King Alfred's Old English Version of St. Augustine's Soliloquies/Introduction/Part 4
IV. Relation of Alfred's Version of the Soliloquies to his Other Works.
1. Authorship. - Folio 56b of the manuscript reads: Hær endiað ða cwidas þe Alfred Kining ales of pcere bee, we hatad on... After these words there occurs a break in the parchment. Trusting in the authenticity of this final statement, most critics had confidently ascribed the translation to Alfred, until in 1851 Pauli, the well-known biographer of the king, cast doubt on the case by advancing the following reasons against Alfred as author:
1. We do not here find Alfred naming himself as author in the introduction, a thing it is his custom to do in his other translations.
2. The translation of the Soliloquies is not listed among Alfred's works by other writers.
3. The work is written in an impure Saxon, probably the attempt of a late and obscure writer to foist this version on the public as genuine.
By far the most noteworthy contribution toward establishing the genuineness of Alfred's authorship was made by Wülker in 1877. This masterly article was published in Vol. IV of Paul and Braune's Beiträge. The following is a summary of his argument:
Against Pauli's arguments he shows that
1. Alfred does not always in the preface name himself as author, Orosius and Bede being cited as proofs; besides, the first part of the Soliloquies is lost.
2. William of Malmesbury names this work as one of Alfred's. 3. We should not be influenced by the fact that there is but one manuscript, and that in an impure Saxon of the twelfth century, for even the Boethius and the Orosius occur in but two manuscripts each, one of which is of the twelfth century.
As additional reasons in favor of Alfred's authorship, Wülker argues:
1. A monk would scarcely make such additions to the original matter, but it would be in keeping with the character and rank of a king to do so.
2. The vocabulary is the same as that used by Alfred in the works known to be genuine.
3. There is a striking similarity between the Soliloquies and Alfred's version of Boethius in the use of the dialogue and terms for the interlocutors, in the modes of expressing abstract ideas, and in the various set phrases for opening and closing divisions.
4. The general method of handling his Latin original is in harmony with Alfred's practice in his other trans lations, and especially in the Boethius.
5. This may be the Encheiridion, Manual, or Handbook of Alfred, to which Asser refers.
The only other considerable contribution to the arguments in favor of Alfred's authorship was made by Professor Frank S. Hubbard. As this is chiefly an indirect result of his study, and bears more directly on the relation of the Soliloquies to the Boethius, it will be treated under that head.
In the recent works on Alfred, the authors are still somewhat at variance as to this question: Wülfing, Earle, and Draper agree with Wülker that Alfred is the author, while others disagree or are silent. 2. Title. - In regard to the somewhat minor question of the title, Wülker thinks Alfred made a collection of Latin quotations from the Church Fathers and from the Bible, and then translated these into Old English and wrote a preface, and that this constituted his Handbook. But the evidence is insufficient for such a conclusion, because:
1. The Soliloquies is not a collection of quotations, but a translation and adaptation of one work. Book I is a fairly close rendering; Book II is a paraphrase of Book II of the Latin. It is true that there are a few quotations from other works in Books II and III of Alfred's version, but not enough to justify our calling it an anthology (blōstman, flosculi, Blumenlese).
2. The unity and sequence of Alfred's version indicate, not a heterogeneous group of quotations, but a dominant theme which suggested and easily invited what quotations +s he used.
I prefer to reject the title of Blooms as used by Hulme, Hubbard, and others, on the ground that the word blōstman, as used by Alfred, was most likely a general, descriptive term and not intended as a title.
3. Relation to Works Other than the Boethius. Alfred translated, or had a part in translating, the following books:
1. The Universal History of Orosius. 2. The Ecclesiastical History of the English People of Bede. 3. The Dialogues of Gregory the Great. 4. The Pastoral Care of Gregory the Great. 5. The Consolation of Philosophy of Boethius. 6. The Soliloquies of St. Augustine.
The first fact that strikes us as to the kind of books King Alfred chose for the betterment of his people is that they are thoroughly imbued with the Christian spirit. Orosius was written at the suggestion of St. Augustine, to prove that Christianity had not injured the world. Boethius, it is now generally agreed, was himself not a Christian, though the Roman Church canonized him, but Alfred's rendering is made distinctly so. The very titles and authors of the other works speak for themselves. It was not the writings of the Latin poets, that appealed to him, but those of the Christian Fathers.
Although these works were all Christian, yet a closer view and comparison reveals an interesting variety of writings on a wide range of subjects. In this list of six mediaeval books we have one on the secular history of the world, another on English Church history, while still another is a sort of compendium of philosophy. To offset these more general and comprehensive treatises, there is the Pastoral Care, which is a specific and practical guide for the shepherd of God's people; the Dialogues constitute a kind of martyrology and handbook for clerks; while, to some extent, these various threads are caught up and woven together in the Soliloquies, for here we have theology, philosophy, and practical precepts. It is, therefore, a work which would make a fitting conclusion to his series of translations, and is placed last by most of the scholars who have attempted a chronological arrangement of Alfred's' works.
4. Relation to the Boethius. - In form, thought, and expression, by far the most closely related of these works are the Boethius and the Soliloquies. They are both imaginary dialogues between the Soul and Reason. The formulas for opening and closing the main divisions are the same in both, as likewise are the set phrases used in question and answer. In the treatment of the original and in the diction there is a striking similarity.
Professor Hubbard, in a careful comparison of the two, has shown almost conclusively that they are by the same hand. After citing many parallel passages bearing on the relation of these two works, he closes with the following recapitulation:
1. There are striking resemblances between the Blooms and the Boethius in the setting of the dialogue, and in all things pertaining to the conduct of the discussion.
2. There are cases of close correspondence between Anglo-Saxon passages that translate Latin expressions widely different from each other.
3. There are original passages of the Blooms closely resembling translation-passages of the Boethius.
4. There is noticed one case of correspondence between a translation-passage of the Blooms and an original passage of the Boethius. 5. Passages that are original in both works correspond.
6. Both works dwell upon and enlarge the same themes.