Talk:Boethius

Boethius is not a saint, either in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches.

The article says his name is listed in the Roman Martyrology - it is not. He is nowhere listed for October in the Martyrology.

The article also says that his name is listed in the calendar of saints of Eastern Orthodoxy -- again, it is not. The calendar lists two saints for Oct. 23rd: James, the 'Brother of the Lord', and Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople. Boethius is nowhere mentioned.

This information can be confirmed at: https://www.goarch.org/chapel/calendar http://www.liturgialatina.org/martyrologium/20.htm

A British clergyman, "Fr. Andrew Philips" does, however, list Boethius as a saint in his own calendar of saints on the webpage for his own church which he himself established. http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/oe4/fr-andrew-phillips-biography/ That hardly justifies claiming as fact that Boethius has been honored as a saint, either in East or West . . . which he has not.

If you disagree -- fine. But, you need to produce more evidence than just one man's opinion on his website.

Even if Boethius is venerated as a saint, the claim in the edit history about switching the "box between biography and veneration due to relevance" is rather absurd--he is a towering philosophical-historical personage, and a footnote of a saint at the very most. The veneration section of the article can perhaps stay (it's short anyway), but I'll be reverting the headline/box issues to their earlier form. 24.62.202.17 (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Reply

Boethius is indeed a saint according to the 2004 (latest edition) Roman Martyrology:

6*. Papiae in Liguria, commemoratio sancti Severini Boetii, martyris, qui, scientia ac scriptis praeclarus, in carcere detentus tractatum scripsit de consolatione philosophiae et Deo usque ad mortem a Theodorico rege inflictam cum integritate servivit.

He is also mentioned as "Saint Severino Boezio" on the calendar based on the 2004 Roman Martyrology here: http://www.gcatholic.org/saints/data/martyrology2004-10c.htm#d23

Perhaps you used an older edition of Roman Martyrology, so make sure to check using the 2004 Roman Martyrology. 69.174.156.228 (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Reply

Boethius is actually an orthodox saint. Father Andrew Phillips never leaved the Eastern Orthodox Church to create his own church, he just leaved his parish in Russia to start a mission in England. He writes to a famous and very respected orthodox website linked directly to the Orthodox Church. Fr. Andrew Phillips isn't the only one to state such a thing, in orthochristian.com, the previously cited website, has an article named "The Holy Moon" which refers to Boethius as a saint. I will leave the links bellow which found my reply.

https://pravoslavie.ru/83844.html

https://orthochristian.com/122645.html

https://www.saintjohnsorthodoxchurch.com/clergy

https://www.saintjohnsorthodoxchurch.com/ Ortwriter (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Reply

The sources you've provided don't mean much when compared to Boethius' absence from the Greek, Antiochian, OCA, and Russian liturgical calendars. Individual priests do not decide who the saints of the Orthodox Church are. Boethius is not a saint in the Orthodox Church. 128.255.234.11 (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Reply

Boethius is indeed a saint according to the 2004 (latest edition) Roman Martyrology:

6*. Papiae in Liguria, commemoratio sancti Severini Boetii, martyris, qui, scientia ac scriptis praeclarus, in carcere detentus tractatum scripsit de consolatione philosophiae et Deo usque ad mortem a Theodorico rege inflictam cum integritate servivit.

He is also mentioned as "Saint Severino Boezio" on the calendar based on the 2004 Roman Martyrology here: http://www.gcatholic.org/saints/data/martyrology2004-10c.htm#d23

It seems some people thought he was not a saint because they used old editions of Roman Martyrology, so make sure to check using the 2004 Roman Martyrology because that is the latest edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.156.228 (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Reply

The image placement in the article is killing me. I cannot tell on my screen where to actually format the images, and when I do, they are in a completely different place. If someone could help me on this, it would be greatly appreciated. GuardianH (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC) Reply

After some discussion with GuardianH on my talk page, I intend to standardise all the refs in the article. At the moment it's about evenly split between short form refs and full inline cites. I'll be converting all the full inline cite to short form refs, so that only one style of referencing is used. If you disagree with this, or have any questions, please just say. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Reply

As noone has objected I've started work on this. Any questions or suggestions please just say. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC) Reply

All the inline cites have been converted to {{sfn }}. I've split the sources section into books, journal articles, and weblinks, as it look easier to read that way. Also all the cites that weren't part of referencing have been moved to a new Further reading section.

There were a few references without page numbers, and a lot of the same work but translated by different people in different years. It will take someone with more subject knowledge than me to untangle it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC) Reply

{{sfnp }} should be used simply because the other one is an eyesore but, that said, thanks for the cleanup. — LlywelynII 19:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Reply

Thanks so much to @ActivelyDisinterested for formatting the citations — that was one of the last remaining big hurdles to accomplish before the article can be more effectively organized. With that done, I can now see to tidying up and rewriting all the other major sections. GuardianH (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC) Reply

Glad I could help, if you need anything else just ask. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC) Reply

If this is just (deserved) praise for AD, it should be merged to the section above. If there's other content being tidied up or rewritten (it's been 2 years), it could be mentioned here.

I'll just note that one vital thing that is massively poorly handled both here and at Commentaries on Aristotle is his works on Aristotle. Those were nearly the entire reason he was lauded throughout the Middle Ages, which is nearly the entire reason he's still discussed now. Ari's name shows up 38 times in the article. Even so, Boethius's works aren't even listed and linked at Commentaries on Aristotle and they aren't clearly handled anywhere on this page. (The only possible and inexplicable exceptions are two asides in the section on De Arithmetica.) They aren't handled as his major works despite clearly being so. Even more bizarrely (insanely?) the discussion of De Topicis Differentiis is placed and phrased in a way that makes it appear to be the primary commentary he wrote on Aristotle and that makes it appear—with cite—that 100% of his Aristotelian commentaries (including the supposed one under discussion) have been lost.

The major works section should have the Consolation and (together or separately but thoroughly) the commentaries on Aristotle as the two lead sections. Possibly the music bit should be included third. Per wp:undue , everything else should be punted down, possibly to a separate section on "Minor" or "Other works". Marenbon lists Boethius's commentaries on Aristotle as three works: the Categories (presumably In Categorias Aristotlis), Porphyry's Isagoge (presumably In Isagogen Porphyrii Commenta), and On Interpretation (presumably In Librum Aristotelis de Interpretatione Commentaria Minora & Majora). If there are others, mention them and their status—lost in antiquity, lost after influencing the medieval period, etc.—appropriately. Provide translations of the Latin names (or original Latin names for works discussed under English titles) in lead sentences for every work discussed, not just the Consolation. Ideally include some cited discussion for how Boethius's handling of Aristotle altered what the medieval period understood of the guy's logic and how that changed under St Anselm & during the 12th cent. ren. and then again as the works themselves became available from Spain and Byzantium.

Similarly per wp:undue , De Topicis... shouldn't be handled at ×ばつ the length of Consolation and ×ばつ the treatment of the Aristotelian commentaries, three of which remain very much extant. Some of the trimming can be done by removing entirely off topic material like the part on Plato to the correct parts of the article. Most of it will probably need to be handled by punting the good-but-unnecessarily-detailed-for-this-article coverage to a new stub on the work itself. Most of it will eventually need to be entirely rewritten ("not only paramount for ~ but also also crucial for topical lore" etc.) but that can happen over the years at its separate page. Reworking the coverage here into an overview will probably correct most of the problems for the text that's left on this article. — LlywelynII 20:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Reply

If you have a comment to make can I suggest that it would be better served by starting a new section, rather than replying to a two year old comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Reply

The use of Arthur Hermann's book The Cave and the Light is used in this article as a source. I think that it should not be used in this way. Hermann's book is a popular book of history. It is not really a serious or scholarly work. It does have some footnotes, although the material that this article cites, such as Boethius' death, is not footnoted. Some of Hermann's overly confident pronouncements are laughable as historical theses. For example, p.190 (a page which this article cites):

Boethius was four years old when the Roman Empire came to an end in the West.

I, too, learned as a schoolboy that the Western Roman Empire ended in 476. But over the past fifty years, historians have come to a more nuanced understanding of the transition of late Antiquity to the Medieval period. Hermann seems innocently unaware of the scholarship in this area over the past few decades. Hermann is not a good source. — goethean 11:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC) Reply