as Boetius calls them) on arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy. The statement of Cassiodorus that he trans lated Nicomachus is rhetorical. Boetius himself tells us in his preface addressed to his father-in-law Symmachus that he had taken liberties with the text of Nicomachus, that he had abridged the work when necessary, and that he had introduced formulce and diagrams of his own where he thought them useful for bringing out the meaning. His work on music also is not a translation from Pythagoras, who left no writing behind him. But Boetius belonged to the school of musical writers who based their science on the method of Pythagoras. They thought that it was not sufficient to trust to the ear alone, to determine the prin ciples of music, as did practical musicians like Aristoxenus, but that along with the ear, physical experiments should be employed. The work of Boetius is in five books, and in a very complete exposition of the subject. It remained a text-book of music in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge till within comparatively recent times. It is still very valuable as a help in ascertaining the principles of ancient music, and gives us the opinions of some of the best ancient writers on the art. The manuscripts of the geometry of Boetius differ widely from each other. The latest editor, Godofredus Friedlein, thinks that there are only two manuscripts which can at all lay claim to con tain the work of Boetius. He has published the Ars Geometrice, in tvo books, as given in these manuscripts ; but critics are generally inclined to doubt the genuineness
even of these.By far the most important and most famous of the works of Boetius is his book De Consolatione Philosophic . Gib bon justly describes it as " a golden volume, not unworthy of the leisure of Plato or Tully, but which claims incom parable merit from the barbarism of the times and the situation of the author." It was a favourite book of the Middle Ages, and deserves to be a favourite still. The high reputation it had in mediaeval times is attested by the numerous translations, commentaries, and imitations of it which then appeared. Among others Asser, the instructor of Alfred the Great, and Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln, commented on it. Alfred translated it into Angle- Saxon. Versions of it appeared in German, French, Italian, Spanish, and Greek before the end of the 15th century. Chaucer translated it into English prose before the year 1382 ; and this translation was published by Caxton at Westminster, 1480. Lydgate followed in the wake of Chaucer. It is said that, after the invention of printing, amongst others Queen Elizabeth translated it, and that the work was well known to Shakespeare.
This famous work consists of five books. Its form is peculiar, and is an imitation of a similar work by Marcianus Capella, De Nvptiis Philologioc ct Mcrcurii It is alternately in prose and verse. The verse shows great facility of metrical composition, but a con siderable portion of it is transferred from the tragedies of Seneca. The first book opens with a few verses, in which Boetius describes how his sorrows had turned his hair grey, and had brought him to a premature old age. As he is thus lamenting, a woman appears to him of dignified mien, whom for a time he cannot distinguish in con sequence of his tears, but at last he recognizes her as his guardian, Philosophy. She, resolving to apply the remedy for his grief, puts some questions to him for that purpose. She finds that he believes that God rules the world, but does not know what he himself is ; and this absence of self-knowledge is the cause of his weakness. In the second book Philosophy presents to Boetius Fortune, who is made to state to him the blessings he has enjoyed, and after that proceeds to discuss with him the kind of blessings that fortune can bestow, which are shown to be unsatisfactory and uncertain. In the third book Philosophy promises to lead him to true happiness, which is to be found in God alone, for since God is the highest good, and the highest good is true happiness, God is true happiness. Nor can real evil exist, for since God is all-powerful, and since he does not wish evil, evil must be non-existent. In the fourth book Boetius raises the question, Why, if the governor of the universe is good, do evils exist, and why is virtue often punished and vice rewarded ? Philo sophy proceeds to show that this takes place only in appearance ; that vice is never unpunished nor virtue unrewarded. From this Philo sophy passes into a discussion in regard to the nature of providence and fate, and shows that every fortune is good. The fifth and last book takes up the question of man s free will and God s foreknow ledge, and, by an exposition of the nature of God, attempts to show- that these doctrines are not subversive of each other ; and the con clusion is drawn that God remains a foreknowing spectator of all events, and the ever-present eternity of his vision agrees with the future quality of our actions, dispensing rewards to the good and punishments to the wicked.
Several theological works have been ascribed to Boetius, as has been already mentioned. The Consolatio affords coaclusive proof that the author was not a practical believer in Christianity. The book contains several expressions, such as daemoncs, angelica virtus, and pttrgatoria dementia, -which have been thought to be derived from the Christian faith ; but they are used in a heathen sense, and are explained sufficiently by the circumstance that Boetius was on intimate terms with Christians, and could not help being influenced to some extent by their language. The writer nowhere finds con solation in any Christian belief, and Christ is never named in the work. It is not impossible, however, that Boetius may have been brought up a Christian, and that in his early years he may have written some Christian books. This is the conjecture to which the latest editor of his Christian treatises has had recourse. Peiper thinks that the first three treatises are the productions of the early years of Boetius. The first, De Sancta Trinitatt, is addressed to Symmachus (Domino Patri Symmacho), and the result of the short discussion, which is of an abstract nature, and deals partly with the ten categories, is that unity is predicated absolutely, or, in regard to the substance of the Deity, trinity is predicated relatively. The second treatise is addressed to John the deacon ("Ad Joannem Diaconum"), and its subject is "Utrum Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus de diviuitate substantialiterprffidicentur." The treatise is shorter than the former, occupying only two or three pages, and the conclusion of the argument is the same. The third treatise bears the title, Quomodo mlstantice in eo quod sint bonce sint cum noTi sint substantialia bona. It contains nothing distinctly Christian, and it contains nothing of great value ; therefore its authorship is a matter of little consequence. Peiper thinks that, as the best MSS. uniformly assign these treatises to Boetius, they are to be regarded as his ; that it is probable that Symmachus and John (who afterwards became Pope) were the men of highest distinction who took charge of him when he lost his father ; and that these treatises are the first-fruits of his studies, which he dedicates to his guardians and benefactors. He thinks that the variations in the inscriptions of the fifth treatise, which is not found in the best manuscript, are so great that the name of Boetius could not have originally been in the title. The fourth book is also not found in the best manuscript, and two manuscripts have no inscription. He infers, from these facts, that there is no sure evidence for the authorship of the fourth and fifth treatises. The fifth treatise is Contra Eutyclien ct Nestorium. Both Eutyches and Nestorius are spoken of as living. A council is mentioned, in which a letter was read, expounding the opinion of the Eutychians for the first time. The novelty of the opinion is also alluded to. All these circumstances point to the Council of Chalcedon (451). The treatise was therefore written before the birth of Boetius, if it be not a forgery ; but there is no reason to suppose that the treatise was not a genuine production of the time to which it professes to belong. The fourth treatise, De Fide Catholica, does not contain any distinct chronological data; but the tone and opinions of the treatise produce the impres sion that it probably belonged to the same period as the treatise against Eutyches and Nestorius. Several inscriptions ascribe both these treatises to Boetius. It will be seen from this statement that Peiper bases his conclusions on grounds far too narrow; and on the whole it is far more probable that Boetius wrote none of the four Christian treatises, particularly as they are not ascribed to him by any of his contemporaries. Three of them express in the strongest language the orthodox faith of the church in opposition to the Arian heresy, and these three put in unmistakable language the procession of the Holy Spirit from both Father and Son. The fourth argues for the orthodox belief of the two natures and one person of Christ. When the desire arose that it should be believed that Boetius perished from his opposition to the heresy of Theodoric, it was natural to ascribe to him works which were in harmony with this supposed fact. The works may really have been written by one Boethus, a bishop of Africa, as Jourdain supposes, or by some Saint Severinus, as Nitzsch conjectures, and the similarity of name may have aided the transference of them to the heathen or neutral Boetius.
The best editions of the entire works of Boetius are the Basel edition of 1570, and Migne s in his Patrologicc Cursus Completus, Series Latina, vols. Ixiii., Ixiv. There are many editions of the De Consolatione. The most recent are (1.) In Valpy s DelpMn Classics, Nos. 54 and 55. This contains the lives of Boetius by Bertius and
