Boethius, The Consolation 1.15

. . . “Would you learn the sum of the charges against me? It was said that ‘I had desired the safety of the Senate.’ You would learn in what way. I was charged with ‘having hindered an informer from producing papers by which the Senate could be accused of treason.’

“What think you, my mistress? Shall I deny it lest it shame you? No, I did desire the safety of the Senate, nor shall I ever cease to desire it. Shall I confess it? Then there would have been no need to hinder an informer. Shall I call it a crime to have wished for the safety of that order? By its own decrees concerning myself it has established that this is a crime. Though want of foresight often deceives itself, it cannot alter the merits of facts, and, in obedience to the Senate's command, I cannot think it right to hide the truth or to assent to falsehood.

“However, I leave it to your judgment, and that of philosophers, to decide how the justice of this may be; but I have committed to writing for history the true course of events, that posterity may not be ignorant of them.

“I think it unnecessary to speak of the forged letters through which I am accused of ‘hoping for the freedom of Rome.’ Their falsity would have been apparent if I had been free to question the evidence of the informers themselves, for their confessions have much force in all such business.” . . .

—from Book 1, Prose 4

Notice how the very wording of the charges reveals the difference between Boethius and his accusers. Boethius will gladly confess to such a claim, because he believes he is defending the safety of the Senate when he stands for integrity and justice. From his perspective, the institution can only thrive when the rule of law is respected, and when its mission of service is protected.

But wicked people think very differently than righteous people. Safety, for the accusers, is not about the common good, but about ensuring personal interest. The only benefit for them is the increase of their own wealth, power, and influence, and they surely assume that others desire the very same things that they do. What they mean is that the kind of safety Boethius seeks would be a threat to themselves.

Two opposing senses of safety follow from two opposing senses of benefit. A true patriot, for example, will gladly fight and die to protect his neighbors, while a false patriot will gladly allow his neighbors to fight and die to protect him.

Any institution, of any sort, shows its strength when people work together for a shared goal, and it shows its weakness when it becomes a means for conflict and selfish profit. I can imagine many of Boethius’ readers, from many times and places, understanding quite well what has happened, because while they have sometimes seen their own institutions succeed, they have for more often seen them fail.

I have never really been in any great position of power, but I have, on occasion, had the opportunity, and the horror, of observing how things tend to work on the inside. I do not necessarily assume any malice, but whenever an organization is faced with a problem, the immediate instinct is to circle the wagons. The goal will usually be to preserve appearances, and to secure the position of all those involved. If a weaker member of the pack must be sacrificed to save the stronger ones, that is seen as an unfortunate but necessary part of doing business.

And that is exactly how many of us will see the sort of mess that Boethius has gotten himself into. That’s how the world works, and if you want to make an omelet, you’ll have to break a few eggs. We see how the game is played, and we simply accept the rules, however unfair they might be.

We obviously don’t know exactly what was going on in the minds of the senators, but enough of them clearly thought their idea of safety was in direct conflict with Boethius’ idea of safety, and that the promotion of their interests required damage to the interests of others.

Boethius, however, is the sort of man who stands out from the crowd. For all the ways he may be confused, he still tries to act on principle, and he doesn’t think the ends justify the means, or that some must suffer so others can succeed. Remember that all of this started when he stood up for someone he thought an innocent victim, and now he in turn has to be the victim.

His own power and position have been destroyed, and he finds this unfair, but he is perhaps even more troubled by the gravity of the offense against the truth itself. It can be hard to decide whether it is more painful to suffer an offense myself, or to see something I deeply love and respect suffer an offense.

Written in 6/2015