He was thus the first English king to become a truly great defender of the Faith.

From his various prefaces and other undisputedly original writings we learn that he was fond of the contemplative life, and could easily have become an ascetic; that he yearned for the education and salvation of his people; that he felt himself a leader in the acquisition of salvation for himself and for his people. With such surroundings and such a character, the logical thing for him to do was to read andstudy the Latin writings of St. Augustine. It followed easily that he translated and adapted some of these to the needs of his people.

Alfred found in St. Augustine the embodiment of many of his ideals. Had he been blessed with the advantages of early study and leisure, he doubtless would have become a spirit of the same kind-we dare not say of the same degree, for his practical Anglo-Saxon mind could hardly have compassed that lofty and subtle thought which characterized the great Latin Father. As a matter of fact, Alfred was in character and circumstances more nearly similar to Charlemagne, with whom he has often been compared. This similarity is seen in the fact that they both became students, started a revival of learning, established court schools, fostered literature, and collected scholars from other parts of the world. Charlemagne drew Alcuin from England, and in turn Alfred, a century later, drew Grimbold from France.

Had he not given this new impulse to learning and literature, to the founding of schools and churches, the mighty tide of Danish invasion would soon have swept all barriers away, the activity of Elfric would not have been possible, and Old English literature might have been such a weakling, when in 1066 William the Conqueror forced his own laws and language on the English people, as entirely to lose its identity. Thus we see that Alfred, in several senses, was the mighty Defender of England, and well might he be called England's Darling.

It was the blending of these two great streamsLatin Christianity as seen in Augustine of the fifth century, and the stalwart Saxon character as seen in Alfred of the ninth century-that caused a tide of influence to set in which reaches us over the tract of a thousand years, and is now, we believe, gathering strength for a new and mightier period of activity.

IV. Relation of Alfred's Version of the Soliloquies to his Other Works.

1. Authorship.-Folio 56 b of the manuscript reads: Hær endiaỡ đa cwidas pe Alfred Kining alæs of pære bec, we hatað 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 translations, and especially in the Boethius.

5. This may be the Encheiridion, Manual, or Handbook of Alfred, to which Asser refers.1

The only other considerable contribution to the arguments in favor of Alfred's authorship was made by Professor Frank S. Hubbard.2 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. 3

4

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.

1 ор. cit. 77.

2 Mod. Lang. Notes, IX. 161-171.

3 Cf. Introd. p. XXXV.

Wülfing: Die Syntax Alfreds des Grossen.

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 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