Boethius: The Consolation Of Philosophy Essay, Research Paper
Literary Patterns of European Developement
Trinity College
The Consolation of Philosophy was written in the early 6th century by Boethius.
A statesman and intellectual, well educated in liberal arts, Boethius fell from the favor of
the Gothic emperor Theodoric, under false charges of treason by his enemies. He was
imprisoned in Pavia, and while there used his time to reflect on his situation and attempt
to answer many of the questions which have plagued human kind throughout history.
The text is written in the form of a dialogue with Philosophy, who appears in the form of
a woman and represents that part of Boethius? mind which has strayed during his difficult
ordeal.
One of the possible enigmas of this text surrounds the title. Boethius wrote this
piece during his confinement, and was certainly very aware of the fate which awaited
him; he knew he would be executed. We know that Boethius was at least to some
degree, a religious man, and several works of Christian writing are ascribed to him. ?He
is also accredited with five small works…of theology, the authenticity of at least four of
which is beyond a doubt. They are completely orthodox in doctrine…?(p.13) One may
reasonably ask why Boethius chose philosophy, and not his religion, to console him in
those final months of his life. It seems that a Christian would find the most comfort in
his religion and his God, rather than exercises in logic and reason. But I would contend
that the reason Boethius finds consolation in philosophy is for the very reason that
philosophy leads him back to the God from which he has strayed.
While it may seem quite unreasonable that the basic logic of philosophy would
lead a person to that which by its very nature is illogical, Boethius has no problem using
philosophy as a conduit to God. From several statements made within The Consolation,
one might safely assume that Boethius saw a very strong relationship between reason and
belief in God. The beginning of the book depicts a Boethius who is so enamored by the
Muses of Poetry that he has forgotten his own sense of reason, and thus fails to even
recognize Philosophy when she comes to his aid. In Book II, Boethius explains the
importance of philosophy in life. ?So soon as your words stop sounding in our ears, the
mind is weighed down again by its deep seated melancholy.?(p.59) This is to say that
when philosophy leaves us, things tend to seem quite desperate.
Philosophy diagnoses Boethius? problems as a fixation on the loss of good
fortune. ?…you are wasting away in pining and longing for your former good fortune. It
is the loss of this which, as your imagination works upon you, has so corrupted your
mind.?(p.54) The mention of the imagination here is somewhat of a foreshadowing of
the conclusions drawn later in the book concerning the nature of Fortune. Philosophy
reminds Boethius that in better times, he would never have submitted himself to the
friendship of Fortune. ?It used to be your way whenever she came near with her flattery
to attack her with manly arguments and hound her with pronouncements taken from the
oracle of my shrine.?(p.54) This would suggest that Boethius sees philosophy, that is
reason, to be somewhat opposed to Fortune.
The portrayal of Fortune by Philosophy is all-together unattractive. In his
discovery of the ?changing faces of the random goddess,? Philosophy explains that
Boethius has perceived Fortune?s true nature. ?…To you she has revealed herself to the
full.?(p.55) Philosophy reminds Boethius that it is by virtue of her perpetually changing
behavior that Fortune, in fact, does not change but always stays the same. Thus we
should expect nothing more from her than complete capriciousness. Philosophy
concludes her discourse on Fortune with the following sentiments: ?She has nothing
worth pursuing, and no trace of intrinsic good; she never associates with good men and
does not turn into good men those with whom she does associate.? (p.72)
Now, assuming that Boethius normally subscribes to philosophy, which is reason,
and thus in this subscription denounces Fortune, which is chance, he thus rejects chance
and embraces an ordered reality. In Book IV, Boethius tells Philosophy that she is truly
the guide to ?the light.?
?You,? I said, ?who are my leader towards the true light, all
that you have poured forth in speech up to now has been
clearly both divine to contemplate and invincibly supported
by your arguments. You have spoken of things I had
forgotten because of the pain of what I had suffered…? (p.116)
The light which Boethius speaks of is God, whom he associates with perfection and
order. ?I could never believe that events of such regularity are due to the haphazards of
chance. In fact I know that God the Creator watches over His creation.? (p.50) Thus it
should not seem altogether strange that Boethius, through the character of Philosophy,
attacks Fortune and everything she stands for. He realizes that belief in Fortune has lead
him away from the philosophic reasoning which helps him to maintain his sanity and
composure.
All of these ideas imply another truth which Boethius clearly came to
understand while he was imprisoned. The idea that mental stress and anxiety causes us
to stray from philosophy and thus reason relates well to the idea that humans often forget
God in the face of tribulation. Belief in the ideals of fortune, subscribing to the belief
that our lives are little more than a collection of haphazard transpirations, has the
potential to drive a person quite mad. Without the conviction that all things happen for a
reason, an idea which comes from a belief in the existence of some divine orderer, a
person will easily forget the precepts of philosophic reason and loose sight of himself and
his reality.
In his confinement, Boethius began questioning all of those things in life which
are the most nebulous and confounding. One of those issues concerns the idea of good
and evil, and in the end it boils down to the most basic question, namely “If there is a
God, why do bad things happen to good people?” Boethius questions the justice of the
universe, and in doing so prompts philosophy into a justification of such seemingly unjust
occurrences.
Why this is all turned upside down, why good men are
oppressed by punishments reserved for crime and that
men can snatch the rewards that belong to virtue surprises
me very much, and I would like to know from you the
reason for this very unjust confusion. (p.133)
From earlier discussions regarding happiness, we can gather that Boethius has
somewhat dealt with this problem. Philosophy points out that all men, good or bad,
attempt to find happiness through their actions. She then reasons that happiness is good.
“…Happiness is a state made perfect by the presence of everything that is good.”(p.79)
Thus men who desire happiness also desire God, and the most supreme and perfect good
is God. “Since nothing can be conceived better than God, everyone agrees that that
which has no superior is good. Reasons shows that God is so good that we are convinced
that his goodness is perfect.”(p.99) Thus, God is the essence of happiness. But since men
desire things for happiness and happiness equals goodness, then trying to obtain
happiness through evil goes against nature, and so the evil are never really happy.
Furthermore, it thus follows that since good and evil are opposed, and God is Supreme
goodness and happiness, there is no true happiness for the evil because they are in
constant opposition to God.
This argument is far from convincing. It is difficult to accept that those people
who rob and steal from others and get away with it do not derive some happiness from
their actions. Furthermore, the idea of false happiness, which Boethius attributes to both
the gifts of Fortune and such material concerns as wealth and power, is difficult to
distinguish on the most basic levels from any other sort of earthly happiness, especially
when the end of both types is a satisfaction of sorts. With this separation between true
and false happiness, Boethius reasons that life is indeed fair, since the bad never really
find true happiness, but instead only false happiness if any at all. ?…riches are unable to
quench insatiable greed; power does not make a man master of himself if he is
imprisoned by the indissoluble chains of wicked lusts; and when high office is bestowed
on unworthy men, so far from making them worthy, it only betrays them and reveals their
unworthiness…?(p.71)
Boethius takes all of this step further when he deduces that evil does not exist.
“Evil is nothing, since that is what he cannot do who can do everything.”(p.112) He
makes no attempt, however, to answer the next logical question, namely, “If evil is
nothing, and evil men are powerless, then why do men do bad things and how is it that
such people have the power to affect the lives of others?” Similarly, after Boethius has
reasoned that evil is nothing, he tells us that the bad people should be pitted because
divine justice does, in fact, cause them much suffering. “…For just as weakness is a
disease of the body, so wickedness is a disease of the mind. And if this is so, since we
think of people who are sick in body as deserving sympathy rather than hatred, much
more so do they deserve pity rather than blame who suffer evil more severe than an
physical illness.” (p.132)
The book ends with a discussion of fate verses free will, a topic on which I feel
Boethius is not altogether convincing. He clearly creeps around the topic, carefully
deducing certain aspects while contriving others. By nature of his earlier statements
concerning the nature of the divine, we know that Boethius believes that the world is
ordered in some way, and that things don?t just happen purely at random. This still
leaves the question of how ordered things are, in other words, it is just the nature of the
universe that is ordered, or are the lives of human beings also ordered in some way?
To some degree, it seems somewhat unreasonable that such an omnipotent God as
earlier described by Boethius would not have some type of knowledge of earthly events,
most probably foreknowledge of future events. While Boethius admits that this must be
a truth, he seems rather uncomfortable with the implications of such a truth. Clearly, it
seems that if God has foreknowledge of future events, there cannot be any free will on
earth.
Well, the two seem clean contrary and opposite, God?s universal
foreknowledge and freedom of the will. If God foresees all things
and cannot be mistaken in any way, what Providence has foreseen
as a future event must happen. So that if from eternity Providence
foreknows not only men?s actions but also their thoughts and
desires, there will be no freedom of will.(p.150)
Boethius also reasons that in light of universal foreknowledge, prayer and hope are rather
useless, because the reason behind people?s prayers and hope is the desire to influence
the course of some future event. Furthermore, since prayer is in many respects the only
link between the divine and humanity, ?the one and only means of communication
between man and God is removed…?(p.153) The implication here follows as such: if
prayer and hope have no power to influence the future, then prayer has no power at all,
and if prayer has no power, then it is useless to pray, and so humans are basically cut off
from the divine.
I do not find that divine foreknowledge makes hope and prayer completely
powerless. Earlier in the book, Philosophy reminds Boethius that although humans do
not understand God?s plan, this fact should not lead to doubt concerning the inherent
goodness of all things. ?But even if you don?t know the reasons behind the great plan of
the universe, there is no need for you to doubt that a good power rules the world and that
everything happens all right.?(p.133) And while many believers subscribe to the idea
that God is good and that everything eventually works out in the end, this does not keep
people from continually asking God for the very thing which they basically accept will
happen anyway. It seems to me that knowledge of divine foreknowledge does not tell us
anything about the future, only that everything will definitely happen precisely according
to plan. While this makes it impossible to change the future through prayer, people will
continue to hope and pray that the outcome of events plays in their favor, just as people
who took a test three weeks ago hope they got a good grade as they open the envelope to
see the results. This is not prayer to influence the outcome, but rather a hope that the
outcome is favorable.
In his attempt to explain the forces which govern the universe, Boethius considers
the idea that ?foreknowledge does not necessarily impose necessity upon the future, and
that freedom of the will is not infringed by foreknowledge.?(p.155) And while Boethius
is clearly uncomfortable with the idea that free will does not exist, he seems equally
unsettled by the separation of divine foreknowledge and necessity of events. On page
151, Philosophy attempts to illustrate that foreknowledge does impose a kind of necessity
on the future. ?But what I am trying to show is that, whatever the order of the causes, the
coming to pass of things foreknown is necessary even if the foreknowledge of future
events does not seem to impose necessity on them.?(p.151) Then on page 155,
Philosophy tells Boethius that he should not discredit this idea that foreknowledge and
necessity can be separated. ?Take the case of those who believe that foreknowledge does
not impose necessity upon the future…I would like to know why you consider their
reasoning ineffective.?(p.155)
We must try to keep in mind that Boethius is, in reality, debating with himself, or
more specifically, his philosophic reason. But at this point, the character in his mind
appears to be contradicting herself. This would indicate that Boethius reasons both
concepts as somewhat true, and in response, formulates a conclusion which incorporates
both divine foreknowledge and human freedom of will. While this might not make much
sense to most people, (I don?t believe it made much sense to him) Boethius circumvents
this problem in one statement. ?…human reason refuses to believe that divine
intelligence can see the future in any other way except that in which human reason has
knowledge.?(p.162) In other words, we cannot know the mind of God.
One might reasonably think that with this revelation, Boethius would stop trying
to figure things out, but he perseveres, and begins to discuss the nature of God?s
knowledge.
…since the sate of God is ever that of eternal presence, His
knowledge, too, transcends all temporal change and abides
in the immediacy of His presence. It embraces all the infinite
recesses of past and future and views them in the immediacy
of its knowing as though they are happening in the present….
(p.165)
This leads to the explanation that God?s knowledge should not be thought of as
foreknowledge of the future, but instead as ?the knowledge of a never ending
presence.?(p.165) It seems to me that since human beings don?t live with regard to a
perpetual presence, the fact that God may view time in that way has no bearing on us.
What is eternal presence to Him is the most definitely the past and future in this realm of
existence. Consequently, while God may consider His knowledge to be in the present,
that knowledge is of our futures, and thus translated brings us right back to the idea of
divine foreknowledge.
On this point, Boethius and I concur. He agrees that the knowledge of the divine
is in fact foreknowledge and that all things which the divine foresees happen necessarily.
If you say at this point that what God sees as a future event
cannot but happen, and what cannot but happen, happens of
necessity, and if you bind me to this word necessity, I shall have
to admit that it is a matter of the firmest truth, nut one which
scarcely anyone except a student of divinity has been able to
fathom. I shall answer that the same future event is necessary
when considered with reference to divine foreknowledge, and yet
seems to be completely free and unrestricted when considered
in itself…(p.166)
This is to say that while things may have the appearance of being the products of free
will, they are in fact all part of the plan, foreseen by God and occurring in accordance
with that which only He knows. While Boethius must admit that free will exists only in
the minds of humans, he maintains that things are not deprived of their true nature by the
necessity of their happening. ?In spite of the fact that they do happen, their existence
does not deprive them of their true nature, in virtue of which the possibility of their
non-occurrence existed before they happened.?(p.167)
The major themes of The Consolation of Philosophy can be summarized as
follows. While it is true that the upright often suffer and the corrupt often take much
pleasure in their lives, justice is always served by virtue of the fact that goodness is its
own reward, while the wicked never find true happiness, because happiness is goodness
and goodness is God. Evil is nothing and has no power, but the wicked derive their
power from weakness. Fortune is a fickle goddess whom is neither to be trusted nor
associated with. God views time as a perpetual presence, and consequently does not
foresee the future, but rather always knows the present. But the present time of God is
sometimes the future of humans, so God knows the future and thus things happen out of
necessity. But just because all things happen out of necessity doesn?t mean that their
ability to not happen is taken away; it just couldn?t possibly happen.
One may reasonably conclude that many parts of the book seem confused and
contradictory. His logic often seems to manipulate reason, and the conclusions drawn
from such logic may appear contrived and largely unbelievable. But one must consider
the fact that Boethius was facing the eminence of death as he wrote this, and certainly
felt the necessity to find the answers to those philosophical questions he?d been asking all
his life. Even if the answers he found may not be convincing to a reader of this work, it
does propose some very interesting solutions and is certainly worth reading if only for the
fact that it will inevitably lead the one questioning his own convictions on such obscure
topics. One might safely assume that Boethius was writing this largely for his own
benefit. If this is true, then clearly the most important thing is not that he convinces his
audiences through time, but that he himself believed these things and found peace and
consolation in his thoughts and words.