Drawing Alfredian Waters: The Old English Metrical Epilogue to the Pastoral Care, Boethian Metre 20, and Solomon and Saturn II

2021 ◽  
pp. 241-266
Author(s):  
Daniel Anlezark
1995 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 43-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Lucas

When Old English studies were in their infancy in the seventeenth century, scholars such as Franciscus junius (1591–1677) had very little to study in print. With no grammar and no dictionary (until Somner's in 1659) they had to teach themselves the language from original sources. Junius, whose interest in Germanic studies became active in the early 1650s, was so proficient, not only at Old English, but also at the cognate languages that he became virtually the founding-father of Germanic philology. Over the years Junius made transcripts in his own distinctive imitation-Anglo-Saxon minuscule script of many Old English texts, transcripts that have subsequently proved invaluable, especially where the original manuscripts have been damaged or lost.


2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (296) ◽  
pp. 597-617
Author(s):  
Amy Faulkner

Abstract The Prose Psalms, an Old English translation of the first 50 psalms into prose, have often been overshadowed by the other translations attributed to Alfred the Great: the Old English Pastoral Care, with its famous preface, and the intellectually daring Old English translations of Boethius’s Consolation of Philosophy and Augustine’s Soliloquies. However, this article proposes that, regardless of who wrote them, the Prose Psalms should be read alongside the Old English Consolation and the Soliloquies: like the two more well-studied translations, the Prose Psalms are concerned with the mind and its search for true understanding. This psychological interest is indicated by the prevalence of the word mod (‘mind’) in the Old English text, which far exceeds references to the faculty of the intellect in the Romanum source. Through comparison with the Consolation and the Soliloquies, this article demonstrates that all three texts participate in a shared tradition of psychological imagery. The three translations may well, therefore, be the result of a single scholarly environment, perhaps enduring for several decades, in which multiple scholars read the same Latin, patristic writings on psychology, discussed these ideas among themselves, and thereby developed the vernacular discourse observable in these three translations. Whether this environment was identical with the scholarly circle which Alfred gathered at the West Saxon court remains a matter for debate.


2007 ◽  
Vol 36 ◽  
pp. 103-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Anlezark

AbstractScholars have long disputed whether or not Beowulf reflects the influence of Classical Latin literature. This essay examines the motif of the ‘poisoned place’ present in a range of texts known to the Anglo-Saxons, most famously represented by Avernus in the Aeneid. While Grendel's mere presents the best-known poisonous locale in Old English poetry, another is found in the dense and enigmatic poem Solomon and Saturn II. The relationship between these poems is discussed beside a consideration of the possibility that their use of the ‘Avernian tradition’ points to the influence of Latin epic on their Anglo-Saxon authors.


2000 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 279-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kees Dekker

In September 1890, Hendrik Logeman, professor of English and Germanic philology at the University of Ghent in Belgium, had the audacity to accuse no less a scholar than Henry Sweet of misleading his readers. Logeman based his accusation on an unfortunate remark Sweet had made in his edition of the Old English translation of Pope Gregory'sPastoral Care. For this scholarly edition, Sweet had wished to include the text of London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius B. xi. However, having barely survived the Ashburnham House blaze of 1731, this manuscript had been almost entirely consumed by fire at a bookbinder's in 1865. As a replacement, Sweet had used Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 53, a transcript made by the seventeenth-century philologist Francis Junius (1591–1677) when the Cotton manuscript was still unscathed. Sweet praised Junius and emphasized the accuracy of the transcript by stating that Junius only ‘swerved from the path of literal accuracy in a few unimportant particulars’. Hendrik Logeman had collated the Old English glosses to the Benedictine Rule from Cotton Tiberius A. iii with a Junius transcript, Junius 52, for his 1888 edition, but he found, instead, that Junius failed to distinguish between 〈ð〉 and 〈þ〉 that he corrected his text without giving the reading of the manuscript, and that he added, omitted or transposed entire words.


Neophilologus ◽  
1980 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 592-603 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph A. Dane

1974 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 103-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce Harbert

King Alfred's preface to the Old English Pastoral Care, explaining how and why he made this translation from the original of Gregory the Great, ends thus:Siððan ic hie geliornod hæfde, swæ swæ ic hie forstod, ond swæ ic hie andgitfullicost areccean meahte, ic hie on Englisc awende; ond to ælcum biscepstole on minum rice wille ane onsendan; ond on ælcre bið an æstel, se bið on fiftegum mancessa.


Traditio ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 59 ◽  
pp. 39-78
Author(s):  
Robert K. Upchurch

Writing early in the last decade of the tenth century, the Anglo-Saxon monk Ælfric begins his Second Series ofCatholic Homilieswith a sermon for Christmas Day. The second of five Old English sermons he wrote for the Nativity, it combines dense doctrinal matters with concrete advice about how Christians should commemorate the birth of Christ. After discussing Christ's Incarnation and Virgin Birth, and the Old Testament prophecies anticipating his appearance, Ælfric concludes the sermon with a series of instructions directing believers how to conduct themselves at Christmas. Of particular interest is his singling out ofclænnyss, an Old English word for “chastity” or “purity,” as the virtue to be most highly prized among the laity:We sceolon eac cristes acennednysse. and his gebyrdtide mid gastlicere blisse wurðian. and us sylfe mid godum weorcum geglengan. and us mid godes lofsangum gebysgian. and ða oing onscunian. ðe crist forbytt. pæt sind leahtras. and deofles weorc. and ða ðing lufian ðe god bebead. pæt is eadmodnys. and mildheortnys. rihtwisnys. and soðfæstnys. ælmesdreda. and gemetfræstnys. gepyld and cleennyss; pas ðing lufað god and huru ða clænnysse ðe he sylf ðurh hine. and ðurh pæt clæne mreden his modor astealde; Swa eac ealle his geferan ðe him filigdon ealle hí weeron on clænnysse wuniende. and se mæsta dæl prera manna pe gode geðeoð purh clsennysse hi geðeoð. (CHII.1.277–87)[We ought also to honor the birth and nativity of Christ with spiritual joy, and adorn ourselves with good works, and occupy ourselves with songs of praise to God, and shun those things which Christ forbids, which are sins and works of the devil, and love those things which God commanded, that is humility and mercy, justice and truth, almsgiving and self-control, patience and chastity. These things God loves, and especially chastity, which he established through himself and the chaste virgin, his mother. So also all of his companions who followed him were living in chastity, and the greatest portion of those men who achieve favor with God achieve it through chastity.]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document