Needless to say, Boethius is struck by his turn of fortune; from honored statesman to prisoner, and Philosophy renders Fortune’s argument:
"If free-handed Plenty should dispense riches from her cornucopia as plentiful as the sands cast up by the storm-tossed sea, or as the stars that shine in heaven on clear nights, men still would not stop crying their miserable complaints. (…)
"Even when he is filled with great favors, he burns with thirst for more. No man can be rich who cries fearfully and considers himself to be poor." (Book II, Poem 3, p. 21)
And Boethius’ reply:
"You have made a persuasive argument," I replied, "and presented it with sweet music and rhetoric. But it satisfies only while it is being spoken. Those in misery have a more profound awareness of their afflictions, and therefore a deep-seated pain continues long after the music stops."
To which Philosophy answers:
Still, you ought not to consider yourself completely miserable if you recall your many great joys.
Common sense on both sides of the argument; fate is fickle; man is greedy; nothing is ever enough; misfortune strikes at all.
But are Boethius’ troubles the result of fortune or luck as one would call it and as Philosophy reports? Hasn’t he instead bred within himself an honor and sense of justice that took some toll on him as well as gained him the glory and status he achieved? Fortune here I take not strictly as material, but hold as does Boethius, his self and reputation, his purpose.
At this point, I am hoping that misfortune is being considered as only one level of sorrow, and one that as Philosophy points out, may be considered out of man’s control. Then, her presentation is right in its argument for needless worry. Rejoice in the good times, and though I suppose she feels we should not lament over the bad, I think what she is saying is not to depend upon it as its very nature is one of randomness.
But what of that which has been earned?
The Lost Children: A Charity Anthology
Again, i know nothing of which you speak, yet i cannot imagine a circumstance in which misfortune could ever be considered out of man’s control. Borne often out of chaos, and thus unpredictable to be sure, is misfortune also not a direct cause of informed choice?
Still, in defense of my ignorance i would point out only a fool would ever deny that the older one gets the more one realizes how little one knows after all.
… your thirst for knowledge and understanding is admirable my dear. I hope it’s never quenched.
I was thinking perhaps of floods that wipe out lives, or companies that pull up roots and leave unemployment and dead towns behind. But then, one does have a choice where one settles.
Anne, you are so right about the doubting of wisdom as we get older. I find myself wondering about misconceptions formed by decades of observation and find myself floundering and panicking at the thought of never knowing the truth within this short lifetime left.
Well, floods in general might be more chaotic and not be quite “informed choice”. I was thinking more along the lines, for instance, of folks who rebuild their homes on common flood areas or areas of recurrent mudslides. Losing a home is a great misfortune and sorrow under any circumstance, but to rebuild in an area known to be prone to nature’s wrath may be courting disaster.
With that, i think i’ll go explore the fantasy of beauty sleep. By the way, i don’t consider it floundering and panicking. You simply walk with deeper magic than most.