BOETHIUS: FIRST OF THE SCHOLASTICS* - University of Toronto

10 3. THE STATUS OF BOOK5
two questions, one ethical and one theological, which he put as follows: 27
• Can a philosopher arrive at a genuine understanding of human happiness,
pursuing his philosophical investigation with only the natural light
of reason?
• Is it compatible with God’s eternal and unchangeable foreknowledge of
everything future that some purely contingent event come to pass?
D’Ailly takes these two questions to be logically independent. In literary
terms, we could represent this as the hypothesis that Books 1–4 form a unity,
to which Book 5 is, essentially, an Appendix. William of Conches in the
twelfth century seems inclined to the same view in his commentary on 5.1.1
(288.8–15): 28
But since treatingthesemattersseemsfarremovedfrom consolation, which is the
goalof thiswork, [Boethius]first putsashort transitionin which heshowshow he
comes to treat them...
ThetransitionWilliamreferstoisthePrisoner’sinterruption ofLadyPhilosophy,
which provides a dramatic, not a logical, link between the earlier books
and Book 5. 29 The ensuing discussion is indeed “far removed from consolation.”
Remi d’Auxerre, near the beginning of the commentary tradition,
seems likewise to regard Book 5 as an Appendix in his paraphrase of Lady
Philosophy’s words in 5.1.5 (341–342): 30
I have therefore proposed that you should be brought back to your former state
of contemplation, which surely is close at hand. But the matters you are asking
about get in your way, since while you delay me over them you cannot go to the
places I have told you about.
27 See Chappuis [1993] and [1997] respectively: Utrum aliquis philosophus per inquisitionem
philosophicam in naturali lumini ad ueram humanae beatitudinis notitiam ualeat
peruenire (14*), and Utrum cum aeterna et ummutabili Dei praescientia omnium futurorum
stet aliquid simpliciter contingenter euenire (71). Chappuis [1997] 21 suggests that
d’Ailly was led to this division of the text by Pseudo-Aquinas. Perhaps, but there
is support in the commentary tradition, as the above sections have demonstrated.
28 Sed quia de istis tractare uidetur remotum a consolatione de qua intendit in hoc opere,
praemittit quemdam breuem transitum quo ostendit unde tractat... William seems of
two minds about the statusof Book 5. WhenLady Philosophy claims that answering
the Prisoner’s questions would divert them “a bit” (paulisper) from reaching
their goal, William explains this as a hint that answering the question isn’t completely
irrelevant or independent (289.29–31): Sed ne aliquis putaret quod omnino
esset aduersa et ita esset superfluum de istis in hoc loco tractare, ait: PAULISPER id est
aliquantulum sed non omnino.
29 Hence the translation of ‘unde’ as ‘how he comes’ in the preceding passage.
30 Ergo, inquit, proposui te in pristinum contemplationisstatum reducendum quod utique iam
propeestsed eaquaetuinterrogasimpediuntte,quoniamdumin hismeremorarisnon potes
adire ea quibusa me informanduses..
c○ Peter King, forthcoming in Carmina philosophiae.