King Alfred's Old English Version of St. Augustine's Soliloquies/Introduction/Part 5
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. V. Discussion of Alfred's Version of the Soliloquies.
1. Sources. - The following sources were used by Alfred:
1. Augustine's Soliloquies and Epistle 147, otherwise called De Videndo Deo.
2. Gregory the Great's Dialogues and Morals.
3. Jerome's Vulgate and Commentary on Luke.
The sources from Augustine and Gregory are pointed out by Wülker. I have found as strong evidence for including Jerome as did Wülker for any source except the Soliloquies. It might be even safer to say that the Soliloquies is the chief source, and that no specific source can with certainty be named for the remainder, since its subject- matter is merely similar to that found in various places, not only in the writings of the three Fathers named above, but in others as well.
2. General View. - In general we may say that the Soliloquies, both in the Augustinian original and the Alfredian version, have a twofold subject, the inquiry into the nature of God and into that of the human soul. Book I is occupied mainly with the passionate search for God, and might properly have for a motto the burning words of Job: 'Oh that I knew where I might find him! that I might come even to his seat!' Book II deals with the question of the immortality of the soul, and reminds us of the inquiry also expressed by Job as follows: 'If a man die, shall he live again?' Book I is essentially the same in both versions, both as to subject-matter and method of treatment. Book II in the Alfredian version is not only much abbreviated, but adopts an entirely different method of treating the subject. Alfred adds Book III, in which he forecasts the future state of the soul, thus giving symmetry and completion to Augustine's work.
3. Latin Original. - Let us first see what is the substance of the Latin original. Augustine, after a long and earnest prayer for divine aid, expresses a desire to know but two things - God and his soul. But how shall one know God - by sense, or by intellection? Reason, which is the eye of the soul, promises to demonstrate God to the mind as clearly as the sun shows itself to the eyes. The soul, then, in order to see God, has need of Faith, Hope, and Love; after these are dwelt on as essentials to the true seeing, it is affirmed that by looking, which is the reason in active operation, the soul beholds the Beatific Vision. To test the soundness of the spiritual vision, a searching inquiry as to the presence of bodily lusts is made. Even should these be found absent, the mind cannot bear at once to behold the brightness of Divine Wisdom, but must be taken through a process of gradual training. A third thing, Truth, must be first known, because through her alone are we led to know God and the soul. The book closes with a resolution to submit to God's guidance, and a prayer for faith in him and an ability to do his will.
In Book II the author propounds as the question of supreme moment: 'Am I immortal'? St. Augustine works out the solution to this problem in a manner very satis- factory to himself, no doubt, but the modern thinker would be tempted to object that 'much might be said on both sides'. The Latin Father here shows himself the forerunner of scholasticism. The newly converted Christian sinks his identity for the time into the dialectic philosopher. He leads us through a labyrinth of reasonings, in which he hopelessly confuses the forms of logic with the essential truth. The chief dictum asserted is that truth persists; even if truth itself should pass away, yet it would be true that it has passed away. Falsity is so, because it is otherwise than it seems if therefore there are none to whom it may seem, nothing is false; but falsity existing implies a perceiving sense, and a perceiving sense implies a subjective immortal soul.
The following summaries will reveal his process: 'You have said that falsity cannot be without sense, and that sense cannot but be; therefore there is always sense. But there is no sense without soul; therefore the soul is everlasting. Nor has it power to exercise sense, unless it lives; therefore the soul always lives'. And again: 'Therefore if nothing is true unless it be as it seems; and if nothing corporeal can appear, except to the senses; and if the only subject of sense is the soul; and if no body can exist unless it be a true body: it follows that there cannot be a body unless there has first been a soul'. Finally: 'From this truth, as I remember, that Truth cannot perish, we have concluded that not only if the whole world should perish, but even if Truth itself should, it will still be true that both the world and Truth have perished. Now there is nothing true but truth; in no wise therefore does Truth perish'.
After various and long excursions in which abstraction is complicated by abstraction, and confusion worse confounded, the book is closed rather abruptly with a promise that another book would be written on the subject of in-tellection, a promise which, however, was never fulfilled.
4. Alfred's Version. - Coming now to Alfred's treatment of his original, we find in general that he begins, as elsewhere, with a strict adherence to his Latin, and gradually departs more and more from it, until at the end he is entirely alone and original. In Book I, we may say, he was a translator; in Book II he was an adapter; in Book III he was author, at least so far as Augustine is concerned.
Alfred's method of translation was unique, as the fact will show. At times he is literal, but more often he is quite free, seizing on the essential thought and epitomizing or recasting it, or rejecting some minor point and adding another instead - always imparting a distinctly individual eavor to what ever he touches. He seems to have felt a posflrnsibility not so much to his original as to his readers. To this extent he was a creative artist. How otherwise in kind did Chaucer and Shakespeare treat their sources, when the former converted Boccaccio's Teseida into the Knight's Tale, and the latter created Hamlet out of The History of Hamblet?
Our study of Alfred's method of translation will be confined to Book I. Since the Latin and Old English are printed on the same page, so that any one can easily compare the versions, it will not be necessary to go extensively into this subject.
In his prefaces Alfred speaks several times of rendering 'now word for word, now sense for sense'. This is a clue to his method, but the former was made use of very rarely. The following heads will contain typical examples: 1. Rarely do we find an instance of purely literal renderings such as:
Latin
Exaudi, exaudi, exaudi me, Deus meus, Domine meus, rex meus, pater meus, causa mea, spes mea, res mea, honor meus, domus mea, patria mea, salus mea, lux mea, vita mea.
Old English
Gehīere, gehȳre me, Drihten, forþām þū eart mīn God, and mīn Drihten, and mīn feder, and mīn sceapen, and mīn gemetgyend, and mīn tōhopa, and mīn spēd, and mīn wyrðscipe, and mīn hūs, and mīn ēðl, and mīn hǣle, and mīn lȳf.
2. There are a few cases where the same thought in Latin is more briefly expressed in Old English:
Deus intelligibilis lux, in quo et a quo et per quem intelligibiliter lucent, que intelligibiliter lucent omnia.
Ðū þe æart þæt andgitlice lēoht þurh þe man ongit.
3. More common is the joining of several sentences into one:
Deus quo nos revocas in viam. Deus qui nos deducis ad januam. Deus qui facis ut pulsantibus aperiatur. Deus qui nobis das panem vitae. Deus per quem sitimus potum, quo hausto nunquam sitiamus.
Ðū ūs clypast tō ūrum wege, and ūs gelēdest tō þǣre dura and ūs ðā untȳnst, and ūs sillest þonne hlāf ēces lȳfes and þonne drinc of lȳfes wylle.
4. Quite commonly we find paraphrase:
Deus per quem nos non movent qui minime credunt.
Ðū ūs getrymedest and gȳt trymest on ūrum gelēafum, þǣt ūs ne magon þā ungelȳfædan āmirran.
5. Expansion for the sake of clearness and details; this is fairly common:
Deus cujus regnum est totus mundus, quem sensus ignorat.
Ic þē bydde, Drihten, þū þe æalles middangeardes wealst; þū þe wē ne magon līchamlice ongytan nāþer nē mid ēagum, nē mid swece, nē mid ēarum, nē mid smecce, nē mid hrine.
These few examples are sufficient to reveal the general method of the translator. The fact that this identical method is employed by Alfred in the Pastoral Care and Boeihius constitutes one proof that Alfred was the trans lator of the Soliloquies.
It must be said that in this, as in all translations, it is often extremely difficult to determine the degree of literalness in a given case, since there may be a kind of adumbration of the meaning of a word in the words preceding or following.
There are four considerable additions made by Alfred in Book I, and these divide the Book into five very nearly equal parts. They are:
1. Vicissitude in Nature.....9.23-10.17. 2. Figure of Ship and Anchor..22.2-26.5. 3. Seeing God and working with Him..31.8-27. 4. Parable of King and subject..43.23-44.27.
These longer excursions are interesting from several points of view. They are original, and yet grow naturally out of the subject in hand. They are written to make clear certain fundamental truths. There may be seen in them a vigor of expression not found in the parts translated.
Having seen his method as a translator, we may now study him in the other function which he exercised so often, but nowhere better, perhaps, than in Book II. It is here that we see him at work with a freer hand. He is in that intermediate stage, between the faithful translator and the, unshackled, creative artist; and thus his personality stands out in bolder relief, and to that extent appeals to us more strongly.
What he might have become as an original artist is not entirely a matter of speculation. Although natural endowments, education (or lack of it), and environment conspired to make of him a man of affairs and a king of intense practicality rather than a man of letters or a philosopher, yet in the genuinely original prefaces to his various translations we can but recognize a master-hand. These are veritable preludes - thematic chords - touched by an artist, who, we feel, had he possessed opportunity, might have wrought out a composition that would take rank as a classic. But, in truth, so far as present scholarship can positively assert, he left us no single original production that is complete. Who shall say that he did less wisely in turning what time and talents he had to the popularizing of what he considered the classics of his age giving his people the best of the old and the established rather than venturing to contrive something new and possibly false?
No better example of a skilful preface or introduction can be found than the one with which he begins the Soliloquies. It recalls Emerson's saying: 'Every book is a quotation; and every house is a quotation out of all forests and mines and stone-quarries; and every man is a quotation from all his ancestors.' With some such thought as this our English King, inured to the hardships of war, no doubt having felt at times the need of shelter from storms, but yet with a burning desire for peace and strong faith and hope and love and the other Christian graces, approaches the translation of St. Augustine's work. Under the figure of building a house or fort from the timbers cut and with the tools fashioned from the forests of the thoughts and writings of the Fathers, he begins:
'[I] gathered for myself cudgels, and stud-shafts, and horizontal shafts, and helves for each of the tools that I could work with, and bow-timbers and bolt-timbers for every work that I could perform, the comeliest trees, as many as I could carry. Neither came I with a burden home, for it did not please me to bring all the wood back, even if I could bear it. In each tree I saw something that I needed at home; therefore I advise each one who can, and has many wains, that he direct his steps to the same wood where I cut the stud-shafts. Let him fetch more for himself, and load his wains with fair beams, that he may wind many a neat wall, and erect many a rare house, and build a fair town, and therein may dwell merrily and softly both winter and summer, as I have not yet done.'
He is not talking about the temporal house, but the eternal dwelling-place, and closes his preface with the highly personal prayer that 'so may the rich Giver do, who rules both these temporary cottages and the everlasting homes. May he who created both, and rules both, grant me that I be fit for each, both here to be useful and thither to come'.
The changes that Alfred made in his rendering of Book II may be roughly estimated by comparing the respective lengths of the Latin and the Old English versions. There are approximately 9,700 words in the Latin of Book II and 11,800 words in the Old English, whereas Book I has 8,300 Latin words as against the 3,000 Old English words of Alfred's rendering. But as Alfred added new matter to the extent of about 1,000 words, we may estimate that he rejected about three-fourths of the Latin of Augustine.
Why did he make these changes? The correct answer to this question will reveal interesting facts as to his mind and method. Are we summarily to dismiss the question by the surmise that he had not time to finish the work, or that he wearied of his task? This is highly improALFRED'S VERSION OF THE SOLILOQUIES XLV
-bable, for the reasons which follow: First, he not only compassed the work as finished by Augustine, but added a third book built up from other selections from the Fathers and Scripture; secondly, internal evidence proves that the work of Alfred has an air of completeness - it does not end abruptly; thirdly, the kind of rendering he gave demanded greater thought and pains than a more literal translation, such as he gave in Book I.
In order to establish these facts more clearly, it is necessary to look somewhat in detail at the changes made.
The subject-matter of Book II of the Alfredian version is the first that calls for special comment. Whereas Augustine gives a learned disquisition on truth and falsity, similitude and dissimilitude, as a means of substantiating the immortality of the soul, Alfred approaches the subject mainly through authorities quoted, and with the common sense of a practical Christian of his time. Near the beginning of Book II the inquirer admits the immortality of God, but expresses a doubt about the immortality of the soul. Reason is surprised that one should want to know what no man while in the prison of the flesh can know, yet it under takes to prove the immortality of the soul so clearly as to cause shame to the doubter. Then the colloquy develops the fact that Augustine has such faith in Theodorius, his king, and Honorius, son of the king, as to believe anything that he might never have heard of, except from their lips; but further, that he has as much more faith in God and Christ, the Son of God, than in Theodorius and Honorius, as the former are wiser and better than the latter:
'What spake God then oftener, or what said he more truthfully through his prophets to his people, than about the immortality of souls? Or what said the apostles and all the holy fathers, if they spake not about the eternity of souls and about their immortality? Or what did Christ mean when he said in his Gospel: "The unrighteous shall go into everlasting punishment, and the righteous into everlasting life?"'
The authority of the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and holy fathers having been appealed to, the question is then asked by Reason: 'Why canst thou not believe all these?' Augustine answers: 'I say that I believe them, and also know exactly that it is all true that God has said either through himself or through them; for there are more of these happenings in the holy books than I can ever reckon. Therefore I am now ashamed that I ever doubted about it, and I acknowledge that I am very rightly convinced, and I shall always be much happier when thou dost convince me with such things than I ever was when I convinced another man. All this I knew, however, before, but I forgot it, as I fear also that I shall do this.'
Reason expresses wonder that any one should doubt the immortality of the soul, the highest and best of all God's creatures, when even the lowest and meanest creature does not utterly perish and pass away. Let the mind turn inward, and search for other examples to prove the same truth. The mind will, if discreet, say that it desires knowledge of past, present, and future things, because it knows it shall always exist. Hence 'there is no doubt that souls are immortal. Believe thine own reason, and believe Christ, the Son of God, and believe all his saints, for they were very reliable witnesses; and believe thine own soul, which always says to thee through the reason that it is in thee; it says also that it is everlasting, be cause it wishes everlasting things. It is not such a foolish creature as to seek what it can not find, or wish that which it has not, or which belongs not to it. Give up now unjust doubting. It is clear enough that thou art ever lasting, and shalt ever exist'. The inquirer thus expresses himself satisfied as to the subject in hand, but his thirst is not entirely quenched, for just at the close of the book another question is propounded, namely: Shall our knowledge change in the future world as in this world, or shall it remain constant? Reason artfully replies:
'I hear now what thou wouldst know, but I cannot tell it to thee in a few words. If thou wilt know it openly, then thou must seek it in the book which we call De Videndo Deo. This book is called in English, About the Beholding of God. But be now of good cheer and think over that wich thou hast just learned, and let us both pray then that he help us, for he promised that he would help every one who called to him and rightly wished; and he promised without any doubt that he would teach us after we left this world, that we should fully know perfect wisdom and perfect truth; which thou mayest hear much more openly in the book which I before named to thee - De Videndo Deo.'
And the book closes with the words: 'Here end the blossoms of the second book which we call Soliloquies'.
The following parallel of the points made in the Augustinian and the Alfredian versions respectively will show at a glance the difference of treatment
Augustine Alfred
1. Invocation for divine aid to know self. 2. Proof that the soul is immortal based largely on the subtleties of dialectics; similitude the mother of truth, dissimilitude of falsity; no truth or falsity without a perceiving sense, no sense without a living soul; hence the soul is immortal. 3. Since truth must persist, the
Alfred
1. Invocation for divine aid to know self. 2. Proof that the soul is immortal based largely on authorities: the words of Christ, his Apostles, the Prophets, and the Church Fathers quoted, or referred to, as favoring the truth that the soul is immortal; hence it is immortal. 3. Since the soul craves knowperceiving subject, the soul, must be immortal 4. In closing, an unanswered query is raised: How is truth related to an undisciplined mind?
-ledge of immortal things, Reason asserts it must be immortal. 4. The book closes with the query: Does the intellect change in the next world? Answered in Book III.
Book III is linked to the close of Book II by the following introductory statement:
'A. Now thou hast ended the sayings which thou hast selected from these two books, and hast not yet answered me about that which I last asked thee, that is, about my intellect. I asked thee whether, after the parting of body and soul, it should increase or decrease, or whether it should do both as it here doth.'
'R. Have I not already told thee that thou shouldest seek it in the book which we then spoke about? Learn that book, then thou wilt find it there.'
Just here, unfortunately, occurs a distinct break in the thought, although the manuscript shows no evidence of it, and hence we cannot with absolute certainty trace the continuity. However, the responsibility of the investigation having been placed on the seeker, the same general tenor of thought is kept up in the inquiries as to the state of the souls of the good and the bad after their departure from this world. The wicked and the good are to see each other, and know their respective states of punishment and reward, for the purpose of intensifying the torment of the one and the joy of the other. Thus the book is on the subject of the future state of the soul, whether it be the more specific topic of seeing God or of mutual recognition of souls.
A bond is established between the deeds and aspirations of this world and the rewards of the next - a thought that doubtless thrilled Alfred: 'The like have their like. One is also not to suppose that all men have like wisdom in heaven; but each has it in that measure which he here yearneth after. As he here toils better and yearns more for wisdom and righteousness, so he has more of it there, and also more honor and more glory.'
Then follows the query: 'Has it yet been clearly enough said to thee about wisdom and about the seeing of God?' which gives us a clue to the real subject of this book and its relation to the other two; and the eloquent answer must be given in full:
'Yea, well enough I believe that we need lose naught of the wisdom which we now have, though the soul and the body be parted. But I believe that our knowledge shall be very much increased by that means, though we cannot know all before doomsday which we would know. But I believe that naught will be hidden from us after doomsday neither that which is in our days, nor that which was before, nor that which shall be after. Thou hast now related many examples to me, and I have myself seen more in the writings of the holy books than I can reckon, or can even remember. Thou hast shown me also such reliable witnesses that I can do nothing else but believe them ; for if I believe no weaker testimony, then I know very little or nothing. What know I but that I wish that we may know as clearly about God as we would? But the mind is weighed down and busied with the body, so that we cannot see anything with the mind's eyes just as it is, any more than thou mayest sometimes see the brightness of the sun, when the clouds shoot between it and thee; and yet it shines very brightly there where it is. And even though there be no cloud between it and thee, thou canst not see it just as it is, because thou art not where it is; nor can thy body be there, nor can thy bodily eyes come anywhere near there, nor even see near there. Nor can we even see the moon, which is nearer us, just as it is. We know that it is broader than the earth, and yet it seems not broader to us sometimes than a shield, on account of the distance. Now thou hast heard that neither can we see aught of this world with the mind's eye entirely as it is; but by the part of it that we see we should believe the part that we cannot see. But it is promised us without any doubt, so soon as we come out of this world, and the soul is loosed from the prison of the body, that we shall know everything that we now wish to know, and much more than the great men the wisest of all in this world could know. And after doomsday it is promised us that we may see God openly see him wholly, just as he is; and know him ever afterwards just as well as he now knows us. Nor shall we ever afterward have any want of wisdom. He will conceal naught from us, who lets us know himself. But we shall then know all that we now wish to know even also that which we now do not wish to know. We shall all see God - both they who are here the worst and they who are here the best. All the good shall see him to their comfort and joy and happiness and glory; and the wicked shall see him just as the good, yet to their torment.'
As his sole authority for these thoughts Alfred then quotes from Jerome's Vulgate the parable of Dives and Lazarus - a passage frequently used by modern writers, as well as by the Christian Fathers, in speculations on the future state. And then comes the fitting conclusion, which is too good to omit:
'Now we may hear that both the departed good and the wicked know all that happens in this world, and also in the world in which they are. They know the greatest part, though they do not know it all before doomsday, and they have very much remembrance in that world of their kindred and their friends. And the good help the good, and each of them the other, to the extent that they can. But the good will not have mercy on their evil friends, because they will not give up their evil, any more than Abraham would pity the rich man, though he was of his own kin, because he perceived that he was not so humble before God as he rightly should be. The evil, then, can neither do their friends nor themselves any good, for they were formerly of no help, neither to their friends nor to themselves who had passed away before them when they were in this world. But it shall then be with them as with those men who are here brought into some king's prison, and may see their friends every day and ask about them that which they will, and yet they may not be of any good to them; they neither wish, nor are able, to go to them any more. Therefore have the evil more punishment in the world to come, because they know the honors and dignities of the good, and also therefore the more, that they remember all the honors which they had in this world; and also they know those torments which they have who shall then be left behind them in this world.
'The good, then, who have full freedom, shall see both their friends and their foes just as here men in power often see together both their friends and their foes. They see them alike and know them alike, although they do not love them alike. And again the righteous, after they are out of this world, remember very often both the good and the evil which they had in this world, and they rejoice exceedingly that they forsook not their Lord's will, neither in easy things nor in mysterious, while they were in this world. Just so some man of power in this world may have driven one of his darlings from him, or he may be forced from him against both of their wills, and then have many torments and many mischances in his exile so that he yet returns to that same master with whom he formerly was. Then he remembers the mishaps which he had in his exile, and yet is not more unhappy. But I myself saw that, or more untrustworthy men told it to me than those were who told that which we are seeking after. Now must I not do one of two things either believe some man or none? Methinks that I know who built the city of Rome, and also many other things which happened before our days, all of which I cannot reckon. It is not because I myself saw it that I know who built the city. Nor even do I know of what kin I am, nor who my father or my mother was except from hearsay. I know that my father begot me, and that my mother bore me, but yet I do not know it for the reason that I myself saw it, but because some one told it to me. Not so trustworthy were the men who told it me, however, as they were who told that which we have now long been searching after - and yet I believe it.
'Therefore he seems to me a very foolish man and very inexcusable, who will not increase his knowledge while he is in this world, and always wish and desire that he may come to the everlasting life, where naught shall be hidden from us.'
'Here end the sayings which Alfred, the king, selected from the book which we call in . . .'
Now having seen the character and extent of the alterations made by Alfred, we are in a position to answer the question why he made such changes. Three sufficient reasons may be given:
1. It is his general practice as a translator. This will be clear upon a scrutiny of his various translations. But here, as in so many other particulars, the Boethius is the best parallel to the Soliloquies. It is useless to enter upon a discussion of this point, for Sedgefield's excellent version of Alfred's Boethius need only be glanced at in order to show how free the translation, how frequent the original passages inserted, and how skilfully Alfred has recast the thought of the Latin in the mold of his own individuality. One particular, however, needs emphasis, namely, that it is a common practice of Alfred to diverge, further and further from his original, the nearer he approaches the end of a translation. In the last book of the Boethius he has shortened the Latin greatly and added ' much of his own, so that the book can be called almost as original as the third book of the Soliloquies.
2. Alfred rejects subtleties. For this there may be two reasons, namely: First, that his mind could not understand the processes of Augustine's ratiocination; secondly, that the Old English language was incapable of giving adequate expression to philosophical ideas; or both of these may have worked together to bring about the one result. Augustine in Book II carries his reasoning into the vaguest possible ramifications, and it is just here that Alfred departs furthest from the Latin. Even Augustine felt that he was adopting an extremely abstract method, for repeatedly he makes himself answer Ratio thus: 'Make it plainer to me, I beg.' Now we know that Alfred had no such training as Augustine, and hence may infer that such methods were unsatisfactory to his own mind, and certainly that it would be casting pearls before swine to give Augustine's thoughts to his unlettered subjects; hence he wisely acts as interpreter, choosing the essential thought from Augustine, and giving it to his people in the simplicity of their vernacular.
Then, how was the Old English to find a terminology to express such thoughts as:
'Responde nunc quae disciplina contineat definitionum, divisionum, partitionumque rationes.'
'Sed illud saltem impetrem, antequam terminum volumini statuas, ut quid intersit inter veram figuram, quae intelligentia continentur, et eam quam sibi fingit cogitatio, quae graece sive phantasia sive phantasma dicitur, breviter exponas.'
Thus Alfred was a mediator for his people; he culled and appropriately interpreted the ideas which he thought would most help them.
3. Alfred was influenced by a sense of artistic completeness. Book III grows naturally out of Books I and II, and gives a finishing touch to the work as a whole. Augustine himself left his work unfinished, and Alfred performed a skilful as well as venturesome task in under taking to complete it. How wisely he did this will be seen when it is considered that he drew the material for Book III from Augustine's other writings as far as possible, and after that from other Christian Fathers whose authority was weighty. He then welded these together, at the same time making large use of Scripture.
Observing more closely, we note that the theme of Book III is itself a logical outgrowth of the other books: Book I - knowledge of God; Book II - knowledge of the soul; Boole III - state of knowledge and the soul after death. Reason sas shown that we may have a sufficient knowledge of the nature and existence of God and the soul's immortality while in this life, but that at best this is partial, because of the prison of flesh and the sinfulness we are heir to. Our power of vision must be increased and made clearer before we can behold and see that supernal Beatific Vision - but this cannot occur in the present world, though it shall occur in the next. It is not enough to know God and the soul in this world nor to know that both shall exist eternally, nor yet that they shall live eternally. Alfred added in Book III the one thing still needful to know, namely, that knowledge will continue and increase in the next word. It is true that, on first reading, one would be likely to decide, even without considering the breaks in the manuscript, that the work is a medley; but sympathetic study will show that development of his theme is natural and artistic. We are, after considering these facts, forced to the conclusion that Alfred had in some degree a sense of fitness and of completeness, and that he exercised this in the changes he made. To sum up, then:
1. Alfred's version is not so much a fragment as the completion of a fragment.
2. He omits the dreary dialectics of Augustine, and uses only what his people can understand; even this he renders in the simplest manner.
3. Although omitting so much, his mind allows no essential fact to escape him, but conserves all with scholarly faithfulness.
5. Conclusion. - Alfred's literary merits are not of the highest order; his nature and circumstances forbade that. But there are certain definite qualities which are in themselves praiseworthy. We note in his writings a simplicity which at times is striking in its effectiveness. Again we feel a manly, if somewhat unpolished, strength. At other times this simplicity of utterance and virility of conception surprise us by bursting forth into rich flowering and ripe fruitage. His similes are drawn from nature, and are eloquent of his experiences as warrior and king. What can be more fitting to the subject than the comparison of the soul to a ship held by the anchors of virtue to its eternal mooring, God? Or what more forcible and indicative of a royal author than the representation of the avenues to wisdom by the highways and by-paths that lead to the king's royal seat?[1]
As to the dialogue form, Alfred followed Augustine, who no doubt took as his exemplar Cicero, and remotely Plato. Indirectly, then, the Dialogues of Plato in Greek became the model of Alfred's Old English version of the Soliloquies. This will be more readily seen when we remember that Boethius drew his dialogue method from Cicero, on whom he wrote commentaries,[2] and Alfred became well acquainted with this manner of enlivening a philosophical discussion from his translation of Boethius. It was an easy transition from Boethius to Augustine.
Alfred showed his originality and sense of harmony in his adaptation of the dialogue style to the new parts in Book III, where, in the Latin, there is no dialogue. But he departs more and more from the use of dialogue the nearer he reaches the close, so that it is hard to say just when he makes the conscious transition to monologue with which, it is certain, he rounds off the concluding remarks.
In estimating Alfred's style we must remember that here, as elsewhere, he was a foundation-layer. There was no real Old English prose before him. So that if there are faults - and there are - we need not be surprised. But he blazed the way, and set a high standard for other writers to follow. In him, if we read closely, we may see the embryonic prose style of Chaucer, Milton, and Addison while in his impulse to translate religious works into English, he allies himself with a multitude of later writers.
He who strives not only to visualize the outward life, but also to retrace the thoughts and experience the emotions of King Alfred, must by that very effort rise to a higher and better life. To enter into the conscious life of Alfred's age is to reconstruct for one's delectation and edification one of the most fruitful periods of the much underrated and slighted Middle Ages. Falsely wise scholars have stalked stolidly over the surface of this region, and pronounced it arid and worthless. But the keen vision of genius pierces deeper, and lo, when once excavations have been begun, a whole Olympia emerges! To eyes untrained it appeared a blank, and thus was called the Dark Age; but had it not, rather, somewhat of the brightness that blinds?