Dr Hildebrand shows, in his recent work on Boethius and his Christianity, that he is of much the same way of thinking.1 To be chronologically consistent, this book ought to be noticed with those written after 1877-i.e., since the discovery of the 'Anecdoton Holderi'; but the author, as he tells us himself (op. cit., p. 19, note 2), did not hear of the fragment in question until his investigation of the tracts was practically finished, and was led to believe in their authenticity on purely internal evidence. With regard to the 'Consolation,' he considers that Boethius meant it to be a sort of "apologia pro vita sua,"-a defence of his labours in the cause of philosophy. There is a great deal to be said for this view. But I think the learned doctor makes too much of the influence which Christianity had upon Boethius in writing his last work, and he seems sometimes a thought too subtle in his endeavours to read between the lines. R. Peiper, to whom we owe the first critical edition of the tracts,2 does not go very deep into the controversy, and confines his choice, based upon MS. evidence, to the first three (see p. 109). It is not easy to see

1 Boethius u. seine Stellung zum Christenthume. Regensburg, 1885.

2 In the Teubner Text edition of the Consolation and Tracts. Leipzig, 1871.

why he refuses to include the fifth, which, as Usener remarks, has very nearly as good MS. right to be considered genuine as the others. There can be little doubt, however, that he is perfectly justified in rejecting the fourth, "De Fide," and not all Biraghi's ingenuity and keenness of sight1 can convince us that this tract was not inserted before the book against Nestorius by some mistake. Of this more anon, when we come to examine the religious writings more closely.

The name of the venerable Girolamo Tiraboschi is entitled to more respect than his compatriot's; but although there is much sound sense in his remarks on Boethius's influence on scholasticism, he does not offer us much assistance towards solving the question of his Christianity.2 Puccinotti3 and

4

Bosizio are two more Italians who appear between them to have written a good deal on our author, but I have not had the advantage of seeing their works.

1 To which he lays claim in his Boezio, filosofo, teologo, martire a Calvenzano. Milan, 1865.

2 Storia della Letteratura Italiana, tom. iii. parte i. Florence, 1806.

3 Il Boezio, &c. Florence, 1864.

4 (a) Memoria intorno al luogo del supplizio di Severino Boezio : Pavia, 1855; (b) Sul cattolicismo di A. M. T. S. Boezio: Pavia, 1867; (c) Sull' autenticità delle opere teologiche di A. M. T. S. Boezio

Pavia, 1869.

I have purposely reserved to the last the most important piece of external evidence we possess as to the authenticity of two at least of the tracts. This is the so-called Anecdoton Holderi,' a fragment found about 1877 by Alfred Holder1 on the last page of Codex Augiensis,' No. cvi.2 This MS., which came, as its name implies, from the monastery at Reichenau (Augia Dives), and now reposes in the Grand-Ducal Library at Carlsruhe, is a tenth century copy of the Institutiones Humanarum Rerum' of Cassiodorus.

The fragment, however, with which

we are concerned seems to have no connection with that educational treatise beyond a common authorship.

It consists of a title and dedication, and three paragraphs, the first giving an account of the works and character of Symmachus, the second performing a like office for his son-in-law Boethius, and the third dwelling at somewhat greater length on the learning and dignities of Cassiodorus.

The paragraphs relating to Symmachus and Boethius are worth transcribing in full:

1 Hermann Usener, in his exhaustive monograph on the subject—

Bonn, 1877-speaks of the discovery as quite a recent one.

2 The famous Codex Augiensis is of course the Græco-Latino uncial MS. of St Paul's Epistles, now in Trinity Library.

philosophus, qui antiqui Catonis fuit novellus imitator, sed virtutes veterum sanctissima religione transcendit. Dixit sententiam pro allecticiis in senatu, parentesque suos imitatus historiam quoque Romanam septem libris edidit.

"Boethius dignitatibus summis excelluit, utraque lingua peritissimus orator fuit. Qui regem Theodoricum in senatu pro consulatu filiorum luculenta oratione laudavit. Scripsit librum de sancta trinitate et capita quædam dogmatica et librum contra Nestorium. Condidit et carmen bucolicum. Sed in opere artis logicæ id est dialecticæ transferendo ac mathematicis disciplinis talis fuit ut antiquos auctores aut æquiperaret aut vinceret."

The original work, of which this tantalising excerpt is all that has come down to us, seems to have been a letter on the literary history of his own family, written by Cassiodorus about 522. There are two reasons for fixing on this date. The letter stands addressed to Rufius Petronius Nicomachus, Magister Officiorum. To this name Usener would add Cethegus, surmising that it was indistinctly written in the MS., and so was left out by the copyist. (It is surely more natural to suppose that it was passed over by inadvertence.) Now Rufius Petronius Nicomachus Cethegus is perfectly well

known as Consul in 504, and Master of the Offices in 522, and this date corresponds exactly with the consulship of Boethius's sons (522) mentioned a few lines below it.

Dr Hodgkin appears to accept unquestioningly all that Usener has to say on the 'Anecdoton,' and speaks of our certain knowledge that Boethius wrote the tracts. I am unable to regard the German editor's conclusions as final. His commentary on the fragment is indeed a marvel of microscopical investigation, but he is guilty of one glaring inconsistency; and the glib way in which he assigns this sentence to the epitomatiser and that to Cassiodorus does not inspire confidence. In a disconnected scrap of MS. like this, who shall draw the line between copy and original?

2

It is laying too great a burden on the 'Anecdoton' to claim for it that it puts the authenticity of the tracts beyond the range of doubt. The handwriting is not earlier than the tenth century; the date of the supposed original is partly based upon a conjecture, however plausible; the Latin of it is too bad; the

1 Italy and her Invaders, vol. iii. p. 566.

2 In one breath he speaks of the title of the MS. as having been tampered with (p. 8), and in the next he supports its genuineness by the fact that Cassiodorus is not called "præfectus prætorio (p. 71)!