul Migne (Ed.): Anicii Manlii Severini Boetii in categorias Aristotelis libri quatuor . In: Patrologia Latina . Volume 64, Paris 1891, Col. 159-294 (uncritical edition).
- Pierre Hadot (ed.): Un fragment du commentaire perdu de Boèce sur les Catégories d'Aristote dans le Codex Bernensis 363. In: Archives d'Histoire Doctrinale et Littéraire du Moyen Age. Vol. 26 (= année 34), 1959, ISSN 0373-5478 , pp. 11-27 (critical edition of the comment fragment pp. 12-14).
- Johann Caspar von Orelli , Johann Georg Baiter (ed.): Anicii Manlii Severini Boethii commentarii in Ciceronis topica. In: Johann Caspar von Orelli, Johann Georg Baiter (eds.): M. Tullii Ciceronis opera quae supersunt omnia ac deperditorum fragmenta. Vol. 5, part 1: M. Tullii Ciceronis scholiastae. Orell Füssli , Zurich 1833, pp. 269–395 (still the authoritative critical edition of the commentary on Cicero's Topica ).
- Jacques Paul Migne (Ed.): Anicii Manlii Severini Boetii in topica Ciceronis commentariorum libri sex. In: Patrologia Latina. Volume 64, Paris 1891, Col. 1039–1174 (uncritical edition).
- Alfredo Severiano Quevedo Perdomo (Ed.): A Critical Edition of Boethius' Commentary on Cicero's Topica, Book I. Dissertation Saint Louis 1963.
- Eleonore Stump : Boethius's In Ciceronis Topica. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London 1988, ISBN 0-8014-2017-2 (English translation).
- John Magee (Ed.): Anicii Manlii Severini Boethii De divisione liber. Brill, Leiden 1998, ISBN 90-04-10873-4 (critical edition with English translation and commentary).
- Dimitrios Z. Nikitas (Ed.): Boethius' De topicis differentiis and the Byzantine reception of this work. The Academy of Athens, Athens 1990, ISBN 2-7116-9701-0 (critical edition of Boethius' De topicis differentiis and two Byzantine translations of this work).
- Luca Obertello (ed.): AM Severino Boezio: De hypotheticis syllogismis . Paideia, Brescia 1969 (critical edition with introduction, commentary and Italian translation)
- Eleonore Stump: Boethius's De topicis differentiis. Cornell University Press, Ithaca et al. 1978, ISBN 0-8014-1067-3 (English translation).
- Christina Thomsen Thörnqvist (Ed.): Anicii Manlii Severini Boethii De syllogismo categorico. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Gothenburg 2008, ISBN 978-91-7346-611-0 (critical edition with English translation).
- Christina Thomsen Thörnqvist (Ed.): Anicii Manlii Severini Boethii Introductio ad syllogismos categoricos. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Gothenburg 2008, ISBN 978-91-7346-612-7 (critical edition with commentary).
- James C. King (Ed.): Notker der Deutsche: Boethius' adaptation of the "Categoriae" of Aristotle. Niemeyer, Tübingen 1972, ISBN 3-484-20057-X .
- James C. King (ed.): Notker der Deutsche: Boethius' adaptation of Aristotle's work “De Interpretatione”. Niemeyer, Tübingen 1975, ISBN 3-484-20089-8 .
- Dimitrios Z. Nikitas (ed.): A Byzantine translation of Boethius' "De hypotheticis syllogismis". Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1982, ISBN 3-525-25165-3 (critical edition).
- Calvin M. Bower, Claude V. Palisca: Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius: Fundamentals of Music. Yale University Press, New Haven 1989, ISBN 0-300-03943-3 (English translation from De institutione musica ).
- Christian Meyer (Ed.): Boèce: Traité de la musique. Brepols, Turnhout 2004, ISBN 2-503-51741-2 (uncritical edition of De institutione musica with French translation).
- Henri Oosthout, Jean Schilling (eds.): Anicii Manlii Severini Boethii De arithmetica. Brepols, Turnhout 1999, ISBN 2-503-00943-3 (critical edition).
- Jean-Yves Guillaumin (Ed.): Boèce: Institution Arithmétique. Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1995, ISBN 2-251-01390-3 (critical edition with French translation).
- Michael Masi: Boethian Number Theory. A translation of the De Institutione Arithmetica. Rodopi, Amsterdam 1983, ISBN 90-6203-785-2 .
- Menso Folkerts (Ed.): "Boethius" Geometry II. A mathematical textbook of the Middle Ages. Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden 1970, pp. 69–82, 173–217 (Latin excerpts from Euclid's elements , which presumably come from a lost work by Boethius).
- Michael Elsässer (Ed.): Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius: The Theological Tracts. Meiner, Hamburg 1988, ISBN 3-7873-0724-9 (uncritical edition with German translation).
Literature and resources
- Michael von Albrecht : History of Roman literature from Andronicus to Boethius and its continued effect . Volume 2. 3rd, improved and expanded edition. De Gruyter, Berlin 2012, ISBN 978-3-11-026525-5 , pp. 1468-1495
- Axel Bühler, Christoph Kann, Dieter Gutknecht: Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (approx. 480-524 / 526 AD). In: Wolfram Ax (ed.): Latin teachers in Europe. Fifteen portraits from Varro to Erasmus of Rotterdam. Böhlau, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-412-14505-X , pp. 165-215
- Siegmar Döpp : Boethius. In: Christoph Riedweg et al. (Ed.): Philosophy of the Imperial Era and Late Antiquity (= Outline of the history of philosophy . The philosophy of antiquity. Volume 5/3). Schwabe, Basel 2018, ISBN 978-3-7965-3700-4 , pp. 2345–2382, 2401–2422
- Dirk Kurt Kranz: Boethius, Anicius Manlius Severinus. In: Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (BBKL). Volume 24, Bautz, Nordhausen 2005, ISBN 3-88309-247-9 , Sp. 259-310.
- Henry Chadwick : Boethius: The Consolations of Music, Logic, Theology, and Philosophy . Clarendon Press, Oxford 1981, ISBN 0-19-826447-X .
- John Marenbon: Boethius . Oxford University Press, Oxford 2003, ISBN 0-19-513407-9 (Jeffrey home review online ).
- Luca Obertello: Severino Boezio . 2 volumes, Accademia Ligure di Scienze e Lettere, Genova 1974 (the second volume is an extensive bibliography with brief summaries of contents)
Collections of essays on several subject areas
- Manfred Fuhrmann , Joachim Gruber (eds.): Boethius . Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1984, ISBN 3-534-07059-3 (essays on biography, work and reception).
- Alain Galonnier (ed.): Boèce ou la chaîne des savoirs . Peeters, Louvain-la-Neuve 2003, ISBN 90-429-1250-2 (essays on biography, work and reception)
- John Marenbon (Ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Boethius . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2009, ISBN 978-0-521-69425-4
- Joachim Gruber: Commentary on Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae. 2nd, expanded edition, de Gruyter, Berlin and New York 2006, ISBN 978-3-11-017740-4 .
- Helga Scheible: The poems in the Consolatio Philosophiae of Boethius . Winter, Heidelberg 1972, ISBN 3-533-02246-3 .
- Karel Berka: The propositional logic in Boethius . In: Philologus . Vol. 126, 1982, pp. 90-98.
- Anja Heilmann: Boethius' music theory and the quadrivium. An introduction to the Neoplatonic background of “De institutione musica” . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2007, ISBN 978-3-525-25268-0 (also deals in detail with Boethius' understanding of mathematics).
- Wolfgang Bernard : On the foundation of the mathematical sciences in Boethius . In: Antiquity and the Occident . Vol. 43, 1997, pp. 63-89.
- Detlef Illmer: Boethius' theory of numbers . In: Frieder Zaminer (ed.): History of music theory . Volume 3: Reception of the ancient subject in the Middle Ages . Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1990, ISBN 3-534-01203-8 , pp. 219-252.
- Pierre Courcelle: The Consolation of Philosophy in the Tradition of Littéraire. Antécédents et Postérité de Boèce . Études Augustiniennes, Paris 1967
- Reinhold F. Glei , Nicola Kaminski, Franz Lebsanft (Eds.): Boethius Christianus? Transformations of the Consolatio Philosophiae in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times . De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-11-021415-4 .
- Maarten JFM Hoenen, Lodi Nauta (Ed.): Boethius in the Middle Ages. Latin and vernacular traditions of the Consolatio philosophiae . Brill, Leiden 1997, ISBN 90-04-10831-9 .
- Noel Harold Kaylor, Philip Edward Phillips (Eds.): A Companion to Boethius in the Middle Ages . Brill, Leiden 2012, ISBN 978-90-04-18354-4
- Lane Cooper: A Concordance of Boethius. The Five Theological Tractates and the Consolation of Philosophy . The Medieval Academy of America, Cambridge (Massachusetts) 1928.
- Michael Bernhard: Word concordance on Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius, De institutione musica . Beck, Munich 1979, ISBN 3-7696-9994-7 .
- Literature by and about Boethius in the catalog of the German National Library
- Works by and about Boethius in the German Digital Library
- International Center for Boethian Studies Freiburg - Research Center on Boethius and Late Antiquity
Text editions and translations
- Consolatio philosophiae , edition by Wilhelm Weinberger (1935)
- Works (Latin) in the Bibliotheca Augustana: De institutione musica (edition by Gottfried Friedlein, 1867); Consolatio (Gegenenschatz and Gigon edition, 1969); theological tracts
- Utrum Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus de divinitate substantialiter praedicentur , English translation by Erik C. Kenyon, 2004 (PDF file; 24 kB)
- Consolatio philosophiae in German translation at Zeno.org
- De institutione musica , German translation by Oscar Paul, Leipzig 1872
- Quomodo substantiae in eo quod sint bonae sint, cum non sint substantialia bona (German and Latin)
- Boethius, Latin translation of the isagogue (Minio-Paluello, 1966)
- Boethius, Commentary on the Isagogue , English translation by George MacDonald Ross ( Memento from February 1, 2008 in the Internet Archive )
- John Marenbon: Boethius. In: Edward N. Zalta (Ed.): Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy .
- Paul Vincent Spade: Boethius against Universals. The Arguments in the Second Commentary on Porphyry (PDF; 156 kB)
- The Philosophical Works of Boethius. Editions and Translations
- Boethius' Logic and Metaphysics. An Annotated Bibliography
- Agnieszka Kijewska: Boethius in the Lexicon of the Cusanus Portal, 2009
- ↑ Boethius, Second Commentary on De interpretatione , pp. 79.9-80.1 Meiser.
- ↑ Luca Obertello: Severino Boezio . Vol. 1, Genova 1974, p. 16.
- ↑ Joachim Gruber: Boethius 1925–1998 . In: Lustrum 39, 1997, pp. 307-383, here: 327f .; Joachim Gruber: Commentary on Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae . 2nd edition, Berlin 2006, p. 3 and note 17. The different dating comes from Luca Obertello: Severino Boezio . Vol. 1, Genova 1974, pp. 17-20; John Marenbon agrees: Boethius . Oxford 2003, p. 7 to.
- ↑ Joachim Gruber: Boethius 1925–1998 . In: Lustrum 39, 1997, p. 328.
- ^ Pierre Courcelle: Les lettres grecques en Occident . Paris 1948, pp. 259-300; see. Joachim Gruber: Boethius 1925–1998 . In: Lustrum 39, 1997, pp. 341 and 358; Joachim Gruber: Commentary on Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae . 2nd edition, Berlin 2006, p. 3 f .; Cornelia J. de Vogel: Boethiana I . In: Vivarium 9, 1971, pp. 49-66 (advocates training first in Athens, then in Alexandria); Jean-Yves Guillaumin (Ed.): Boèce: Institution Arithmétique . Paris 1995, pp. XXII-XXV; Eleonore Stump: Boethius's In Ciceronis Topica . Ithaca 1988, pp. 1 f.
- ↑ Beat Näf : Senatorial class consciousness in late Roman times . Freiburg (Switzerland) 1995, pp. 225-229; Joachim Gruber: Commentary on Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae . 2nd edition, Berlin 2006, p. 11 f.
- ↑ On the constitutional position of Theodoric in relation to the emperor, see Dietrich Claude : Universale und particular features in the politics of Theodoric . In: Francia 6, 1978, pp. 19-58, here: 42-58 ( digitized version ).
- ^ Jean-Yves Guillaumin (Ed.): Boèce: Institution Arithmétique . Paris 1995, pp. XI f .; Henry Chadwick: Boethius: The Consolations of Music, Logic, Theology, and Philosophy . Oxford 1981, pp. 45 f .; see. Charles Henry Coster: Late Roman Studies . Cambridge (Massachusetts) 1968, p. 47.
- ↑ Frank M. Ausbüttel : Theodoric the Great . Darmstadt 2003, p. 137; Dorothee Kohlhas-Müller: Investigations into the legal status of Theodoric the great . Frankfurt a. M. 1995, p. 301.
- ↑ Dorothee Kohlhas-Müller: Investigations into the legal status of Theodoric the Great . Frankfurt a. M. 1995, pp. 270-272 and 301.
- ^ John Moorhead: Theoderic in Italy . Oxford 1992, pp. 129-135. Moorhead thinks it likely that Boethius himself was on Laurentius's side.
- ↑ Frank M. Ausbüttel: Theodoric the Great . Darmstadt 2003, pp. 107, 111-112, 130-131; Dorothee Kohlhas-Müller: Investigations into the legal status of Theodoric the great . Frankfurt a. M. 1995, pp. 282-286 and 302; John Moorhead: Theoderic in Italy . Oxford 1992, pp. 198-200.
- ↑ Alexander A. Vasiliev: Justin the First , Cambridge (Mass.) 1950, p. 6.
- ^ Wilhelm Enßlin : Theodoric the Great . 2nd edition, Munich 1959, p. 304; Johannes Sundwall : Treatises on the history of late Romanism . Helsingfors 1919, pp. 237-238; Joachim Gruber: Commentary on Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae . 2nd edition, Berlin 2006, p. 11.
- ↑ On Boethius' opponents see John Moorhead: Boethius and Romans in Ostrogothic Service . In: Historia 27, 1978, pp. 604-612, here: 609-612; John Moorhead: Theoderic in Italy . Oxford 1992, pp. 226-235; Thomas S. Burns: A History of the Ostrogoths . Bloomington 1984, pp. 104-105; Christoph Schäfer : The Western Roman Senate as the bearer of ancient continuity under the Ostrogothic kings (490-540 AD) . St. Katharinen 1991, pp. 241-243, 247-250, 255-256.
- ↑ See Henning Börm : Westrom. From Honorius to Justinian , Stuttgart 2013, pp. 115, 145–147.
- ↑ The tradition that it was an African named Severus is no longer credible today, see John Moorhead: Theoderic in Italy . Oxford 1992, pp. 219–220 and Christoph Schäfer: The Western Roman Senate as the bearer of ancient continuity under the Ostrogothic kings (490–540 AD) . St. Katharinen 1991, p. 243 note 19.
- ↑ Frank M. Ausbüttel: Theodoric the Great . Darmstadt 2003, p. 133; Wilhelm Enßlin: Theodoric the Great . 2nd edition, Munich 1959, p. 308 f .; Andreas Goltz: barbarian - king - tyrant. The image of Theodoric the Great in tradition from the 5th to 9th centuries . Berlin 2008, pp. 167-168, 356-357.
- ↑ For the details, see Christoph Schäfer: The Western Roman Senate as the bearer of ancient continuity under the Ostrogothic kings (490-540 AD) . St. Katharinen 1991, pp. 244-246. Schäfer accepts an attempt to cover up, which he regards as a gross breach of duty; also Johannes Sundwall: Treatises on the history of the end of Romanship . Helsingfors 1919, pp. 243–245 and Charles Henry Coster: Late Roman Studies . Cambridge (Massachusetts) 1968, p. 99. Hermann Tränkle disagrees : Philological remarks on the Boethius trial . In: Manfred Fuhrmann, Joachim Gruber (eds.): Boethius . Darmstadt 1984, pp. 52–63, here: 56–59 and Joachim Gruber: Commentary on Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae . 2nd edition, Berlin 2006, p. 12.
- ↑ Christoph Schäfer: The Western Roman Senate as the bearer of ancient continuity under the Ostrogothic kings (490-540 AD) . St. Katharinen 1991, pp. 250-251.
- ^ Anonymus Valesianus 85.
- ↑ See John Moorhead: Theoderic in Italy. Oxford 1992, p. 235.
- ↑ On "Roman freedom" see John Moorhead: Theoderic in Italy . Oxford 1992, pp. 220–222, on the incriminating material Christoph Schäfer: The Western Roman Senate as the bearer of ancient continuity under the Ostrogoth kings (490–540 AD) . St. Katharinen 1991, pp. 251-253 and Andreas Goltz: Barbar - König - Tyrann , Berlin 2008, pp. 357-358.
- ↑ Christoph Schäfer: The Western Roman Senate as the bearer of ancient continuity under the Ostrogothic kings (490-540 AD) . St. Katharinen 1991, pp. 257-260, 294-295; Andreas Goltz: Barbar - König - Tyrann , Berlin 2008, pp. 359–360 and note 21.
- ↑ On the court, see the study by Charles Henry Coster: The Iudicium Quinquevirale . Cambridge (Massachusetts) 1935 (specifically on the Boethius Trial, pp. 40-63).
- ^ Charles Henry Coster: Late Roman Studies . Cambridge (Massachusetts) 1968, pp. 66-85; This approach is approved by Catherine Morton: Marius of Avenches, the 'Excerpta Valesiana', and the Death of Boethius . In: Traditio 38, 1982, pp. 107-136 and John Moorhead: Theoderic in Italy . Oxford 1992, pp. 224-226 (reluctantly). See Joachim Gruber: Boethius 1925–1998 . In: Lustrum 39, 1997, p. 329. Andreas Goltz presents a detailed argument for early dating : Barbar - König - Tyrann , Berlin 2008, pp. 363–373.
- ^ The indication of the Anonymous Valesianus reads in agro Calventiano ; probably Borgo Calvenzano, a district of Pavia, is meant. But since Marius von Avenches indicates in territorio Mediolanense ("in the area of Milan"), Calvenzano in the province of Bergamo is also considered. On the question of identification see Luca Obertello: Severino Boezio . Vol. 1, Genoa 1974, pp. 122-125; Faustino Gianani: “In agro Calventiano”: il luogo del supplizio di Boezio . In: Luca Obertello (ed.): Congresso internazionale di studi boeziani (Pavia, 5-8 ottobre 1980). Atti . Rome 1981, pp. 41-47; Catherine Morton: Boethius in Pavia: the Tradition and the Scholars . In: Luca Obertello (ed.): Congresso internazionale di studi boeziani (Pavia, 5-8 ottobre 1980). Atti . Rome 1981, pp. 49-58; Hermann Tränkle: Philological remarks on the Boethius trial . In: Manfred Fuhrmann, Joachim Gruber (eds.): Boethius . Darmstadt 1984, p. 62 note 26; Christoph Schäfer: The Western Roman Senate as the bearer of ancient continuity under the Ostrogothic kings (490-540 AD) . St. Katharinen 1991, p. 260 and note 97; John Moorhead: Theoderic in Italy . Oxford 1992, p. 223 and note 60.
- ↑ Anonymous Valesianus 87.
- ↑ Frank M. Ausbüttel: Theodoric the Great . Darmstadt 2003, p. 137; Christoph Schäfer: The Western Roman Senate as the bearer of ancient continuity under the Ostrogothic kings (490-540 AD) . St. Katharinen 1991, p. 260.
- ^ John Moorhead: Boethius and Romans in Ostrogothic Service . In: Historia 27, 1978, pp. 604-612, here: 610-612; Frank M.äbüttel: Theodoric the great . Darmstadt 2003, p. 137; Wilhelm Enßlin: Theodoric the Great . 2nd edition, Munich 1959, p. 310 f.
- ↑ Prokopios, De bello Gothico 3,20,29.
- ↑ Menso Folkerts (Ed.): "Boethius" Geometry II . Wiesbaden 1970, pp. 69-82 and 173-217. See Jean-Yves Guillaumin (ed.): Boèce: Institution Arithmétique . Paris 1995, pp. XXV-XXVII. The attribution to Boethius is controversial in scholarship; Max Lejbowicz argues against this: "Cassiodorii Euclides": éléments de bibliographie boécienne . In: Alain Galonnier (ed.): Boèce ou la chaîne des savoirs . Louvain-la-Neuve 2003, pp. 301-339.
- ↑ Pierre Hadot: Un fragment du commentaire perdu de Boèce sur les Catégories d'Aristote dans le Codex Bernensis 363 . In: Archives d'Histoire Doctrinale et Littéraire du Moyen Age 26, 1959, pp. 11-27.
- ↑ See Ernst Gegenschatz: Chance, Freedom and Necessity - an excursus on the history of philosophy in Boethius' commentary on the Aristotelian script 'De interpretatione' . In: Peter Neukam (ed.): Heritage that is not out of date . Munich 1979, pp. 5-61; Norman Kretzmann: Boethius and the truth about tomorrow's sea battle . In: David Blank, Norman Kretzmann (Ed.): Ammonius: On Aristotle On Interpretation 9, with Boethius: On Aristotle On Interpretation 9, first and second commentaries . London 1998, pp. 24-52.
- ^ Lorenzo Minio-Paluello: Boethius as a translator and commentator on Aristotelian writings . In: Manfred Fuhrmann, Joachim Gruber (eds.): Boethius . Darmstadt 1984, pp. 146–154, here: 151 f .; James Shiel: A Recent Discovery: Boethius' Notes on the Prior Analytics . In: Vivarium 20, 1982, pp. 128-141; Joachim Gruber: Boethius 1925–1998 . In: Lustrum 39, 1997, pp. 363-365; Sten Ebbesen: The Aristotelian commentator . In: John Marenbon (Ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Boethius . Cambridge 2009, pp. 34–55, here: 37.
- ↑ See the skeptical considerations of Sten Ebbesen: Commentators and Commentaries on Aristotle's Sophistici Elenchi . Vol. 1: The Greek Tradition . Leiden 1981, p. 253 f.
- ↑ Joachim Gruber: Boethius 1925–1998 . In: Lustrum 39, 1997, p. 371 f .; Susanne Bobzien: A Greek Parallel to Boethius' De Hypotheticis Syllogismis . In: Mnemosyne 55, 2002, pp. 285-300, here: 285 f. and 300.
- ↑ For the meaning of the term institutio in Boethius see Lambert M. de Rijk: On the chronology of Boethius' works on logic I . In: Vivarium 2, 1964, pp. 1-49, here: 41 f.
- ↑ On Boethius' philosophy of mathematics see Wolfgang Bernard: To the foundation of the mathematical sciences in Boethius . In: Antike und Abendland 43, 1997, pp. 63–89; Anja Heilmann: Boethius' music theory and the quadrivium . Göttingen 2007, pp. 130–151.
- ↑ On the function of the legend in Boethius see Anja Heilmann: Boethius' Musiktheorie und das Quadrivium . Göttingen 2007, pp. 203-222.
- ↑ See the summary of the contents of De institutione musica in Günther Wille: Musica Romana . Amsterdam 1967, pp. 656-700, here: 687-689.
- ↑ Cassiodorus, Institutiones 2,6,3 and Variae 1,45,4.
- ↑ a b Cassiodorus, Variae 1,45,4.
- ↑ Boethius, In librum Aristotelis peri hermeneias commentarii, secunda editio 3.9 (p. 190, line 13 Meiser); see Henry Chadwick: Boethius: The Consolations of Music, Logic, Theology, and Philosophy . Oxford 1981, p. 139 f.
- ^ Bernhard Pabst: Prosimetrum . Vol. 1, Cologne 1994, p. 194 f.
- ↑ An overview of the research opinions is provided by Joachim Gruber: Boethius 1925–1998 (2nd part) . In: Lustrum 40, 1998, pp. 199-259, here: 222 f. Cf. Christine Hehle: Boethius in St. Gallen . Tübingen 2002, pp. 33-35.
- ↑ On the research opinions see Joachim Gruber: Boethius 1925–1998 (2nd part) . In: Lustrum 40, 1998, p. 223 f .; Reinhold F. Glei pleads for mere house arrest: In carcere et vinculis? Fiction and Reality in the Consolatio Philosophiae of Boethius . In: Würzburger Yearbooks for Classical Studies 22, 1998, pp. 199–213.
- ↑ Reinhold F. Glei: In carcere et vinculis? Fiction and Reality in the Consolatio Philosophiae of Boethius . In: Würzburger Yearbooks for Classical Studies 22, 1998, pp. 204–206.
- ↑ Boethius, Consolatio philosophiae 3 pr. 10.23-25. See Michael V. Dougherty: The Problem of Humana Natura in the Consolatio Philosophiae of Boethius . In: American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 78, 2004, pp. 273–292, here: 283–285 and 292.
- ↑ Boethius, Consolatio philosophiae 4 pr. 7.1-2.
- ↑ Boethius, Consolatio philosophiae 5 pr. 2.2-6. See Gerald Bechtle: The Consolation of Freedom. The fifth book of the Consolatio Philosophiae of Boethius between templates and originality . In: Philologus 150, 2006, pp. 265–289, here: 272–286; John Marenbon: Boethius . Oxford 2003, p. 123 f.
- ^ Paul-Bernd Lüttringhaus: God, freedom and necessity in the Consolatio philosophiae of Boethius . In: Albert Zimmermann (ed.): Studies on medieval intellectual history and its sources . Berlin 1982, pp. 53-101, here: 85-101.
- ↑ The significance of the echoes of Bible passages is disputed; see James Shiel: Fortiter suaviter . In: Plekos 1, 1998/1999, pp. 1–19 ( online PDF, 212 kB); Danuta Shanzer: Interpreting the Consolation . In: John Marenbon (Ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Boethius . Cambridge 2009, pp. 228-254, here: 241 f .; Henry Chadwick: Boethius: The Consolations of Music, Logic, Theology, and Philosophy . Oxford 1981, p. 237 f.
- ↑ Boethius, Consolatio philosophiae 5 pr. 6.6-14.
- ↑ On the Platonic metaphysics of Boethius see Matthias Baltes : Gott, Welt, Mensch in the Consolatio Philosophiae des Boethius . In: Matthias Baltes: Dianoemata. Small writings on Plato and Platonism . Stuttgart 1999, pp. 51-80.
- ↑ An overview of the older literature is provided by Joachim Gruber: Boethius 1925–1998 . In: Lustrum 39, 1997, p. 321 f. and 324 and Boethius 1925-1998 (2nd part) . In: Lustrum 40, 1998, pp. 232-234.
- ↑ Reinhold Glei: Poetry and Philosophy in the Consolatio Philosophiae des Boethius . In: Würzburg Yearbooks for Classical Studies 11, 1985, pp. 225–238, here: 225 and 238.
- ↑ Luca Obertello: Severino Boezio . Vol. 1, Genova 1974, pp. 257-285; Reinhold F. Glei: In carcere et vinculis? Fiction and Reality in the Consolatio Philosophiae of Boethius . In: Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswwissenschaft 22, 1998, p. 211 note 38. Henry Chadwick pleads for the authenticity of De fide catholica : The Authenticity of Boethius' Fourth Tractate, De Fide Catholica . In: The Journal of Theological Studies 31, 1980, pp. 551-556.
- ↑ Phoebe Robinson: Dead Boethius: Sixth-Century Accounts of a Future Martyr . In: Viator 35, 2004, pp. 1-19; Howard R. Patch: The Beginnings of the Legend of Boethius. In: Speculum 22, 1947, pp. 443-445.
- ↑ Silvia Albesano: Consolation Philosophiae volgare . Heidelberg 2006, pp. 27-29.
- ↑ Peter Dronke: Vita Boethii. From the Early Testimonies to Boecis . In: Dorothea Walz (Ed.): Scripturus vitam . Heidelberg 2002, pp. 287-294, here: 288-291.
- ^ Petrus Lombardus, Libri IV sententiarum , Liber IV distinctio 33 c. 1.
- ^ Helmuth-Wilhelm Heinz (ed.): Grazia di Meo, Il libro di Boeçio de chonsolazione (1343) . Frankfurt a. M. 1984, p. 7 f.
- ^ Diane K. Bolton: The Study of the Consolation of Philosophy in Anglo-Saxon England . In: Archives d'Histoire Doctrinale et Littéraire du Moyen Age 44, 1977, pp. 33-78, here: 33-35; Pierre Courcelle: The Consolation of Philosophy in the Tradition of Littéraire . Paris 1967, pp. 29-31 and 33-49.
- ↑ Bernd Bastert: Continuities of a »Classic«. On the late medieval German reception of the ›Consolatio Philosophiae‹ of Boethius. In: Manfred Eikelmann, Udo Friedrich (Hrsg.): Practices of European tradition formation in the Middle Ages: Knowledge - Literature - Myth . Berlin 2013, pp. 117–140 ( limited preview in Google book search); Manfred Eikelmann: Boethius for laypeople . In: Reinhold F. Glei, Nicola Kaminski, Franz Lebsanft (eds.): Boethius Christianus? Transformations of the Consolatio Philosophiae in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times . Berlin 2010, pp. 129–156, here: 130 f.
- ↑ Malcolm Godden, Susan Irvine (Ed.): The Old English Boethius . Vol. 1, Oxford 2009, pp. 8 and 140-151.
- ↑ Franz Lebsanft: The consolation of philosophy and the Christian virtue of humility . In: Reinhold F. Glei, Nicola Kaminski, Franz Lebsanft (eds.): Boethius Christianus? Transformations of the Consolatio Philosophiae in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times . Berlin 2010, pp. 303–331, here: 304 and note 3; Silvia Albesano: Consolatio Philosophiae volgare . Heidelberg 2006, pp. 40-45; Glynnis M. Cropp: The Medieval French Tradition . In: Maarten JFM Hoenen, Lodi Nauta (Ed.): Boethius in the Middle Ages . Leiden 1997, pp. 243-265.
- ↑ Silvia Albesano: Consolation Philosophiae volgare . Heidelberg 2006, pp. 45-53.
- ↑ Orland Grapí, Glòria Sabaté: Traducciones de Boecio en la Corona de Aragón . In: Euphrosyne 29, 2001, pp. 211-220.
- ↑ Manolis Papathomopoulos (ed.): Anicii Manlii Severini Boethii De consolatione philosophiae. Traduction grecque de Maxime Planude . Athens 1999, pp. LIV – LVIII (with references to the older literature); Nóra Fodor: The translations of Latin authors by M. Planudes . Dissertation Heidelberg 2004, pp. 200-211.
- ↑ On the glossing of the Consolatio see Joseph Wittig: The 'Remigian' Glosses on Boethius's Consolatio Philosophiae in Context . In: Charles D. Wright et al. (Ed.): Source of Wisdom: Old English and Early Medieval Latin Studies in Honor of Thomas D. Hill . Toronto 2007, pp. 168-200.
- ^ Susanna E. Fischer: Boethius Christianus sive Platonicus. Early medieval commentaries on O qui perpetua mundum ratione gubernas . In: Reinhold F. Glei, Nicola Kaminski, Franz Lebsanft (eds.): Boethius Christianus? Transformations of the Consolatio Philosophiae in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times . Berlin 2010, pp. 157–177.
- ^ Christine Hehle: Boethius in St. Gallen . Tübingen 2002, p. 50f.
- ↑ For details see the numerous documents in Bernhard Pabst: Prosimetrum . Vol. 1 and 2, Cologne 1994.
- ↑ Dante, Convivio 2.13.
- ↑ Dante, Divina Commedia , Paradiso 10, 124-129. On Dante's Boethius reception see Winthrop Wetherbee: The Consolation and medieval literature . In: John Marenbon (Ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Boethius . Cambridge 2009, pp. 279-302, here: 298-300.
- ^ Pierre Courcelle: La Consolation de Philosophie dans la tradition littéraire . Paris 1967, pp. 67-99 and 185-190; Numerous illustrations are put together in the blackboard section.
- ↑ Petrus Abelardus, Theologia Christiana 1,134.
- ^ Osmund Lewry: Boethian Logic in the Medieval West . In: Margaret Gibson (ed.): Boethius. His Life, Thought and Influence . Oxford 1981, pp. 90-134, here: 120.
- ↑ Sten Ebbesen: George Pachymeres and the Topics . In: Cahiers de l'Institut du Moyen-Age grec et latin 66, 1996, pp. 169-185.
- ^ Matthias Hochadel (ed.): Commentum Oxoniense in musicam Boethii . Munich 2002, pp. LXXIX-XC.
- ↑ See also Michael Bernhard: Tradition and survival of ancient Latin music theory in the Middle Ages . In: Frieder Zaminer (ed.): History of music theory . Volume 3: Reception of the ancient subject in the Middle Ages . Darmstadt 1990, pp. 7-35, here: 30.
- ↑ Wolfgang Bernard: On the foundation of the mathematical sciences in Boethius . In: Antike und Abendland 43, 1997, p. 64.
- ^ Anthony Grafton: Epilogue: Boethius in the Renaissance . In: Margaret Gibson (ed.): Boethius. His Life, Thought and Influence . Oxford 1981, pp. 410-414, here: 410 f.
- ↑ Valla's utterances are compiled and discussed by Edward A. Synan: Boethius, Valla, and Gibbon . In: The Modern Schoolman 69, 1991/92, pp. 475-491, here: 476 notes 8-12 and pp. 477-482. See Anthony Grafton: Epilogue: Boethius in the Renaissance . In: Margaret Gibson (ed.): Boethius. His Life, Thought and Influence . Oxford 1981, p. 411.
- ↑ See Joachim Gruber: Commentary on Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae . 2nd edition, Berlin 2006, p. 22 note 45; Anthony Grafton: Epilogue: Boethius in the Renaissance . In: Margaret Gibson (ed.): Boethius. His Life, Thought and Influence . Oxford 1981, p. 413.
- ↑ Angelo Poliziano: Liber miscellaneorum, Chapter 1.
- ↑ For use in schools, see Robert Black, Gabriella Pomaro: La consolazione della filosofia nel medioevo e nel rinascimento italiano . Firenze 2000, pp. 3-50.
- ↑ For this edition see Mauro Nasti De Vincentis: Boethiana . In: Elenchos 27, 2006, pp. 377-407, here: 405 f. and note 47.
- ↑ See this translation Deanne Williams: Boethius Goes to Court: The Consolation as Advice to Princes from Chaucer to Elizabeth I . In: Catherine E. Léglu, Stephen J. Milner (Eds.): The Erotics of Consolation . New York 2008, pp. 205-226, here: 219-223.
- ↑ Edward A. Synan: Boethius, Valla, and Gibbon . In: The Modern Schoolman 69, 1991/92, p. 477.
- ↑ Carl Prantl: History of Logic in the Occident . Vol. 1, Leipzig 1855, p. 681 f.
- ^ John Marenbon: Boethius . Oxford 2003, pp. 4-6, 20, 25-32, 94 f. and 98.
- ↑ Jonathan Barnes: Boethius and the Study of Logic . In: Margaret Gibson (ed.): Boethius. His Life, Thought and Influence . Oxford 1981, pp. 73-89, here: 79-85; James Shiel: Boethius' commentaries on Aristotle . In: Richard Sorabji (Ed.): Aristotle Transformed. The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence. 2nd, revised edition, London 2016, pp. 377–402. Cf. also Gerald Bechtle: The Consolation of Freedom. The fifth book of the Consolatio Philosophiae of Boethius between templates and originality . In: Philologus 150, 2006, pp. 265–289, here: 269f., 283–287.
- ↑ Franz Brunhölzl: History of Latin Literature in the Middle Ages . Vol. 1, Munich 1975, pp. 25-27. See Joachim Gruber: Boethius 1925–1998 . In: Lustrum 39, 1997, p. 322 f .; Edward A. Synan: Boethius, Valla, and Gibbon . In: The Modern Schoolman 69, 1991/92, pp. 475-491, here: 475 f. and 476 note 4.
- ↑ See also William Bark: The Legend of Boethius' Martyrdom . In: Speculum 21, 1946, pp. 312-317.
- ^ For example, Charles Henry Coster: Late Roman Studies . Cambridge (Massachusetts) 1968, pp. 55-85; Beat Näf: Senatorial class consciousness in late Roman times . Freiburg (Switzerland) 1995, p. 224; Luca Obertello: Severino Boezio . Vol. 1, Genova 1974, pp. 87-120; John Marenbon: Boethius . Oxford 2003, p. 9 f .; Hermann Tränkle: Philological remarks on the Boethius trial . In: Manfred Fuhrmann, Joachim Gruber (eds.): Boethius . Darmstadt 1984, pp. 54-59 and 63.
- ^ William Bark: Theoderic vs. Boethius: Vindication and Apology . In: The American Historical Review 49, 1944, pp. 410-426, here: 423-426.
- ^ For example, Frank M. Ausbüttel: Theodoric the Great . Darmstadt 2003, p. 133 f .; Johannes Sundwall: Treatises on the history of late Romanism . Helsingfors 1919, pp. 240 and 245; John Marenbon: Boethius . Oxford 2003, p. 10. Cf. Christoph Schäfer: The Western Roman Senate as the bearer of ancient continuity under the Ostrogothic kings (490-540 AD) . St. Katharinen 1991, p. 247 and Andreas Goltz: Barbar - König - Tyrann , Berlin 2008, p. 357 and 360 f.
- ^ Andreas Goltz: Barbarian - King - Tyrant . Berlin 2008, p. 374.
- ↑ This view is represented by Frank M. Anbüttel: Theoderich der Große . Darmstadt 2003, p. 135, Charles Henry Coster: The Iudicium Quinquevirale . Cambridge (Massachusetts) 1935, pp. 53 and 60 and particularly emphatically Hermann Tränkle: Philological remarks on the Boethius trial . In: Manfred Fuhrmann, Joachim Gruber (eds.): Boethius . Darmstadt 1984, pp. 61-63. Christoph Schäfer judges differently: The Western Roman Senate as the bearer of ancient continuity under the Ostrogothic kings (490-540 AD) . St. Katharinen 1991, pp. 254 and 261 f .; he believes that the procedure was carried out “correctly according to the law and statutes in force and without arbitrary intervention by the king” (p. 262). Compare Andreas Goltz: barbarian - king - tyrant . Berlin 2008, pp. 359–361, who occupies a middle position on this question.
- ↑ Erik Bach: Théodoric, Romain ou Barbare? In: Byzantion 25-27, 1955-1957, pp. 413-420, here: 418-420; John Moorhead: The Last Years of Theoderic . In: Historia 32, 1983, pp. 106-120, here: 117-120; Reinhold F. Glei: In carcere et vinculis? Fiction and Reality in the Consolatio Philosophiae of Boethius . In: Würzburger Yearbooks for Classical Studies 22, 1998, p. 207; Thomas S. Burns: A History of the Ostrogoths . Bloomington 1984, pp. 104 f.
- ↑ Christoph Schäfer: The Western Roman Senate as the bearer of ancient continuity under the Ostrogothic kings (490-540 AD) . St. Katharinen 1991, p. 261 f .; Herwig Wolfram : The Goths . 3rd edition, Munich 1990, p. 331; Andreas Goltz: barbarian - king - tyrant . Berlin 2008, pp. 374-376.
- ^ Andreas Goltz: Barbarian - King - Tyrant . Berlin 2008, pp. 375-400.
|ALTERNATIVE NAMES||Boethius, Anicius Manlius Severinus|
|BRIEF DESCRIPTION||late antique Roman philosopher|
|DATE OF BIRTH||at 480|
|DATE OF DEATH||between 524 and 526|
|Place of death||Pavia or Calvenzano , Bergamo Province|