This deed of injustice brought small profit to its perpetrator; for we read that Theodoric's own death took place shortly afterwards; and that, on his death-bed, 'he expressed in broken murmurs to his physician Elpidius, his deep repentance for the murders of Boethius and Symmachus.'
§ 4. For further details, I beg leave to refer the reader to the essay on 'Boethius' by H. F. Stewart, published by W. Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London, in 1891. We are chiefly concerned here with the 'Consolation of Philosophy,' a work which enjoyed great popularity in the middle ages, and first influenced Chaucer indirectly, through the use of it made by Jean de Meun in the poem entitled Le Roman de la Rose, as well as directly, at a later period, through his own translation of it. Indeed, I have little doubt that Chaucer's attention was drawn to it when, somewhat early in life, he first perused with diligence that remarkable poem; and that it was from the following passage that he probably drew the inference that it might be well for him to translate the whole work:—
'Ce puet l'en bien des clers enquerre
Qui Boëce de Confort lisent,
Et les sentences qui là gisent,
Dont grans biens as gens laiz feroit
Qui bien le lor translateroit' (ll. 5052-6).
I.e. in modern English:—'This can be easily ascertained from the learned men who read Boece on the Consolation of Philosophy, and the opinions which are found therein; as to which, any one who would well translate it for them would confer much benefit on the unlearned folk':—a pretty strong hint[[9]]!
§ 5. The chief events in the life of Boethius which are referred to in the present treatise are duly pointed out in the notes; and it may be well to bear in mind that, as to some of these, nothing further is known beyond what the author himself tells us. Most of the personal references occur in Book i. Prose 4, Book ii. Prose 3, and in Book iii. Prose 4. In the first of these passages, Boethius recalls the manner in which he withstood one Conigastus, because he oppressed the poor (l. 40); and how he defeated the iniquities of Triguilla, 'provost' (præpositus) of the royal household (l. 43). He takes credit for defending the people of Campania against a particularly obnoxious fiscal measure instituted by Theodoric, which was called 'coemption' (coemptio); (l. 59.) This Mr. Stewart describes as 'a fiscal measure which allowed the state to buy provisions for the army at something under market-price—which threatened to ruin the province.' He tells us that he rescued Decius Paulinus, who had been consul in 498, from the rapacity of the officers of the royal palace (l. 68); and that, in order to save Decius Albinus, who had been consul in 493, from wrongful punishment, he ran the risk of incurring the hate of the informer Cyprian (l. 75). In these ways, he had rendered himself odious to the court-party, whom he had declined to bribe (l. 79). His accusers were Basilius, who had been expelled from the king's service, and was impelled to accuse him by pressure of debt (l. 81); and Opilio and Gaudentius, who had been sentenced to exile by royal decree for their numberless frauds and crimes, but had escaped the sentence by taking sanctuary. 'And when,' as he tells us, 'the king discovered this evasion, he gave orders that, unless they quitted Ravenna by a given day, they should be branded on the forehead with a hot iron and driven out of the city. Nevertheless on that very day the information laid against me by these men was admitted' (ll. 89-94). He next alludes to some forged letters (l. 123), by means of which he had been accused of 'hoping for the freedom of Rome,' (which was of course interpreted to mean that he wished to deliver Rome from the tyranny of Theodoric). He then boldly declares that if he had had the opportunity of confronting his accusers, he would have answered in the words of Canius, when accused by Caligula of having been privy to a conspiracy against him—'If I had known it, thou shouldst never have known it' (ll. 126-135). This, by the way, was rather an imprudent expression, and probably told against him when his case was considered by Theodoric.
He further refers to an incident that took place at Verona (l. 153), when the king, eager for a general slaughter of his enemies, endeavoured to extend to the whole body of the senate the charge of treason, of which Albinus had been accused; on which occasion, at great personal risk, Boethius had defended the senate against so sweeping an accusation.