Never too Late to Read Classics discussion

Step back to the 6th century CE to explore The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius. In the linked Penguin Classics edition, the book comes at about 150 pages long but may still urge you to think about your morals and choices. With his impressions upon Chaucer and Dante, this might appeal to readers interested in The Canterbury Tales or The Divine Comedy: Inferno - Purgatorio - Paradiso.

From GR: Boethius was an eminent public figure under the Gothic emperor Theodoric, and an exceptional Greek scholar. When he became involved in a conspiracy and was imprisoned in Pavia, it was to the Greek philosophers that he turned. The Consolation was written in the period leading up to his brutal execution. It is a dialogue of alternating prose and verse between the ailing prisoner and his 'nurse' Philosophy. Her instruction on the nature of fortune and happiness, good and evil, fate and free will, restore his health and bring him to enlightenment. The Consolation was extremely popular throughout medieval Europe and his ideas were influential on the thought of Chaucer and Dante.

Yes, an interesting book. I am going to read it at last!

So am I!

I'm reading David Slavitt's translation. I was interested in this because of the topic itself as well as because of how influential Boethius was on medieval thinkers; I find myself continuing to read it mostly for the latter.

I just finished Book IV and, though I agreed with the first half of the book (where it's argued that it's better to pursue virtue than it is to lust after power and wealth, for instance), I'm finding the second half frustrating. I understand that Boethius was deliberately using circular reasoning, for example, and I (am trying to) appreciate what he's doing with it - but from a modern mindset, educated and now working in an environment where tautologies are anathema, it can be a struggle for me to accept some of his arguments on their own terms.

For another example: Redefining "happiness", "being good" and "having power" so that they all actually mean the same thing - and taking it as a given that, because "suffering", "being evil" and "being powerless" are their opposites, people must be either wholly good or wholly evil - does lead to the conclusion that it is impossible for someone good to "suffer" (even if they think otherwise), and impossible for someone evil to "be happy" (even if they think otherwise). But that's if you accept those premises, and even though they did seem to console Boethius, they seem absurd to me, and almost irrelevant to the original problem despite (ostensibly) using the same language. In Boethius' own words, via Slavitt, "whichever way you come down, this is not the question we were addressing".

But Lady Philosophy also says that the common people, who use the common definitions of words, will not accept her arguments - I suppose just have to accept I'm one of those, ha-ha. And I'm still achieving what I set out to do with learning about the mindset of Boethius and his followers, even if it's not one I'm comfortable with myself :)

Vince wrote: "I'm reading David Slavitt's translation. I was interested in this because of the topic itself as well as because of how influential Boethius was on medieval thinkers; I find myself continuing to re..."

Interesting thoughts Vince! Thank you for sharing.

I've read Book 4 and know exactly what you mean, Vince!
It's not consoling at all and Lady Philosophy just doesn't get it. Pain and suffering are real.

I've finished it. The first two books were the most interesting.