Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Okay, here we go with what has been called the second most influential book (second only to the Bible) in Western thought for over a thousand years.

Book 1 starts with Boethius in prison lamenting his fate.

The Consolation, as you know by now, is written in alternate sections of verse and prose, known as satura. This is a format unfamiliar to us today, but it had been used by at least several previous authors that we surviving have works from.

I have my theory on why he wrote in this even than relatively unusual format, but welcome the views of others. What do you think? What if anything does it add to the work? Why did he choose this format?

[Originally posted in wrong thread, sorry if you get it twice.]

It's from an entirely different tradition, but the Lotus Sutra is written the same way. The verses more closely reiterate the contents of the prose passages than Boethius does, but I wonder if the purpose could be similar -- to provide a more easily memorized and recited form of the work.

I was quite surprised to find a work of philosophy to be written in such a format as this. And it did come to be rather refreshing in its way. For I find often times while philosophy is interesting, philosophers do not always make the best writers.

I think some of the advantages to choosing to right in this form is that it does have more of an emotional appeal to the reader, at least for me, and connects to the reader in a much more personal way than if it were written just as an easy, or diction of his thoughts. Within the use of poetry there is more feeling which can come across.

And I think that the way of switching back and forth between the poetry and prose gives it an almost conversational feeling to it.

I also really like how even the prose segments are almost lyrical in nature, and when reading have such a an easy flow to them. It is not at all tedious as I find reading philosophy can often be.

According the link posted about medieval times, there was “an interesting blend of Greek and Christian views to the degree that thinkers of this period were able to make them compatible” (Feiser).

Perhaps Boethius alternates between poetry and prose so the reader has a visual cue to this blending of Greek and Christian viewpoints. If I recall, a number of Greek texts start with an invocation of the muses, like Boethius’ first poem here. However, the first thing that Philosophy does is chase away those muses. Perhaps she is representative of the modern (relatively speaking) Christian era repressing the ancient “pagan” ideas.

As far as personal opinion (or feeling) goes, I am inclined to agree with Silver; and from a theoretical standpoint I think Darryl is on to something.

While reading, I started viewing the poetry as introductions to the succeeding sections of the book. Or rather a summary of what was going to be discussed next. I believe Republic did this also, though not in poetry form. Each chapter was summed up in the beginning. The poetry is certainly an elegant way to open each chapter/section and, as Silver said, has a much greater "emotional appeal."

Some noteworthy humor: As I'm typing this and thinking of other ways Boethius could have introduced new concepts, all I can think of is Rod Serling. "Picture if you will a man, down and out. Confined by chains, left with only the dirt beneath him to contemplate. An angel enters, the proverbial savior, Philosophy. Her guidance not truth, but thought and speculation. Not wings, but book covers. Her home, not Heaven...but the Twilight Zone."

Indeed, poetry was the better choice.

So far, I have just enjoyed the alternation of forms and not pondered the how and why. (I don't know why, but in form, it reminds me of Pushkin's Eugene Onegin , perhaps simply because I have read that in both (translated) poetry and prose.)

Darryl wrote: "However, the first thing that Philosophy does is chase away those muses. Perhaps she is representative of the modern (relatively speaking) Christian era repressing the ancient “pagan” ideas. "

Interesting idea. Plato, though, as we will see in the Republic, banished the poets from his society because they appealed too strongly to the emotions instead of to the intellect. So it could also have been Philosophy reaching back to Plato.

Interesting ideas all! I'll add one more, while openly admitting that I don't know.

Boethius starts in Poem 1 by talking about how poetry had been his source of happiness. We know that he was also a lover of philosophy. Is he in this format appealing to both his passions, poetry and philosophy? That possibility had occurred to me early in Book 1. Don't know whether it will hold up as we continue.

Everyman wrote: "Plato, though, as we will see in the Republic, banished the poets from his society because they appealed too strongly to the emotions instead of to the intellect. So it could also have been Philosophy reaching back to Plato.

But isn't it odd that Socrates quotes poetry at great length in the process? Perhaps Boethius is taking a page from Plato's book. Philosophy inveighs against the "hysterical" Muses, and they depart with downcast eyes. Boethius weeps. And then Philosophy recites... poetry.

This is a kind of mercy, I think. The ladder of steps on Philosophy's dress is reminiscent of Diotima's ladder in Plato's Symposium. I think this implies that she is going to provide a gradual ascent for Boethius. It starts with what is familiar and comfortable for him -- poetry -- but over time Philosophy will slowly wean him from the sensuality of poetry and he will ascend the ladder to a more rational understanding. Perhaps Philosophy thinks that this is the proper function of poetry.

Bill wrote: "I don't see that Philosophy disapproves of Poetry in any way. She does not banish poetry. In fact she sings (bewails) Song 2 herself. It is the muses of poetry that she banishes .."

Nice point.

Bill wrote: "I don't see that Philosophy disapproves of Poetry in any way. She does not banish poetry. In fact she sings (bewails) Song 2 herself. It is the muses of poetry that she banishes and replaces th..."

Bill, you answered my question before I had time to pose it. Great analysis!

Bill wrote from song 1:

Friends, why did ye once so lightly
Vaunt me happy among men?
Surely he who so hath fallen
Was not firmly founded then.

Does this mean that happiness which is subject to circumstances is not real happiness?

I do not think he is necessary saying that circumstantial happiness is not true happiness, to me it seems more so that he has come to a point of such misery now that it is hard for him to fathom that he ever could have been happy. He cannot comprehend looking back upon days when any may have perceived him as being a happy man becasue his despair now is so utter and complete the thought of himself as having ever been happy is not within his grasp and not comprehensible.

I am going to hold on to this question as I read. I suspect we will be shown that true happiness comes not from worldly possessions and accomplishments, but from something higher. We shall see.Silver wrote: "Bill wrote from song 1:

Friends, why did ye once so lightly
Vaunt me happy among men?
Surely he who so hath fallen
Was not firmly founded then.

Does this mean that happiness which is subje..."

Philosophy in this first part reminds me strongly of Wisdom in the book of Proverbs. Check Proverbs 1 in any Bible and see if you agree.

Silver wrote: "Bill wrote from song 1:

Friends, why did ye once so lightly
Vaunt me happy among men?
Surely he who so hath fallen
Was not firmly founded then.

Does this mean that happiness which is subje..."

Taking into consideration the lines that precede these,

Since Fortune changed her trustless countenance,
Small welcome to the days prolonging life.

it sounds like the old Solonic maxim: "Count no man happy until he is dead."

Bill wrote: "She seems to not be subject to time--so is eternal. Her stature is difficult to judge, pierces into the very heavens and confuses those who look on her.
Is Boethius taking the position that Philosophy, for human beings, cannot be definitive?
"

Great question. I took it to mean that Philosophy is both physical and metaphysical, or both practical and speculative. But I'm not sure.

Thomas wrote: "This is a kind of mercy, I think. The ladder of steps on Philosophy's dress is reminiscent of Diotima's ladder in Plato's Symposium. I think this implies that she is going to provide a gradual ascent for Boethius. It starts with what is familiar and comfortable for him -- poetry -- but over time Philosophy will slowly wean him from the sensuality of poetry and he will ascend the ladder to a more rational understanding. Perhaps Philosophy thinks that this is the proper function of poetry. "

This makes a lot of sense, at least at this point in the book. Clearly it seems that Philosophy intends to lead him gently somewhere -- the where is going to be the interesting question as our reading progresses.

Bill wrote:

"Friends, why did ye once so lightly
Vaunt me happy among men?
Surely he who so hath fallen
Was not firmly founded then.

Does this mean that happiness which is subject to circumstances is not real happiness?."

I'm not sure that it wasn't real happiness, but perhaps that some happiness, while real, is transient (like one's first puppy love which in one sense is real love but usually turns out not to be grounded in a lasting base)?

Thomas wrote: "it sounds like the old Solonic maxim: "Count no man happy until he is dead." ..."

But a dead man feels neither happiness nor sorrow, as Aristotle countered Solon in Nicomachean Ethics. It seems to follow that a man is never happy, alive or dead.

Nemo wrote: "But a dead man feels neither happiness nor sorrow, as Aristotle countered Solon in Nicomachean Ethics. It seems to follow that a man is never happy, alive or dead.
"

This is true if he depends on good fortune for his happiness. But isn't Philosophy suggesting that there is another way of realizing happiness? A way that Boethius can be happy even in the midst of misfortune?

Bill wrote: Isn't Philosophy telling him here that his current misery is not the cause of his forgetting what made him happy,
but it's the inverse
It's his forgetting what made him happy, forgetting himself or his true nature, that is the cause of his current misery?."

I think that may be the case, in addition it also seems to me that Philosophy is telling him that in the way in which he has forgotten his former happiness, and how it is his forgetfulness which is the root cause of his misery he also forgets that fortune is changeable and not a permanent state which can further cause his feelings of misery.

If he could recall the days in which he was happy or the reasons why he had been happy it may in fact bring him some comfort in his misery becasue than he can see that there was a time in which he was not miserable and in the same way that his happiness was not permanent, his misery may also prove not to be permanent.

In forgetting his former happiness he is becoming convinced that his miserable must thus be a lasting one which has no hope of changing for the better. But if he recalls and recognizes that he was once happy he can also have hope that happiness may come again and his misery may leave him in the same way that happiness currently has done so.

Thomas wrote: "But isn't Philosophy suggesting that there is another way of realizing happiness? A way that Boethius can be happy even in the midst of misfortune? ..."

Yes, you're one step above on the ladder. :)

Nemo wrote: "But a dead man feels neither happiness nor sorrow, as Aristotle countered Solon in Nicomachean Ethics. It seems to follow that a man is never happy, alive or dead. "

I think a person can be happy in the moment, even for a long period, but Solon's and Boethius's point, I think, is that you can't call that a happy life until they're dead, because the happiness may always turn to sorrow, and it did for Boethius. So I don't think they're saying that a man is never happy, but they're saying that you can't count on happiness lasting, so don't call the person a happy person until you know that the sorrow never came for their life.

Patrice wrote: "I also think of it as a right brain/left brain kind of thing. Music (poetry, song, etc) appeals to our right brains and as Silver said, our emotions. Reason is more left brained. To really "know" it seems to me that we need to integrate both parts."

As an aside, that right brain-left brain dichotomy is a useful image, but brain science has, as I understand it, exploded that theory, so it's a useful literary or psychological image but neurologically incorrect.

Bill wrote: "...from song 1:

Friends, why did ye once so lightly
Vaunt me happy among men?
Surely he who so hath fallen
Was not firmly founded then.

Does this mean that happiness which is subject to circumstances is not real happiness?..."

To me the lines have resonance of the cries of Job -- if I once deserved xxx, surely I have done nothing such that I now deserve the condition in which I find myself..." I.e., if I once "deserved" happiness, certainly nothing has transpired such that I now "deserve" unhappiness, so did I really "deserve" happiness then?

I see a lot of Job in here, too, Lily.

Patrice wrote: "Could you give me a source for the new information on the brain?

That's from my wife, who follows brain research (I only do through conversions with her). I'll check with her to see whether she has a source.

Patrice wrote: "Would someone here know the Latin word for "happiness"?"

Felicitas. Felix is Latin for happy.

Everyman wrote: "Solon's and Boethius's point, I think, is that you can't call that a happy life until they're dead, because the happiness may always turn to sorrow, and it did for Boethius."

But isn't death one of the causes of sorrow? How can anyone ever be counted as happy if his life always turn to sorrow at the end?

Nemo wrote: "Yes, you're one step above on the ladder. :) "

Excellent! We're going in the right direction.

Patrice wrote: "Would someone here know the Latin word for "happiness"?"

Happiness, eudaimonia, and felicitas all share an element of good fortune, but felicitas, which can also mean fertility, seems to emphasize the productive aspect of happiness.

Death would be happy if it spared the glad
But heeded invocations from the wretch. (Poem I)

To me this makes no sense in modern parlance (Death is not doing the Snoopy dance), but in the productive sense it works.

Patrice wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Would someone here know the Latin word for "happiness"?"

Happiness, eudaimonia, and felicitas all share an element of good fortune, but felicitas, which can also mea..."

I would hesitate to pin down one meaning or translation for any of these words because the context is crucial, but eudaimonia can also mean "blessed." But then we have to ask what it means to be blessed, right? Is this is a matter of luck, or is it something to be earned, through work or right thinking or faith? I think that's one of the questions Book I is grappling with.

Thomas wrote: "...But then we have to ask what it means to be blessed, right? Is this is a matter of luck, or is it something to be earned, through work or right thinking or faith?..."

Or a gift of grace?

Patrice wrote: "I see what you're saying. "Blessed", I think, implies that a higher power is bestowing something. In our time we use the term more loosely, I think."

But sometimes the manifestations of blessing we experience are through the freely given gifts -- forgiveness, appreciation, hope, ..., of others, perhaps acting under divine guidance, perhaps not?

Patrice wrote: "Now that I've read some more what jumps out at me is that the poetry echoes the psalms.
He is in exile, both physically and mentally, just as the Israelites were in Babylon. The psalms lament thei..."

We couldn't do better than to read Psalms, Proverbs, and Job along with Consolation. And perhaps some of the prison Epistles of Paul and the prison scenes in Acts.

Lily wrote: "Thomas wrote: "...But then we have to ask what it means to be blessed, right? Is this is a matter of luck, or is it something to be earned, through work or right thinking or faith?..."

Or a gift of grace?..."

Exactly, Lily. Add the Beatitudes to the list of readings.

Patrice wrote: "Speaking of chance... I had to tear myself away from "Consolation" to finish War and Peace. This is what I read when I picked up the book.

"What is chance?" The word chance means nothing actual..."

Beautiful, Patrice.

Patrice wrote: "I just looked up the meaning of "blessing". It means infusing something with holiness or divine will. I don't think it's about random chance."

Philosophy asks Boethius in part 6 of Book I,

'Do you believe that this life consists of haphazard and chance events, or do you think it is governed by some rational principle?'
'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.'

Later on, Philosophy tells him that this "tiny spark", his belief that the world is governed by divine reason and not by chance, is what will restore him to health.

I'm not sure that I would call this grace exactly. But it could be that reason, and Philosophy, is a product of God's grace. Maybe that's where this argument is headed?

"If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall be removed."

Patrice wrote: "But the sheep need only cease to assume that all that is done to them is with a view to the attainment of their sheepish ends; they need only admit that the events that occur to them may have ends beyond their ken, and they will at once see a unity and coherence in what happens with the fatted sheep"

Glad that you're enjoying the Epilogue, Patrice. :)

I can't help wondering whether Tolstoy contemplated chance and fate while watching his peasants killing the fattened sheep, and whether it had something to do with him becoming a pacifist and vegetarian.

"Yet for Your sake we are killed all day long;
We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter."
Ps.44:22

Nemo wrote: "But isn't death one of the causes of sorrow?"

Depends on the culture or religion, and on how you die. It's usually a sorrow for those left behind, but not always a sorrow for the person who dies.

Laurele wrote: We couldn't do better than to read Psalms, Proverbs, and Job along with Consolation. And perhaps some of the prison Epistles of Paul and the prison scenes in Acts. "

Not a bad suggestion. We should perhaps keep in mind that although the Consolation, at least so far, doesn't seem overtly Christian, Boethius was a Christian and a theologian who wrote a treatise on the Holy Trinity which was a standard textbook in the Middle Ages.

However, what is interesting is that Boethius doesn't quote the Bible anywhere in Book 1, and I don't think anywhere in the Consolation, nor does he mention Job, which would seem to be an obvious reference.

It seems, then, perhaps that he is quite intentionally separating pure philosophy from theology, that he quite deliberately wishes to speak in this work about philosophy as it was known to and understood by pre-Christians. He had, for example, translated a great deal of the work of Aristotle, and had planned to translate all of the Platonic dialogues (if he did translate any of them, they are lost). So he was certainly well versed in pre-Christian philosophy.

I am, as I read the sources, far from the only person who wonders why the apparent lack of any overt Christian content to the Consolation.

I am sorry that I have been silent. I have been off line for a few days, trying to catch up with work (reading for one thing). So, I will catch you up on my thinking. I think that it is 'philosophy' which is the consolation; rational thought, ideas, and words. Of course, It may be argued that his thoughts and ideas spring from a Christian well-spring (although much of his influence seem to come from 'pagan writers'). But, it is philosophy that will bring consolation. It will be interesting to see how philosophy will be defined in later chapters.

I love the way that this work mixes poetry, narrative and prose. I love this in a lot of classical philosophy. I wish that modern philosophers would learn this art,

Potential spoiler alert

Everyman wrote: "We should perhaps keep in mind that although the Consolation, at least so far, doesn't seem overtly Christian, Boethius was a Christian and a theologian who wrote a treatise on the Holy Trinity which was a standard textbook in the Middle Ages..."

Consolation of Philosophy is not Christian, in that it doesn't address the question of sacrifice and remission of sins, let alone the love of God, but instead, as Plato did in Republic, it attempts to reshape the readers' understanding of the nature of evil and justice and answer the question, "Why do good people suffer and the wicked prosper?" In fact, Consolation reads like a summary/abstract of Republic, at least to me.

Even in his treatise on the Trinity, which is a very short exposition of St. Augustine's book of the same title, Boethius focused on philosophy, especially the difference between substance and attribute, and didn't expound the Christian notion that God is love, as Augustine did eloquently and profoundly in his work.

Bill wrote: "This lethargy is what causes him to forget himself..."

Not certain cause of forgetfulness is assigned to lethargy, although forgetfulness does happen in the presence of it (and his deluded mind).

My own experience says the deluded mind can lead to lethargy, a kind of malaise, and from there, to forgetfulness. I'm not sure if the delusions or the lethargy are "causing" the forgetfulness, or if the forgetfulness causes (or perhaps only reinforces) the lethargy and even the delusions themselves.

Those of us who have cared for those with Alzheimer's know that forgetfulness can also lead to agitation, but that seems not what we are dealing with here with Boethius!

Bill wrote: "Maybe because this puts me in mind of the prominent Biblical theme of Vigilance ...."

Thanks for the insight on the source of your intuition.

"Lethargy" could be considered the opposite of "Vigilance", but it seems to me that lack of Vigilance need not imply Lethargy (e.g., it could imply carelessness or ...) and still lead to the deluded mind. Which is also probably closer to my personal experience.

Bill wrote: "It strikes me that, while common sense (and Boethius), sees his misery as a result of bad fortune, Philosophy sees it as a sickness. So his misery is not a result of outside forces but a result o..."

I find the idea that the source of his misery is a result of his own mind to be quite an appealing one. That it is not is circumstances or situation in which is truly responsible for his despair, but that he is the one who is in charge of it, that it is within him as well to than remove the misery from himself not matter what the circumstances of his physcial reality. Other people and things outside of him cannot than have true bearing upon him and it is all within his own control and power.

The the idea that the muses/poetry only further feed this illness of his mind instead of offering comfort seems to me to reflect the sentimentality of poetry and the fact that poetry is more associated with ones emotions and thus is not logical or rational. So instead of aiding him to see clearly and try and find the way out of his misery the muses instead may only further encourage and aid him to nurse his wounds so to speak. Turning to the muses hinders his ability to use reason which prevents him from gaining the understanding he needs to free himself from his misery and to recover from his forgetfulness and rediscover the potential for happiness.

I defer to the alpha male -- which is its own form of lethargy or apathy or lack of caring or carelessness. All I was trying to speak was from my own experience.