¹ ‘The Fall of Boethius: His Character,’ Annuaire de l'Institut de philologie et d'histoire orientates et slaves de Bruxelles 12 (Mélanges Henri Grégoire 4; 1952) 45–81 (opening sentence). Reprinted in Coster, C. H., Late Roman Studies (Cambridge, Mass. 1968) 54–96; cited from this edition.Google Scholar

² Le Liber Pontificalis I (ed. Duchesne, L. M. O.; Paris 1886) 104, 276. Cited as LP.Google Scholar

³ Procopius, , History of the Wars 5.1.32–39 (ed. and transl. Dewing, H. B.; London/Cambridge, Mass. 1914–28; III 12–14). Cited as Procopius.Google Scholar

⁴ Of the various minor annals thought with some plausibility to derive from Fasti promulgated at Ravenna, only one, the Fasti Vindobonenses posteriores, gives the year for the deaths of Boethius, , Symmachus, , and Theoderic, , and although it is the wrong one (523), it is the same one. See MGH Auctores Antiquissimi (cited as MGH AA) 9.332 and Mommsen's, Th. remarks on the Ravennan origin of this annal in ‘Über den Chronographen vom J. 354,’ Abh. Ges. … Leipzig 1 (1850) 656.Google Scholar

⁵ See p. 127 and nn. 82–83 infra. Google Scholar

⁶ Theophanes’, Chronographia and the chronicle of Marcellinus comes; see p. 115 and nn. 41–42 infra. Google Scholar

⁷ Theoderic died 30 August 526.Google Scholar

⁸ The last edition of the Annales Ecclesiastici that Cesare, cardinal Baronio revised himself was that published at Mainz, 1601–8. I have, however, cited (as Ann. Eccl.) the Lucca edition of 1741, which contains the critique of Antoine Pagi (see n. 15 infra) as a running commentary.Google Scholar

⁹ Ann. Eccl. 9.343 (a.d. 525 num. 11).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Ibid. 9.352 (a.d. 526 num. 9). For the text of ‘Anastasius’ (LP), see pp. 127–28 infra. Google Scholar

¹¹ De Constantio Chloro, Constantino Magno et aliis impp. excerpta auctoris ignoti: item ex libris chronicorum inter cetera, appendix to Ammiani Marcellini Rerum gestarum qui de xxxi. supersunt libri xviii (ed. de Valois, H.; Paris 1636, pp. 477–87 and 437–43 of the separately paged Notae), a superb edition, still useful, from the earlier of the two surviving MSS. Cited in this article (as Excerpta) from Excerpta Valesiana, pars posterior: Theodericiana (ed. Moreau, J., corr. Velkov, V.; Leipzig 1968). The text is preserved in Berlin Phillips MS 1885, of the early ninth century (B), and Vatican Palatine MS 927, of the twelfth century (P), the latter a copy made at Verona from an original contemporary with B (though not B itself) that incorporated corrections made in B shortly after its own transcription (Excerpta viii–ix, xx). The Excerpta were habitually (and still occasionally are) called the ‘Anonymus’ Valesianus, as though the work of a single author.Google Scholar

¹² Marii Aventicensis seu Lausenensis Episcopi Chronicon (ed. Chifflet, P.) in Historiae Francorum scriptores coaetanei (ed. Duchesne, A.; Paris 1636) 216–20, a most inaccurate edition. Cited in this article (as Marius) from Marii episcopi Aventicensis Chronica (ed. Mommsen, Th.; MGH AA 9 [Chronica Minora 1] 227–39). Preserved only in British Library Add. MS 16974, the portion of which covering 490–540 is reproduced here.Google Scholar

¹³ van Papenbroeck, D., ‘De Sancto Ioanne papa martyre’ 2.18, AS Maii 6 (Antwerp 1688) 706c. Cited from this edition.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ann. Eccl. 9.337 (a.d. 524 num. 3); 9.343 (a.d. 525 num. 12). Papenbroeck, (loc. cit.) held this delay to be ‘valde prolixum’ and set the execution of Boethius at the end of 525 (‘anno DXXV ad finem vergente’).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Pagi, A., Critica historico-chronologica in universos Annales Ecclesiasticos … Caesaris Cardinalis Baronii 2 (Antwerp 1727) 525–26, 529–30. Pagi's relevant critical notes to the years 524 (num. 3), 525 (num. 3–4, 7), and 526 (num. 6) are appended to the 1741 Lucca edition of Ann. Eccl. Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid. 2.525 (a.d. 525 num. 5) : ‘Baronius in narratione mortis Boëtii secutus est Anastasium, qui tamen parùm se de ea instructum ostendit, dum … affirmat Theodoricum Regem Symmachum & Boëtium occidisse, interficiens, inquit, gladio cùm Papa Joannes cum Senatoribus positi essent Contantinopoli. Boëtius enim anno superiori cum fuste occisus, & Symmachus hoc anno interfectus … Post Baronii mortem Henricus Valesius Ammiani Marcellini libris à se Notis illustratis subjecit Scriptorem … Ex quo, utpote coaevo, quae ad Legationem Joannis & caedem tam Boëtii, quam Symmachi spectant, certiùs innotescunt.’Google Scholar

¹⁷ Born ca. 530, Marius was bishop of Avenches (later Lausanne) from 574 to 594. His continuation of the chronicle of Prosper covers the years 455 to 581.Google Scholar

¹⁸ By Mommsen, Theodor, MGH AA 11 (Chronica Minora 2) 229–30, 252.Google Scholar

¹⁹ I thank the British Library Board for permission to reproduce the relevant portions of BL Add. MS 16974.Google Scholar

²⁰ Originally in MS; deleted, probably wrongly (cf. fol. 111^v line 39, 112^r line 14).Google Scholar

²¹ Eusebius, and Albinus, , consuls for 493 have been omitted, making the death of Odovacar appear to fall in 492.Google Scholar

²² The consulships of Viator in the West (495) and Paulus in the East (‘p.c. Viatoris’ in the West) (496) have been reversed.Google Scholar

²³ The second consulship of the Emperor Anastasius II in the East (‘item p.c. Viatoris’ in the West) has been omitted and with it the year 497.Google Scholar

²⁴ cippacio: Hypatio. Google Scholar

²⁵ The name hildric, written in a different hand, is just visible in the inner margin opposite the end of the line. Mommsen (MGH AA 9 [Chronica Minora 1] 234 n.) read hildricum, but the name makes no sense as either part of or a gloss on the text, and no appropriate Childeric existed.Google Scholar

²⁶ Odouin, had conspired against Theoderic, who paid a long visit to Rome in 500; see Excerpta §§ 68–69.Google Scholar

²⁷ Cethegus, (cetheo) held the consulship in 504, Sabinianus (of whose name -sa · uinlano is a corruption) and Theodorus in 505.Google Scholar

²⁸ Areobindo. Google Scholar

²⁹ Anastasius II was consul for the third time in 507, his colleague being Venantius Liberius; Basilius Venantius iun. was consul with Celer in 508.Google Scholar

³⁰ Agapito. Google Scholar

³¹ Iustino, as often in Marius, in error for Iustiniano. Google Scholar

³² Original MS monachale ‘corrected’ to monechale, apparently by the same hand.Google Scholar

³³ MS corrected, atalaricus” rex’, reversing original word order.Google Scholar

³⁴ Mauortio. Google Scholar

³⁵ For Iustiniano. Justin, I died in 527.Google Scholar

³⁶ Mommsen (MGH AA 9 [Chronica Minora 1] 235) rightly emends to ‘iustiniano aug. iii’; the numeral form of quinque is always written ‘v.’Google Scholar

³⁷ For Iustiniano (n. 35 supra).Google Scholar

³⁸ He omits or does not know the name of either consul for the years 493, 496, 497, and 499. The whole period 494–500 is one of complete confusion, and two years of historical, even annalistic importance vanish, those of Theoderic's accession in Italy (493) and of his formal recognition as ruler in the West by Anastasius, II (497). The consuls for 507 and 508 are reversed. For several years the name of but one consul is given and that often virtually unrecognizably.Google Scholar

³⁹ This characteristic is not confined to the period 490–540. Marius predates Majorian's siege of Lyons (457) by a year.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ravenna is named only three times in the part of the chronicle reproduced here, which covers 51 years.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Theophanes, Chronographia (ed. Classen, J., Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae [CSHB] 26.1; Bonn 1839) 261: ‘.’ Jacobus Goab, who annotated the edition, noted the error and corrected the date to John's third year (CSHB 26.2.426): “ (sic) γ’]: cuius promotio longe superius observata.’Google Scholar

⁴² Marcellini v.c. comitis Chronicon (ed. Mommsen, Th., MGH AA 11 [Chronica Minora 2] 102): ‘[Ind.] iii FILOXENI ET PROBI [525]. Iohannes Romanae ecclesiae papa LI anno Petri apostolorum pontificumque praesulis quadringentensimo octogensimo quinto sessionis eius, Theodorico rege sese [… .] pro Arrianis suae caerimoniae reparandis, solus dumtaxat Romanorum sibimet decessorum urbe digressus Constantinopolim venit. miro honore susceptus est; dexter dextrum ecclesiae insedit solium diemque domini nostri resurrectionis plena voce Romanis precibus celebravit.’Google Scholar

⁴³ The lost decree was most probably issued in late 524. See Bréhier, L., ‘Le conflit avec Théodoric, ,’ Histoire de l'Église depuis ses origines jusqu’à nos jours IV: De la mort de Théodore à l'élection de Grégoire le Grand (edd. Fliche, A. and Martin, V.; Paris 1937) 434 and n. 4.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ For Boniface's letter see Analecta novissima 1: De epistolis et registris Romanorum pontificum (ed. J. B. Cardinal Pitra; Tusculum 1885) 466, where it is wrongly said to have been addressed to Pope John IV; for Pope John's arrival in Constantinople shortly before Christmas 525 see Chronicon Paschale (ed. L. Dindorf, CSHB 9.2, Bonn 1832, p. 136): See Pfeilschifter, G., Der Ostgotenkönig Theoderich der Grosse u. die katholische Kirche (Kirchengeschichtliche Studien 3; Münster 1896) 165–67 for the detailed evidence and argument (summarized in Bury, J. B., History of the Later Roman Empire II [London, 1923] 157 n. 1), and cf. the comments of Vasiliev, A. A., Justin the First (Cambridge, Mass. 1950) 215 n. 140.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ LP 1.104–6, 275–76; Procopius, 5.1.35–39.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See n. 11 supra. Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Cf. Pagi's comments, n. 16 supra. Google Scholar

⁴⁸ The disordered state in which the materials that make up the Excerpta Valesiana have come down to us is the subject of a long and important article by Carlo Cipolla, ‘Ricerche intorno all’ Anonymus Valesianus II,’ Bullettino dell'Istituto storico italiano 11 (1892) 9–98. In B, the earlier of the two MSS of the Excerpta, their text is preceded by that of the Origo Constantini imperatoris, composed of 35 short capitula; the 61 similar capitula or paragraphs of the ‘Pars Theodericiana’ have, in consequence, been numbered 36–96. I have followed Cipolla in citing the Excerpta by these paragraph numbers in their conventional order (that of B, and for the portion under consideration that of P as well), as being both the simplest form of reference and the most convenient for readers, whatever edition of the text they have to hand.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Cipolla, , op. cit. 72. John of Verona shifted the portents in § 84 to a position between the death of John, Pope (§ 93) and that of the king (§§ 94–96). The Historiae Imperiales (Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare MS cciv) seem not to have been published apart from the extracts printed by Cipolla, op. cit. 51–80.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Cipolla pointed out inter alia (‘Ricerche …’ 80–96) that the part of the Excerpta covering Theoderic's reign begins at § 36 with the word Igitur, showing that in its original something had gone before, but showing also that the compiler of the Excerpta was selecting extracts, not rewriting them, or he would have removed it (p. 83); that § 48 should not follow directly on § 47 (p. 84); that § 61 should probably immediately precede § 79 (p. 86); that §§ 68 and 69 ‘sono un mosaico di frammenti’ (p. 87); that Deinde, with which § 70 opens, has nothing to which to refer (p. 87); that §§ 63, 68, and 70, which describe Theoderic's marriage alliances, ought to be consecutive, and that the connecting words used show that they once were (p. 89). Furthermore, parts of the original extracts have been omitted, for although Theoderic's generosity to Eutharic is mentioned (§ 80), it is not explained, nor does Eutharic's marriage with Theoderic's daughter Amalasuntha figure in the list of such alliances, although it was by far the most important. He is not even noticed as the father of Athalaric (§ 96) (pp. 89–90). Cipolla concludes, ‘il testo dell'Anonymus ci pervenne frammentario, pieno di lacune e con non rare trasposizioni di passi o di parole’ (p. 96). Bury, J. B. (Gibbon, Decl. and Fall IV [London 1898] 522) endorsed Cipolla's opinion.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Fragmenta Historica ab Henrico et Hadriano Valesio primum edita (Anonymus Valesianus) (ed. Cessi, R., RIS² 24.4) cxxvi–cxxviii.Google Scholar

⁵² Coster, C. H., The Iudicium Quinquevirale (Monographs of the Mediaeval Academy of America 10; Cambridge, Mass. 1935) 40–63. Cited as Coster, Iud. Quinq. Google Scholar

⁵³ Cited from Coster, Late Roman Studies (n. 1 supra); cf. his ‘Postscript’ (ibid. 96–103). Coster had read and later discussed with me a draft of this article shortly before his death, and wrote to me in June 1976 that it was ‘now not only possible but reasonable for [him] to return to [his] original point of view as expressed in The Iudicium Quinquevirale and in “The Fall of Boethius”.‘ I deeply regret that he did not live to see his vindication in print.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ The text printed here follows that of the Teubner edition of 1968 (n. 11 supra). However, some of the emendations accepted in that edition seem to me unnecessary or founded on misunderstanding, and where the MSS agree in their reading I have kept it, if at all possible. Such divergences from the Teubner text will be noted as they occur.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ergo would be meaningless if § 80 really followed § 79, which relates the story of Theoderic's illiteracy. Presumably § 80 was originally preceded by an account of Eutharic's marriage with Amalasuntha or the birth of Athalaric in 518 or both, and the request of Theoderic to the Emperor Justin I (very probably on the birth of his grandson and heir) that Eutharic be named consul for the following year.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ For Peter III, bishop of Ravenna (494–519/20), see Agnellus, , Liber pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis (ed. Holder-Egger, O., MGH Script. Rer. Lombardicarum et Italicarum 310 n. 1; 315 n. 1; 328. He died in 519 or very early in 520.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ In § 81 it is possible to keep most of the MSS readings: nolentes has the rare meaning, ‘wishing ill to’ (cf. Cicero, , Ad fam. 1.1.3); dum laudent, ‘while they (i.e. the baptizati) chanted psalms’ (for dum, ‘while,’ with subjunctive see Blaise, A., Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs chrétiens [Turnhout 1954] 295, dum II.1); non re servantes …, ‘not heeding the king or Eutharic or Peter (who was then bishop) in the matter.’ The final sentence may originally have been a marginal gloss on dum laudent … iactaverunt, now wrongly embedded in the text: ‘Which (theft of consecrated bread) took place in the same way even at the Eucharist.’ For cena, ‘Eucharist,’ see ThLL, cena II.B.2, and cf. Mittellateinisches Wörterb. 445, cena I. B.1–3. The action of § 81 takes place entirely at Ravenna, and there is no need to bring in Rome either here or in § 82 (n. 58 infra).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Romani in the Excerpta means the Italian inhabitants of Theoderic's kingdom (who were Roman citizens), as against the Ostrogoths and other Germans (who were not, unless personally granted citizenship by the emperor, as were Theoderic, Eutharic, and a handful of others). Cf. Obertello, Luca, Severino Boezio I (Genoa 1974) 71: ‘… Romani, giacchè con tal nome chiamavansi tutti gl'Italiani.’ Undoubtedly, Romani also contains a strong suggestion of ‘Catholics’ as against ‘Arians.’ For the rare verb frustare, see ThLL and Mommsen's note on this passage in MGH AA 9 (Chronica Minora 1) 327; it seems to mean ‘to strip bare.’ The missing subject of praecepit is presumably rex. Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Cf. his letter to the Jews of Milan, who had suffered similarly (Cassiodorus Senator, Variorum libri XII 5.37 [ed. Fridh, A. J.; Turnhout 1973, p. 211]; cited from this edition as Variae).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Henri de Valois suggested the insertion of destrui; it is equally possible that idem situm altarium (B) and ibidem situm altarium (P) reflect a marginal gloss. Both MSS read nullus Romanus arma … uteretur, and there is no need to emend to armis, for uti frequently takes its direct object in the accusative in Late Latin.Google Scholar

⁶¹ There is no need to emend comis, a late variant of coma, ‘hair’ (Mittellateinisches Wörterb. 901, lines 12 and 16); for the meaning ‘a comet's tail,’ see coma III B (Mittellat. Wörterb. 902, lines 12–26).Google Scholar

⁶² Both MSS read: Rediens igitur ex Ravenna. The gaps in the narrative of the Excerpta would allow of this being kept, were it not that later in this section Pope John is summoned to Ravenna; the emendation of Henri de Valois is, therefore, probably correct. The last sentence caused difficulties for the scribes of both B and P (and quite likely to that of their ultimate archetype). Pagi's explanation is convincing: ‘… ubi Theodoricus Arianos Catholicos appellat, & haereticos, qui Catholicam religionem suscepi coacti fuerant’ (Critica hist. chron. 2.525 [a.d. 525, num. 6]). Both orthodox Trinitarians and the various shades of Arians habitually and confusingly called themselves Catholici and their doctrinal adversaries heretici, a confusion likely to have been compounded when an orthodox chronicler was purporting to give the words of an Arian king.Google Scholar

⁶³ The noncommittal reading of P and of the corrector of B, praeparari/preparari, seems preferable to either of Mommsen's suggestions, fabricari (though Theoderic lacked warships, there is no reason to think that he had no ships of any kind) and forari, ‘to bore holes in.’ For a curious parallel, see G. Martin, The Red Shirt and the Cross of Savoy (New York 1969) 139, where it is said that the Emperor Francis II was suspected by some of having furnished Pius VII with an unseaworthy ship to procure his death.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Cyprian's offices and the dates at which he held them are discussed below, pp. (131–35). Both MSS speak of Albinus as summoned more than once: B has revocitus, P revocatus (of which revocitus is a variant; see Blaise, , Dictionnaire [cf. n. 57 supra]). Presumably Mommsen emended to evocatus because the Excerpta do not mention an earlier summoning of Albinus to answer this charge. The Excerpta, however, have many omissions.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ I have followed the punctuation of Henri de Valois, which allows the MSS reading to be kept. But clearly something has been lost here from the existing text. The sed with which the next sentence begins implies that an attempt was made to circumvent the design of Cyprian, but in vain because of Theoderic's hardened attitude. The missing words may further have characterized the false witnesses presented by Cyprian, who were presumably the Opilio, Basilius, and Gaudentius named by Boethius (Philosophiae Consolatio 1.4.16–17 [ed. Bieler, L.; Turnhout 1957], cited as Phil. Cons. from this edition). Opilio was Cyprian's brother and connected by marriage with the family of Basilius (Variae 8.17.5). Gaudentius, claimed by Boethius (loc. cit.) as Opilio's partner in crime, may also have been related to Cyprian by blood or by marriage.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ This sentence derives from the account in the synoptic gospels of the machinations of Caiaphas and his colleagues (Vulg. Mt 26.4; Mk 14.1; Lk 22.2). See the comment of Cipolla, ‘Ricerche …’ (n. 48 supra) 43–44.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Phil. Cons. 1.4.26.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Albinus survived, either because the attack on him was meant only to lure Boethius into a vulnerable position, or because he was relatively unimportant in court and governing circles, despite his senatorial and patrician standing. His flight from Rome to Constantinople during Justinian's Gothic war is described in the life of Pope Vigilius (LP I.298): ‘Habitavit rex [scil. Totila] cum Romanis quasi pater cum filiis. Tunc quidam de senatoribus fugientes, Citheus, Albinus, et Basilius, patricii et consules, ingressi sunt Constantinopolim et praesentati ante imperatorem adflicti et desolati.’ Boethius spoke of the Albinus whom he defended as consularem uirum (Phil. Cons. 1.4.14) and the Excerpta call him patricius (cf. Variae 1.20; 4.30). The only consular and patrician Albinus who could have been living in the 520s and 540s was the man who had held the consulship in 493 (the last consular Albinus, his great-grandfather, had held the office in 444). Hermann Usener, Anecdoton Holderi, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Roms in ostgotischer Zeit (Leipzig 1877) 8, 14 (n. 8), argued that the LP passage should be emended to read ‘… Citheus et Albinus Basilius,’ the latter being the Basilius who was consul in 541, and last consul ordinariu of the empire. But this Basilius was consul for the East, several years before the three senators fled from Rome. (The last consul ordinarius for the West had been Paulinus in 534.) It was usual for the consul ordinarius to be resident in that part of the empire for which he was named and most unlikely that one of the rare exceptions to this practice would have occurred during a period of war. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Basilius was ever called ‘Albinus Basilius.’ (On his consular diptych his name is given as Ani[cius] Faust[us] Albin[us] Basilius and in the long list of years ‘post consulatum Basilii’ only his final name is used; see Willy Liebenam, Fasti consulares imperii Romani von 30 v. Chr. bis 565 n. Chr. [Kleine Texte für theologische u. philologische Vorlesungen u. Übungen 41–43; Bonn 1909] 56–57.) It was abnormal for a senatorial Roman of this period to be known officially by more than one name, even when his final name (that commonly used for all purposes, from table-talk to inclusion in the Fasti) was so awkward a one as Senator. Usener's emendation derives wholly from his unwillingness to believe that Albinus was not executed. But had he too been killed, one would have expected at least one source to name him along with Boethius and Symmachus as a victim of the king's anger.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ So both MSS. Mommsen emended to misere fecit occidi because he followed the traditional order of the Excerpta and believed that Theoderic returned to Ravenna only after the death of Boethius. In Cessi's order the king was still at Ravenna, where he apparently stayed after Pope John sailed and where Symmachus was brought to him after arrest. The words vocavit Eusebium … Ticinum need not mean that the king himself was at Pavia. Cf. the remarks of Tränkle, H., ‘Philologische Bermerkungen zum Boethiusprozess,’ Romanitas et Christianitas: Festschrift Waszink (Amsterdam/London 1973) 335. I thank Professor Wolfgang Schmid for calling my attention to this passage.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ As a comparison, John Henry Newman wrote his Apologia pro vita sua, almost three times the length of the Consolation, in eight weeks.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Such apparent compression of the time during which events took place is inevitable, given the composite nature of the Excerpta. We are told, for example (§§ 54–55), that in the consulship of Olybrius (491), an attempted night sortie by Odovacar against the besieging forces of Theoderic failed; that he therefore gave his son Thela as a hostage to Theoderic; that Theoderic, having promised no bloodshed, entered Ravenna; and that a few days later, because Odovacar was plotting against him, Theoderic slew him with his own hand in the Palace of the Laurel. But the last three events in this headlong list took place respectively on 27 February, 5 March, and 15 March in 493. Some eighteen months have been omitted, and the dramatic sequence of events that fortuitously emerges bears no relation to chronological fact.Google Scholar

⁷² Gabotto, F., Storia della Italia occidentale del medio evo (395–1313) (Biblioteca della Società storica subalpina 61; Pinerolo 1911) 451 n. 2.Google Scholar

⁷³ Phil. Cons. 1.4.3, 1.5.6.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Fragmenta Historica … (Anonymus Valesianus) cxxvii n. 3 (see n. 51 supra).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Courcelle, P., La Consolation de Philosophie dans la tradition littéraire (Paris 1967) 119–23.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ E.g., ‘O qui perpetua mundum ratione gubernas’ (3.M.9) and ‘Felix qui potuit boni.’ (3.M.12).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Coster, Iud. Quinq. 59. But from what Boethius himself and Excerpta § 87 say, the iudicium quinquevirale sat in Rome and Eusebius, prefect of the city, came north only to deliver in person to Boethius the sentence of death upon him.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ But cf. the somewhat different view of Jones, A. H. M., ‘The Constitutional Position of Odovacar and Theoderic,’ Journal of Roman Studies 52 (1962) 126–30.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ The words ‘[rex] protulit in eum sententiam’ do not invalidate this suggestion, for proferre means ‘to make public,’ ‘to promulgate,’ at least as often as it means ‘to pronounce (for the first time).’Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Both MSS read dolo generi. Henri de Valois suggested dolore generi, which later edd. have generally accepted, but Luca Obertello has called my attention to the likelihood that the word is dolus -i (Blaise, 290), a late variant of dolor, the use of which in this text would be characteristic (cf. nn. 57, 61, 64 supra).Google Scholar

⁸¹ Obertello, Severino Boezio I 115 (n. 58 supra).Google Scholar

⁸² LP I xxxv–xxxvi, lix, lxii–lxiiı, ccxxx–ccxxxi. Duchesne called this version the ‘deuxième édition.’Google Scholar

⁸³ The ‘Abrégé Félicien,’ which Duchesne has shown to have been the work of a contemporary who began to write during the reign of Pope Hormisdas (514–23) and ceased within a few months of the death of Pope Felix IV (526–30) (LP I xli–xliii). (The later ‘Abrégé Cononien’ was made after 687 [ibid. I liv].)Google Scholar

⁸⁴ From the ‘Abrégé Fé1icien,’ printed with the ‘Abrégé Cononien’ and the reconstruction by Duchesne of the original from which both derived in LP I 104–7.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ From Duchesne's ‘deuxième édition,’ ibid. I 275–76.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Iud. Quinq. 55. I thank Mr. Coster and the Mediaeval Academy of America for permission to quote from this work.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Perhaps even after John's own death? The temptation to make the pope's death the climax to a reign of terror would have been irresistible to an ecclesiastical chronicler, still more to a papal biographer.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Procopius 5.1.32–39. Procopius was legal counsellor and secretary to Belisarius throughout his campaigns (527–42) and based his later History of the Wars on notes taken as events occurred. He was with Belisarius in Italy between 536 and 540; he reports the return by Amalasuntha to their families of the confiscated properties of Boethius and Symmachus (ibid. 5.2.5–6) and tells of the later fate of Rusticiana, the daughter of Symmachus and widow of Boethius (ibid. 7.20.27–31).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Iud. Quinq. 55.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Severino Boezio I 130–34. Obertello believes Boethius' expression of relief that Symmachus was safe (Phil. Cons. 2.4.5) to prove a lapse of some time between their executions. But as Symmachus was clearly at liberty (in either ordering of the Excerpta extracts) until well after the arrest and imprisonment of Boethius and possibly, even probably, until the sentence on Boethius was about to be confirmed by the king, it is hardly surprising that Boethius wrote of Symmachus as free.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Ibid. I 130. Obertello instances the statement of Procopius (5.1.35–36) that the head of a great fish served to Theoderic at dinner recalled the head of Symmachus alone to the king, and brought on a fatal hysterical fever. Symmachus, however, was put to death at Ravenna, and the king had doubtless either witnessed the execution or at least viewed the severed head. Boethius died at Pavia, and there is no reason to think that Theoderic was even in the city at the time.Google Scholar

⁹² Ibid. I 131–32. On the contrary, the anti-Arian measures are referred to at the beginning of the life of Pope John I as the cause of his enforced embassy. They were certainly not the effect of two executions mentioned only later in the text, after the account of the pope's reception in Constantinople. In any event, the anti-Arian moves of Justin probably began in late 524 (see L. Bréhier, ‘Le conflit avec Théodoric,’ n. 43 supra), far too early for the date that Obertello himself accepts (rightly, I think) for the death of Symmachus, the late spring or the summer of 526.Google Scholar

⁹³ On the chronicle of Marius see pp. 109–15 above; on the Excerpta pp. 116–27, especially n. 50. The epitomist of the LP, who wrote between 514 and 530, was strictly contemporary with the several popes whose vitae he summarized. To what purpose should he have falsified well-known events of the very year in which he wrote ? Procopius took the notes for his history some ten to fourteen years later, but the fall and death of Boethius and of Symmachus, caput senatus, were no minor incidents in court or senatorial circles, and Procopius had no reason to distort the testimony he received.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ N. 81 supra. Google Scholar

⁹⁵ See in particular M. L. W. Laistner's review of The Iud. Quinq. in AHR 42 (1936/7) 284–85; Bark, W., ‘Theoderic vs. Boethius: Vindication and Apology,’ AHR 49 (1944) 410 n. 2; Ensslin, W., Theoderich der Grosse (Munich 1959²) 310 n. 12; Stein, E., Histoire du Bas-Empire II (Paris 1949) 258 n. 1; Tränkle, H. (n. 69 supra) 336 n. 5; Obertello, L., Severino Boezio I 139–40.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Variae 5.40 (and 5.41, which informed the senate of the appointment).Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Phil. Cons. 3.4.4.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Variae 5.3, 5.4.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ MGH AA 9 (Chronica Minora 1) 261.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Coster, ‘Fall of Boethius’ 78.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Variae 8.21, probably of 527 and certainly before 534. The text of the Excerpta says only ‘magister,’ but no other court position would have been a promotion for a man who had held one of the great comital offices.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Ibid. 5.40 (see also 5.41 to the senate). Indictions (in cycles of fifteen years) ran from 1 September to the following 31 August in the western part of the empire at this period. Although the consulship and other civic and court offices had terms corresponding to the calendar year, 1 January – 31 December, appointments to them were made in advance, at the beginning of the new indiction in the preceding September.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ N. 101 supra. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Variae 8.21.2.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Ibid. 8.21.5. Cf. similar phrases used of Cyprian in this passage: ‘fractus aetate,’ ‘adeptus … senectutis bona.’Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Ibid. 8.21.3. The virtual exclusion of Romans from Theoderic's army seems to have been a matter of language, not of law. Cyprian and Opilio, two of the few Romans known to have seen military service, were also two of the very few Romans who could speak Gothic.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Ibid, 8.16. The phraseology of this letter contrasts with that of Variae 5.3, in which Honoratus was appointed quaestor in direct succession to his brother, Decoratus, who had died in office.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Ibid. 8.16.3.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Although a letter of 509 seems out of place in Variae 8, otherwise made up of letters from the beginning of Athalaric's reign, such misplacements in the Variae, if rare, are not unknown. Variae 5.43 and 5.44 of the year 511 are preserved in a book otherwise composed of letters from 523–26.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ In Excerpta § 85 Cyprian is said to have been referendarius when he accused Albinus. Boethius entered the dispute only when Albinus was summoned a second time (revocitus/revocatus; n. 64 supra) to answer the charge. We do not, of course, know how much time elapsed between the two accusations of Albinus, but the compiler of the Excerpta often omitted months and sometimes years.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Albinus, like Senarius, Symmachus, and Boethius himself, took an active interest in doctrine and church affairs. See the letter of Pope Hormisdas to Dioscorus the Deacon, probably written in 519 (Avellana … collectio 173, ed. O. Guenther, CSEL 35.629–30). Letters from Albinus touching on the religious arguments in the lost decree of Justin I against the Arians might well have appeared (or been made to appear) treasonable to an angry and frightened king, but innocent (if tactless) to Boethius.Google Scholar

¹¹² Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire II 258 n. 1, citing for his first argument Mommsen, MGH AA 12 (Cassiodorus, Variae) xi, xxix.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Mommsen, op. cit. xi, n. 75Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Ibid. xxix.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Variae 9.24.6, 9.25.8.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ The official quaestor for 527 was Ambrosius, for 528 Fidelis.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Usener, Anecdoton Holderi (see n. 68 supra) 77 n. 19.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Ibid. 4.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Ibid. 7.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ MGH AA 12.xi n. 77.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Like other high officers of state, the magister officiorum was ex officio a member of the consistorium, an imperial privy council retained by the Ostrogothic kings in Italy.Google Scholar

¹²² See p. 131 and n. 97 supra. Luca Obertello (Severino Boezio I 127, 135–36) understands this passage to mean, ‘Lo stesso Boezio ricorda di aver voluto nonostante il pericolo a sè incombente, accettare una carica pubblica in cui Decorato gli era collega.’ Coster held the same view: ‘That is, Boethius thought of holding office as magister in the same cabinet as Decoratus, but did not in fact do so’ (‘Fall of Boethius’ 81). I cannot agree. Philosophy here is making the point to Boethius that positions of power and honour cannot create virtue in an unworthy recipient, but rather reveal his unworthiness the more clearly. She reminds him of Catullus, who thought it time to die, when an excrescence like Nonius could hold curule office (Carmen 52), and asks Boethius: ‘Pray, could you yourself have been persuaded by no matter how many perils to think of holding office with Decoratus, when you knew he had the mind of a worthless scoundrel and scandalmonger?’ (Phil. Cons. 3.4.4). The answer expected, as the num with which the question opens shows, is obviously ‘No,’ though Boethius is not given a chance to reply. There are forty other examples of questions beginning with num in the Consolation (Lane Cooper, A Concordance of Boethius [Cambridge, Mass. 1928] 272), and thirty-nine of them clearly expect, and get, the answer ‘No.’ The remaining case (Phil. Cons. 4.2.11), ‘Num recordaris beatitudinem ipsum esse bonum eoque modo, cum beatitudo petitur, ab omnibus desiderari bonum?,’ does not necessarily demand a negative reply, but the reply that Boethius in fact makes is, as it happens, negative: ‘Minime, inquam, recordor, quoniam id memoriae fixum teneo.’ If the passage under discussion is to be considered an exception, one would like to be told why.Google Scholar

¹²³ ‘Fall of Boethius' 81.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ ‘The Date of the Death of Boethius’ (unfinished article drafted in June 1976).Google Scholar