[Jennifer Reeser]

Boethius's "Consolation of Philosophy" is a book in our home, one of my husband's favorites. But, I admit -- it is difficult for me to take seriously his slur against the Muses, stooping to call them "sluts." Quote: "What man thinks he wants is fame, power, wealth, pleasure, beauty, luck, and the other fleeting things. But we have an innate attraction to the good..."

This is a well-written essay on the "Ordinary Times" blog, however you feel about the book itself:

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2...-of-philosophy

[E. Shaun Russell]

Well, you have to remember what poetry was during that time. One of Boethius' friends, Maxiamanus, wrote primarily about dalliances with women and other sordid (for the time) subjects. Other near-contemporaries, like Draconius, were noted for their exaggerated rhetoric. And it's important to remember that Boethius wrote Consolation... at the advent of the Byzantine era, and of course "Byzantine" is synonymous with stark, utilitarian art devoid of any passion. In this light, it makes perfect sense that Boethius, through Lady Philosophy, would refer to the Muses as sluts (or "whores from the theatre" in the translation I own). In other words, historical context is very important here. It's also possible that Boethius was writing, to some degree, with the hope that his words would be read by someone with the power to stay his execution.

Lady Philosophy's dismissal of the Muses also serves to mark the transition from the 1000 year old Greek tradition of thanking / acknowledging the Muses to a more properly Christianized view. Banishing the Muses is, in effect, banishing the trappings of the licentious, heretical Greek culture. This is why Lady Philosophy's poems are intended to "soothe" Boethius, and provide a balm to the sting of her gentle chastisement. Of course her poetry would be unsullied by the pagan Muses. It is mostly devotional, whereas previous poetic tradition allowed all sorts of foul themes ranging from incest and adultery to murder and child sacrifice.

I'm not saying the author of this article is wrong, but I don't think he took all of Boethius' circumstances into account. Then again, I quite like The Consolation of Philosophy, so I may well be biased here.

[Stephen Hampton]

The pagan muses (in my limited Knowing of humanities minds) are alive and well;
be they sluts, sibyls, or spirits angelic, I thank all gods, creation, and natural selection
for their continual survival (looking forward to fining them among us here and now) Amen.
SWH

[Gregory Dowling]

Originally Posted by E. Shaun Russell

And it's important to remember that Boethius wrote Consolation... at the advent of the Byzantine era, and of course "Byzantine" is synonymous with stark, utilitarian art devoid of any passion.

Sorry, Shaun, I can't agree here. Just take a look at the mosaics of San Vitale in Ravenna. The Madonna in the Basilica of Torcello. The tenderness of so many icons of the Virgin and Child. Formal art, yes. Devotional art, certainly. But not stark. And not utilitarian, if you're using that term in the sense of practical or down-to-earth. Can't think of anything less down-to-earth. Perhaps if you mean it in the sense that it is useful in getting the viewer to heaven...

[Charlotte Innes]

Hi Jenn,

Thanks for posting this link. Very interesting. Not sure I agree with everything in the article. By coincidence, I am about two-thirds of the way through Boethius' book. It's been sitting on my bookshelf for years, and I haven't been able to take to it until recently. Now I find it fascinating and highly readable--and quite modern in its attempts to understand the meaning of life--of goodness and evil, and the nature of God.

The combination of prose and poetry is very interesting as they each address the same subject matter in different ways. And, yes, I know the poetry is meant to be sweet medicine to ease Boethius' way through Philosophy's increasingly complicated arguments. At the same time, some of the poems are very moving--especially the one about Orpheus--and they seem to reflect the emotional aspect of Boethius' experience.

I wish I had the book with me--I'm in England at the moment, and left old B. behind in LA to be continued when I get back--but my main impression is of a man in desperate straits, who wants to believe in the essential goodness of mankind, but can't make sense of all the evil in the world. The narrative struggles towards an understanding of a God who lets bad things happen (who knows past, present and future), addressing the old question about how free will can operate when our destiny is set.

I get the feeling that ultimately Philosophy will fail to prove the triumph of good (her goal) and thus a benign deity--I have to finish the book! But already, the arguments seem to be failing. They are starting to seem specious. To me this suggests that reason alone cannot get to grips with the universe, or God, or the existence of evil in the world.

Clearly, the poetry is central to the book. I think what's interesting is that the woman, Philosophy, is quite human--serious, funny, edgy. She makes jokes! I will check my translation when I get home, but it's possible she's speaking somewhat tongue-in-cheek when/if she calls Poetry a "slut."

Charlotte

[E. Shaun Russell]

Originally Posted by Gregory Dowling

Sorry, Shaun, I can't agree here. Just take a look at the mosaics of San Vitale in Ravenna. The Madonna in the Basilica of Torcello. The tenderness of so many icons of the Virgin and Child. Formal art, yes. Devotional art, certainly. But not stark. And not utilitarian, if you're using that term in the sense of practical or down-to-earth. Can't think of anything less down-to-earth. Perhaps if you mean it in the sense that it is useful in getting the viewer to heaven...

You're quite right, Gregory. "Stark" and "utilitarian" were the wrong words. Basically not like the Greco-Roman poetry that preceded it was what I was going for.

[Michael Juster]

I'm thrilled that Shaun mentioned Maximianus. I'm waiting to hear whether my translation (with 225 page commentary) of Maximianus' "elegies" (a misnomer in my book) passed peer review at U Penn Press.

It's an interesting text--and some of it is quite funny.

[E. Shaun Russell]

Michael: I'd love to read that. Please let us know if and when it becomes available for purchase.

[Michael Juster]

Fingers crossed!

[RCL]

I last read Boece, Chaucer’s translation, in Alan Gaylord’s course. He argued that Pandarus, in T&C, was Lady Philosophy. Could be! Frankly, I was not consoled.

PS, good news Michael!