COMPTES RENDUS 501

optimiste et dynamique de l’attitude néoplatonicienne et souligne le fait que

la question du principe au‑delà d’être n’est pas une question aride et monotone,
mais au contraire, une question qui invite continuellement à la réinterprétation,
tout comme les métaphysiques néoplatoniciennes sont comme des bâtiments
en construction éternelle.
Iulia Szekely

ADRIAN PAPAHAGI
Boethiana Medievalia (A collection of Studies on the Early
Medieval Fortune of Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy)
Bucharest, Zeta Books, 2010, 228 pages, 10 plates

In spite of Boethius’ low level of popularity among common people

(sharply and humorously pointed out by the author on the first page of the
book, p. 11), he is to be known as one of those philosophers who clearly
contributed to the development of European philosophy. Nonetheless, he
has provided the Early Medieval culture with one of its most reliable means
for returning to the study of ancient philosophy and classical Latin.
In order to classify the influential philosophers, we may distinguish three
categories in accordance to the ways of their large diffusion in the history of
philosophy : (1) those philosophers who are founders of philosophical schools
(salient examples : Plato and Aristotle) ; (2) those who benefited by some
contexts favourable to a wide circulation of ideas (we may name Augustine
and Thomas Aquinas in Middle Age, Descartes in the modern time, and,
most prominently, the current philosophers who can easily use the most
powerful means of communication) ; (3) finally, there are some philosophers
whose diffusion is rather due to a set of incidental circumstances.
As regards his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius (ca. 480‑524 or 525)
pertains to the third category. Therefore, the knowledge of the early temporal
and geographical scope of the influence of his book is not just a matter of
philosophical or historical studies, but also one of paleographical researches.
Indeed, they are the best means of analysis of the medieval circumstances
relevant to the transmission of philosophical ideas. From this reason, M.
Adrian Papahagi’s collected essays in the volume Boethiana Medievalia are
even more important than the author says in the “Forward” (p. 11). We are
far from agreeing with his opinion that their ideal reader would be rather
“an early medieval scholar”, than a “contemporary reader”. A contemporary
reader with interests in the history of philosophy, or in “the culture of
Carolingian and Ottonian France and Germany, and of Anglo‑Saxon England”,

Generated for EBSCO inc. 2016/11/1 © 2016 Philosophy Documentation Center http://www.pdcnet.org
502 COMPTES RENDUS

as M. Papahagi mentions (p. 11), may find some instructive and even fascinating
facts about the fragile fate of the ideas copied, commented, glossed and
pictured in what we use to represent as obscure scriptoria of medieval abbeys.
The six studies collected in M. A. Papahagi’s book prove his philological
and paleographical skills (in order of their appearance, they were published
in the following renown international journals : Medium Ævum, Académie
des Inscriptions et Belles‑Lettres, Chôra, Scriptorium, The Medieval Translator,
Notes & Queries). The paleographical competence in Boethius’ Consolation
is confirmed by a comprehensive knowledge of medieval manuscripts. This
knowledge is supported by an extensive and up to date corpus of bibliographical
references (the volume contains numerous bibliographical records : about 300).
Both of them lead the author to stating a series of emendations to the
contemporary researches of Boethian tradition. Thus, the first study, “The
transmission of the Consolatio Philosophiae in the Carolingian age” (pp. 15‑36)
takes a well demonstrated stand against F. Troncarelli’s thesis that there would
exist a large circulation of Boethian manuscripts in eighth century England, in
the time of Alcuin’s release of his De vera philosophia (cf. pp. 16‑19). Not a minor
emendation, because it suggests that the rise of English medieval philosophy
is mainly due to the interchanges with French Carolingian monastic libraries.
The study “Hic magis philosophice quam catholice loquitur. The reception
of Boethian Platonism in the Carolingian age” is an extent argument against
the interpretation that Boethius was in contact with Augustine’s thought
(position defended by M. S. Burrows in 1986) and against the view supported
by M. Gibson, a reputed scholar in Boethian studies (proved by her outstanding
monography : Boethius, His Life, Thought, and Influence, Blackwell, 1981),
who diminished the idea of a wide spread of commentaries to Boethius’
Consolation in the Carolingian age (p. 62).
The third study, “Glossae collectae on the Consolatio in Paris, BN Lat.
MS 13953”, revalues to the Boethian studies a manuscript neglected long
time because of being erroneously thought to be dating back to a later time.
In spite of the agreement of some Boethian scholars that it is just a summary
of a better known manuscript (the commentary from St. Gall), M. A.
Papahagi undertakes a difficult and fruitful analysis of the above named
manuscript. He recognizes five layers of glossae, first of them moving the
date of the manuscript to the beginning of IXth century. The whole analysis
gives some hints about an inter­mediary stage of medieval approach of Boethius’
Consolation. The manuscript, from which we have its first and still unique
edition on pages 99‑139, is crossed by various types of glossae, from the pure
lexical ones to some short philo­sophical commentaries. Therefore, this study
offers the best illustration of what a Medieval manuscript of Consolation
means and how it alternates different languages and type of glossae in order

Generated for EBSCO inc. 2016/11/1 © 2016 Philosophy Documentation Center http://www.pdcnet.org
 COMPTES RENDUS 503

to clarify the original text (for a visual representation, we may look over the
ten tables attached to the book).
M. A. Papahagi’s improvement of Boethian studies is illustrated at its best
by the fourth study, “The wheel of Fate metaphor in the Old English
Boethius” (pp. 141‑177). The main mobile of the study is to decrypt the
origin of the wheel of Fate metaphor used in the Old English translation
attributed to King Alfred the Great (d. 899). We learn that the origin is due
to a tradition of graphical representations of Boethius’ prose IV, 6. Philosophia,
the spiritual guide of emprisoned Boethius, similes the relation between
providence and fate with a center (“providence”) surrounded by concentric
circles (“fate”). The Latin manuscripts used to represent relationships by
drawings placed in the margins of the text or even attaching a special page
to the text (the case of a XIIth century manuscript, cf. p. 166). In Forward,
it can be read about Consolatio : “over one hundred and fifty manuscripts
copied between the ninth and twelth centuries still survive in the world’s
libraries” (p. 11). In the beginning of the fourth study, we learn that the
analysis of the origin of Fate metaphor is based on the research of 135
manuscripts, from which 27 drawings of providence and fate are found and
classified. Looking upon the figures of these drawings (pp. 155‑170), the
reader becomes (I dare say, in a fascinating way) acquainted with naïve or
geometric drawings of the orbes of fate, sometimes enriched with explanations.
Thereafter, under the inspiration and understanding of various copists, the
drawings of orbes come to be the simile of a chart wheel. Thus, the Christian
Old English version of Consolatio builds a moral metaphor of human ascension
to God starting from such a desultory development of a drawing. Though
the author complains about the limits of his research and of any other
paleographical inquiry, because of the impossibility of a personal contact
with all the original manuscripts, his unique initiative enlightens at most the
great importance of the study of medieval manuscripts in order to understand
the origins of some long lasting metaphors and ideas.
The comparative study “Res Paene inusitata : Alfred and Notker Translating
Boethius” (pp. 179‑199) underlines a gap in Boethian studies, too. As the
author mentions, “apart from one lexical analysis of some philosophical
terms, there exists no comparative studies of the two Germanic versions”
(pp. 179‑180). The “St. Gall monk Notker the German (or Labeo)” (d. 912),
uses a so called Mischprosa (a mixture of Latin and German terms, p. 184)
in his commentaries to Consolation, while the supposed author King Alfred
is eager to offer a thoroughly translation in Saxon language. Although the
free Old English version seems to deform the Latin text because of a lack of
linguistic competence, the study reveals that there is in fact a difference of
purpose and of “intended audience” between the two Germanic translators

Generated for EBSCO inc. 2016/11/1 © 2016 Philosophy Documentation Center http://www.pdcnet.org
504 COMPTES RENDUS

(p. 199). The monk considered the translation of Boethius’ Latin Consolatio
as a shallow work dealing with artes, justified only by its didactic purposes,
while the king believed of himself as serving in his Saxon language the same
noble enterprise as the ancient Greek translation of Hebrew Bible, Septuagint.
Also, M. A. Papahagi counts upon the understanding of the peculiarities of
the two Germanic translations in comparing their treatment of the highly
debatable passage IV, 6 about providence and fate, where Boethius contradicts
Christian doctrines. The versatile master of artes, Notker, shows his Christian
education well by refuting such a “pagan” view of fate. Contrary, King Alfred
takes the vision of fate as a point of reflection on Germanic wyrd (fate), by
identifying himself with “Boethius’ existential questions about fate, fortune
and providence” (p. 198). He rejects the “pagan” fatalism, and tries “to formu­
late in his own culture the superior truths to which he would not have access
without the systematic philosophy of Boethius” (p. 199). Moreover, the last
short study, “The Old English Boethius and the Distichs of Cato” (pp. 201‑204),
shows how Boethius’ Consolation, via Alfred’s commentary, enriched the
lexical resources of the early English literature.
The last quoted phrases prove the book’s virtue to depict the medieval
spread of Consolatio not only as regarding the transmission of manuscripts,
but also in respect of its power to mould the new born Germanic cultures.
The whole inquiry shows the philosophical and cultural expertise of an author
who can ever so easily double his paleographical studies with deep insights
into the inner values of Consolatio for the history of medieval philosophy. As
a second and important effect, the common reader cannot lose his attention
because of the paleographical details, since he can permanently find significant
remarks about the late ancient and medieval Boethius.
The same philosophical and cultural background of the author of a
Sorbonne doctoral dissertation about “Fate and Providence in Old English
literature” (2006) may be responsible for spreading many arguments regarding
the necessity of knowing Boethius through the six studies of the book.
Boethius’ Consolatio, though not an original work, “was the first contact early
medieval scholars had with ancient philosophy” (pp. 71‑72). Moreover, the
reader is informed that St. Thomas Aquinas took Boethius and Augustine as
his main authorities (p. 190). Just for these two reasons, M. Adrian Papahagi’s
Boethiana Medievalia deserves a careful reading by as many and as various
as possible contemporary scholars.
Walther Prager

Generated for EBSCO inc. 2016/11/1 © 2016 Philosophy Documentation Center http://www.pdcnet.org
Copyright of Chôra: Revue d'Études Anciennes et Médiévales is the property of Zeta Books
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.