For half a century, Ludwig Bieler’s (1957, 2nd ed. 1984) text of Boethius’s Consolatio served as the reference edition of the work. At the dawn of the 21st century, it was superseded by the Teubner editions of Claudio Moreschini (2000, 2nd ed. 2005), which were welcome (see BMCR 2001.05.20 and BMCR 2006.08.02): Moreschini made significant progress in the recensio (including several old manuscripts) and provided a more reliable apparatus than Bieler.[1] Now we also have at our disposal a new Budé volume by Jean-Yves Guillaumin, who offers a highly comprehensive, bilingual edition, guided by a selective approach to the manuscript tradition.
The introduction first outlines the context of the work’s composition, its genre and prosimetric nature, the interplay between narratio, dialogue, and monologue, its philosophical positions, its sources, its metaphors and themes, its divine conceptions, and its overall structure. This introduction is clear, well-informed, and thoroughly up to date (one might also add a significant recent collection of essays: Wiitala 2024). The Consolatio is in many respects a complex work; it is therefore particularly welcome that Guillaumin strives for clarity and synthesis (see, for instance, p. xxxviii). The final part of the introduction is devoted to the early history of its text. In this section, Guillaumin largely follows Trocarelli’s and Moreschini’s fundamental studies (Troncarelli 1981, 2012, 2017, 2025; Moreschini 2003); as for the medieval transmission, the bibliography could be further enriched with other titles, such as Papahagi (2009, 2010). The manuscripts selected for this edition are described concisely but thoroughly. The same holds true for the survey of previous editions, though Gruber’s (2020) bilingual edition deserved a brief mention on p. lxvii, especially given that it is cited in the apparatus.
Turning to the critical text, Boethius’s Consolatio was a genuine “medieval bestseller,” transmitted in more than four hundred manuscripts and translated into Greek by Planudes. In cases such as this, at least two critical, interrelated questions arise: how many manuscripts are necessary to establish the text in the best possible manner, and what is the intended purpose of the apparatus criticus? Should it serve to display only the essential readings and problems, or should it also function as a repository of historical information regarding phases of transmission that do not necessarily contribute to the constitutio textus?
With regard to the first question, as primary witnesses Bieler relied on ten manuscripts. Moreschini nearly doubled this number, utilizing nineteen codices in his second edition. Moreschini also established two families, α and β (the latter comprising two branches, β1 and β2); however, he clearly recognized that contamination had rendered these families highly unstable. Guillaumin has adopted a more selective approach, systematically utilizing only six manuscripts, all of which were already known to Moreschini. The influence of the Italian editor in this crucial choice is patent, insofar as these manuscripts represent the families of the tradition he established. Other manuscripts are cited only sporadically (commendably in these cases, the editor provides a list of these specific passages on p. lxxi). The text established using these six codices largely conforms to Moreschini’s second edition. The points of departure are detailed on p. lxviii. Some of them include divergent choices among manuscript readings (of which some are scribal conjectures): 1 Pr. 1, 4 inter (medieval emendation, see also Walther 2007, 526); 1 M. 4, 6 excitantis (medieval emendation); 2 Pr. 1, 8 recto; 2 Pr. 1, 14 no deletion of fugax (see infra); 3 Pr. 7, 5 tortores; 4 M. 7, 7 foderat (perhaps medieval emendation, also supported by Planudes’ σφαγίασσε). A few passages incorporate conjectures proposed by other scholars (1 M. 4, 2 terit Soubiran per litteras; 1 M. 4, 11 feros Murmel; 2 Pr. 4, 11 non iam Tränkle; 3 Pr. 9, 32 ut in Weinberger). Finally, Guillaumin himself has proposed two interventions:
At 2 Pr. 8, 1, a notoriously corrupt passage, the archetype probably read cum de hominibus illa fallax illa nihil bene mereatur (sc. Fortuna); many manuscripts omit one of those illa. Guillaumin prints cum de hominibus non fallax illa nihil bene mereatur, suggesting (p. 188) that non was omitted by P and substituted for illa by O M. One would perhaps have welcomed additional discussion on the syntax and interpretation of this new proposal in the accompanying note (n. 309, pp. 187–188). If Guillaumin’s proposal is right, however, given the proximity of P and O (p. lxi), I would have argued more economically that the archetype suffered from an error of anticipation (non fallax illa > illa fallax illa). P and T then independently attempted to correct it by deleting the first illa, while other scribes deleted the second one. Note that <non> nihil, printed by Gruber, is not Gruber’s emendation, but was already proposed by medieval scribes and Tränkle (see Tränkle 1968, 281 and Moreschini’s edition ad loc.).
At 4 Pr. 2, 30 <it>idem uiribus is an intelligent proposal. The archetypal reading was probably ut idem scelesti idem uiribus omnibus uideantur esse deserti. Moreschini printed ut [idem] scelesti uiribus eqs., which is misleading because it conceals the presence of a second idem after scelesti in most manuscripts; its omission in H, W, and Va2 is a pure medieval emendation and should be treated as such. While Moreschini should have printed ut [idem] scelesti [idem] uiribus etc., doing so would have exposed the improbability of two distinct interpolations of idem. Guillaumin’s proposal, ut idem scelesti <it>idem eqs., is an elegant conjecture (see the final note and sicut… ita in the preceding sentence).
I have independently verified a few of the textual variants between the two editions using digital reproductions of some manuscripts, and Guillaumin’s collations appear to be very reliable. In some respects, they achieve an even higher degree of precision than Moreschini’s preceding work (which had itself already marked an advance over Bieler’s edition). In the following examples from Books 1 and 2, Guillaumin correctly records a variant for which Moreschini’s apparatus provides no indication:
- At 1 M. 1, 9 Not only M, but also T1 reads inopia (inopina is a supralinear correction)
- At 1 M. 1, 20 Fac reads protrahat
- At 1 Pr. 1, 4 (see supra) Fac reads in and Fpc reads inter
- At 2 Pr. 6, 18 P1 omitted sed prodit … indignos (it is corrected in the margin by a likely different, though contemporary, scribe who wrote ostendat instead of ostentat).
- At 5 M. 1, 3 P reads fronte
- At 5 Pr. 3, 35 F1 reads adhere (but here it should be added that a second hand wrote uel herere above the line)
However, at 5 Pr. 2, 6, where the text should read Quare quibus in ipsis inest ratio, inest etiam uolendi nolendique libertas, the second inest has disappeared from Guillaumin’s text. A check of some primary witnesses (Sang. 844, Par. Lat. 7181, and Vat. Lat. 3363) as well as of previous editions confirms that the verb is securely transmitted.
The critical apparatus is consistent with Guillaumin’s recensio. Textual variants found in manuscripts outside of the six systematically utilized witnesses are excluded from the record. Of course, this choice provides the reader with less data than the editions of Bieler and, above all, Moreschini. Scholars interested in the history of the text or medieval commentaries must consequently consult Moreschini.[2] Nevertheless, the apparatus is thus rendered far clearer and more concise than those of his predecessors, which contained numerous minor variants and dense lists of witnesses. And more importantly, it appears that, by virtue of this judicious choice of manuscripts, Guillaumin has preserved all significant manuscript readings, now unburdened by secondary scribal errors. Bieler’s and Moreschini’s apparatuses were negative. Guillaumin’s apparatus, by contrast, is positive; yet, because his selection of manuscripts is highly restricted, the resulting layout avoids the typical bulk of positive collations and remains very clear. Consider, for example, the entry for comprensam numeris (1 M. 2, 12): Guillaumin provides distinct information for each word, yielding a more transparent presentation than that found in Moreschini’s edition. Additionally, at least some of the Graeca are reported with greater precision. For instance, at 1 Pr. 4, 1 (Ἐξαύδα … νόῳ), Moreschini merely notes: “Graeca verba restituit Glar.,” without any indication of the transmitted readings. Guillaumin, by contrast, specifies which manuscripts leave a blank space (P) and which are the corrupt Greek variants transmitted in the other codices (O M T F V). The interesting Graeca of T (see 2 Pr. 7), absent from Moreschini, are also reported in this apparatus.
Regarding conjectures, the apparatus remains selective and minimalistic, although some problems are analysed in the Notes complémentaires. In this respect, Moreschini’s work undoubtedly will retain its utility for textual critics, not only because it records conjectures that Guillaumin has chosen to omit (e.g., Tränkle’s leuari at 2, M. 7, 10), but also because it clarifies the origins of certain interventions. For instance, regarding the deletion of the second causa at 3 Pr. 1, 7, adopted by all editors, Moreschini specifies that this correction was found in a manuscript and was independently proposed by Peiper; Guillaumin, meanwhile, takes a minimalistic approach (secl. edd.). Compare also in ipsis at 5 Pr. 2, 6 or necessitatis at 5 Pr. 3, 9. In spite of this minimalistic approach, in some respects Guillaumin’s work is also a step forward, insofar as it corrects earlier errors ex silentio. A notable example occurs at 2 Pr. 1, 14:
Quod si nec ex arbitrio retineri potest et calamitosos fugiens facit, quid est aliud fugax quam futurae quoddam calamitatis indicium?
Bieler deleted fugax, noting in his apparatus: “uocem q. e. fugax a sententia alienam esse censet D. S. Robertson, Class. Rev. 1945, p. 12.” Moreschini essentially repeated what Bieler had said. While Robertson indeed found fugax intolerable, his actual text-critical note states: “A scribe has blundered over a contraction: read quid est aliud fuga eius quam futurae quoddam calamitatis indicium? and all is clear” (Robertson 1945, 12). Unlike his predecessors, Guillaumin therefore correctly notes: “fugax codd. Gru., secl. Bie. Mor.” To register a minor disagreement: Robertson’s conjecture, fuga eius, deserved a place in the apparatus.
As for the French version, Guillaumin had previously published a translation in 2002 in the series “La Roue à livres.” For the present volume, this translation has been corrected and modified to align with the new Latin text, the broader, more scientific scope of this bilingual edition, and a deeper analysis of the work and its Latin text. Although as a non-native speaker I cannot pass absolute judgment, the translation appears both accurate and elegant, even in the challenging poetic sections. In my view, however, the most important novelty is the annotation, which also complements the Latin text. Compared to the 2002 edition, the commentary has been vastly expanded: the 788 notes expertly handle realia, sources, internal loci paralleli, and literary, philosophical, linguistic, metrical, and textual questions (including Planudes’ translation). These extensive notes constitute one of the edition’s greatest strengths. While Moreschini’s edition was a major step forward from an editorial standpoint, it lacked an apparatus fontium, forcing scholars to have recourse to both Bieler’s edition and Gruber’s commentary. Admittedly, Gruber remains of great use to scholars, but this book helpfully provides a reliable Latin text alongside an impressive, updated set of notes drawing on both previous scholarship and Guillaumin’s own original insights.
In short, this compact volume will become a highly valuable tool for Boethian studies, thanks to its combination of an up-to-date introduction, a useful translation, expertly crafted annotations, and a Latin text provided with a clear apparatus and founded on a representative sample of judiciously selected and thoroughly collated manuscripts.
Works Cited
Bieler, Ludwig (1957, 2nd ed. 1984) Anicii Manlii Severini Boethii Philosophiae consolatio. CCSL 94. Turnhout: Brepols.
Gruber, Joachim (1978, 2nd ed. 2006) Kommentar zu Boethius, De consolatione Philosophiae. TU 9. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Gruber, Joachim (2020) Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius. Philosophiae consolatio – Trost der Philosophie. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann.
Magee, John (2001) Review of Moreschini (2000), BMCR 2001.05.20.
Martinelli Tempesta, Stefano (2006) Review of Moreschini (2005), BMCR 2006.08.02.
Moreschini, Claudio (2000, 2nd ed. 2005) Boethius. De consolatione Philosophiae, Opuscula theologica. Bibliotheca Teubneriana. München/Leipzig: K.G. Saur.
Moreschini, Claudio (2003) “Sulla tradizione manoscritta della Consolatio e degli Opuscula theologica di Boezio: proposte per una recensio,” in Claudio Moreschini, Varia Boethiana, Napoli: M. D.’Auria, 77–134.
Papahagi, Adrian (2009) “The Transmission of Boethius’ De consolatione Philosophiae in the Carolingian Age,” Medium Aevum 78(1) (2009) 1–15.
Papahagi, Adrian (2010) Boethiana Mediaevalia: A Collection of Studies on the Early Medieval Fortune of Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy. Bucharest: Zeta Books.
Robertson, Donald S. (1945) “Boethius, Philos. Consol. 2. 1 (About Fortune),” CR 59(1), 12.
Traenkle, Hermann (1968) “Textkritische Bemerkungen zur Philosophiae Consolatio des Boethius,” VChr 22(4) 272–286.
Troncarelli, Fabio (1981) Tradizioni perdute: La Consolatio philosophiae nell’Alto Medioevo. Padova: Editrice Antenore.
Troncarelli, Fabio (2012) Umanesimo tardoantico: L’ultimo dei romani e la Consolazione della Saggezza. Manziana: Vecchiarelli Editore.
Troncarelli, Fabio (2017) L’antica fiamma: Boezio e la memoria del sapere antico nell’Alto Medioevo. Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.
Troncarelli, Fabio (2025) Living Memory: Boethius, Cassiodorus, and the Consolation of Philosophy. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Walther, Sabine H. (2007) Review of Moreschini (2005), ExClass 11, 521–542.
Wiitala, Michael (ed.) (2024) Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy. A Critical Guide. Cambridge, CUP.
Notes
[1] See also Walther (2007), with critical remarks.
[2] This is not a limitation of Guillaumin’s work, but rather as a deliberate methodological choice suited to an editio minor; in any event, a comprehensive history of the text will necessitate a far greater number of collations than those provided by Moreschini.