Boethius: Translation, Transfer, and Transport
Many scholars over the years, confronting the heterogeneous group of texts attributed to Boethius, argued that they were written by different authors or were written by one author whose views have undergone a fairly radical transformation between the writing of the tractates and the Consolation.1 Since it has become widely accepted that Boethius is the author of all the works of logic, theology, and philosophy traditionally attributed to him, the debates about Boethius that have been the most lively are about his religion and ultimate philosophical sources and allegiances. For some he is an Augustinian,2 for others a Christian adapting his Platonism to Christianity;3 for still others he is an Alexandrian Platonist,4 a Stoic,5 or stoicized Platonist.6 In a way all these debates about Boethius’s originality, the unity of his authorship, his ultimate sources, and commitments are about the same thing: how do we read across this collection of very different texts?
KeywordsGood Fortune Divine Nature Cage Bird Aristotelian View Divine Foreknowledge
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.E.T. Silk, “Boethius’ Consolation as a Sequel to Augustine’s Dialogues and Soliloquia,” Harvard Theological Review 32 (1939): 19–39. See also Mark Burrows, “Another Look at the Sources of De consolatione philosophiae: Boethius’ Echo of Augustine’s Doctrine of Providencia,” Proceedings of the Patristic, Medieval and Renaissance Conference 11 (1986): 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.R. Carton, “Le christianisme et l’augustinisme de Boece,” in Mélanges Augustiniens (Paris: Riviere, 1931), pp. 243–329.Google Scholar
- 6.C.J. de Vogel, “The Problem of Philosophy and Christian faith in Boethius’ Consolatio,” in Romanitas et Christianitas (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1973), p. 367.Google Scholar
- 16.Brian Stock, The Implications of Literacy: Written Languages and Models of Interpretation in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), p. 372.Google Scholar
- 46.Ralph Mclnerny, Boethius and Aquinas (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1990).Google Scholar
- 47.Pierre Hadot, “La Distinction de Fêtre et de l’etant dans le ‘De hebdomadibus’ de Boèce,” Miscellanea Mediaevalia 2 (1963): 150. Cf. Obertello, Boezio, pp. 638–52.Google Scholar