Preface

The issue of Stevenson’s long and eagerly expected edition of Asser’s Life of King Alfred has provided an opportunity to supply the ever increasing number of the great king’s admirers with a more satisfactory rendering into English of this, perhaps the most precious document, notwithstanding all its faults, for the comprehension of his life and character.

Stevenson’s long-awaited edition of Asser’s Life of King Alfred has now been published. This offers a chance to provide the great king’s ever-growing number of admirers with a better English translation. Despite all its faults, this work is perhaps the most precious document for understanding Alfred’s life and character.

The authenticity of the Life was impugned by Thomas Wright in 1841, by Sir Henry Howorth in 1876–77, and by an unknown writer in 1898, and it had become somewhat the fashion to regard it as a production of a later period, and therefore entitled to but little credence. The doubts as to its authenticity have been satisfactorily dispelled by the two eminent scholars who have most recently discussed the difficulties, Plummer and Stevenson.

Thomas Wright questioned the authenticity of the Life in 1841. Sir Henry Howorth did the same in 1876 and 1877, as did an unknown writer in 1898. It had become somewhat fashionable to regard the Life as a work from a later period and therefore deserving of little trust. Plummer and Stevenson, the two eminent scholars who most recently examined the difficulties, have satisfactorily dispelled these doubts about its authenticity.

The former, in his Life and Times of Alfred the Great, Oxford, 1902, says (p. 52): ‘The work which bears Asser’s name cannot be later than 974, and the attempt to treat it as a forgery of the eleventh or twelfth century must be regarded as having broken down. I may add that I started with a strong prejudice against the authenticity of Asser, so that my conclusions have at any rate been impartially arrived at.’ The latter, in his noble edition (Oxford, 1904), remarks (p. vii): ‘In discussing the work I have attempted to approach it without any bias for or against it, and throughout my endeavor has been to subject every portion of it to as searching an examination as my knowledge and critical powers would permit. The net result has been to convince me that, although there may be no very definite proof that the work was written by Bishop Asser in the lifetime of King Alfred, there is no anachronism or other proof that it is a spurious compilation of later date. The serious charges brought against its authenticity break down altogether under examination, while there remain several features that point with varying strength to the conclusion that it is, despite its difficulties and corruptions, really a work of the time it purports to be. This result is confirmed by the important corroboration of some of its statements by contemporary Frankish chroniclers. Thus the profession of belief in its authenticity by such eminent historians as Kemble, Pauli, Stubbs, and Freeman agrees with my own conclusion.’

The former says in his Life and Times of Alfred the Great (Oxford, 1902, p. 52): ‘The work bearing Asser’s name cannot be later than 974. The attempt to treat it as an eleventh or twelfth century forgery must be regarded as having failed. I should add that I began with a strong prejudice against Asser’s authenticity. My conclusions have therefore at least been reached impartially.’ The latter remarks in his excellent edition (Oxford, 1904, p. vii): ‘I have tried to approach the work without bias for or against it. Throughout, I have tried to examine every part as closely as my knowledge and critical abilities allow. Overall, I have reached a conclusion. There may be no very definite proof that Bishop Asser wrote the work during King Alfred’s lifetime. But there is no anachronism or other proof that it is a false compilation from a later date. The serious charges against its authenticity fail completely under examination. Several features still point, with varying degrees of strength, to another conclusion. Despite its difficulties and corruptions, the work really belongs to the time it claims to come from. This conclusion is supported by important confirmation of some of its statements by contemporary Frankish chroniclers. My conclusion thus agrees with the belief in its authenticity expressed by such eminent historians as Kemble, Pauli, Stubbs, and Freeman.’

Notwithstanding their general rehabilitation of the work, however, neither critic is prepared to trust it implicitly. Plummer says (p. 52): ‘On the whole, then, Asser is an authority to be used with criticism and caution; partly because we have always to be alive to the possibility of interpolation, partly because the writer’s Celtic imagination is apt to run away with him.’ And thus Stevenson (p. cxxx): ‘The work still presents some difficulties. Carelessness of transcription may possibly explain those that are merely verbal, but there still remain certain passages that lay the author open to the charge of exaggeration, such as his mention of gold-covered and silver-covered buildings, if that be the literal meaning of the passage, and his statement that Alfred might, if he had chosen, have been king before his elder brother Æthelred, with whom, it is clear, he was on most intimate terms.’

Although both critics generally defend the work, neither is prepared to trust it completely. Plummer says (p. 52): ‘Overall, Asser is a source to use with critical judgment and caution. This is partly because we must always consider the possibility of later additions. It is also partly because the writer’s Celtic imagination tends to run away with him.’ Stevenson says (p. cxxx): ‘The work still presents some difficulties. Careless copying may explain those that concern only the wording. But some passages still leave the author open to the charge of exaggeration. For example, he mentions buildings covered in gold and silver, if that is the literal meaning of the passage. He also states that Alfred could have been king before his elder brother Æthelred, if he had chosen. It is clear that Alfred was on very close terms with Æthelred.’

The style of the book is not uniform. The passages translated from the Chronicle are simpler, while in the more original parts the author displays an unfortunate tendency to a turgid and at times bombastic manner of writing. Indeed, it displays, in many passages, the traits of that Hesperic Latinity which, invented or made fashionable in the sixth century, probably by a British monk in the southwestern part of England, was more or less current in England from the time of Aldhelm until the Norman Conquest. This Hesperic, or Celtic, Latinity has been compared to the mock euphuism of Sir Piercie Shafton in Scott’s Monastery (Professor H. A. Strong, in American Journal of Philology 26. 205), and may be illustrated by Professor Strong’s translation into English of certain sentences from the Hisperica Famina, the production, as it is believed, of the monk referred to above: ‘This precious shower of words glitters, by no awkward barriers confining the diction, and husbands its strength by an exquisite balance and by equable device, trilling sweet descant of Ausonian speech through the speaker’s throat by this shower of words passing through Latin throats; just as countless swarms of bees go here and there in their hollow hives, and sip the honey-streams in their homes, and set in order, as they are wont, their combs with their beaks.’

The book’s style is not consistent. Passages translated from the Chronicle are simpler. In the more original sections, the author has an unfortunate tendency to write in an inflated and sometimes bombastic style. Indeed, many passages show traits of Hesperic Latinity. This style was invented or made fashionable in the sixth century, probably by a British monk in southwestern England. It remained in use to varying degrees in England from Aldhelm’s time until the Norman Conquest. This Hesperic, or Celtic, Latinity has been compared to Sir Piercie Shafton’s mock euphuism in Scott’s Monastery (Professor H. A. Strong, in American Journal of Philology 26. 205). Professor Strong’s English translation of sentences from the Hisperica Famina offers an example of the style. The work is believed to have been written by the monk mentioned above: ‘This precious shower of words glitters. No awkward barriers confine its language. It conserves its strength through exquisite balance and even design. As the words pass through Latin throats, they trill a sweet descant of Ausonian speech through the speaker’s throat. Just so, countless swarms of bees travel here and there in their hollow hives. They sip streams of honey in their homes and, as they usually do, arrange their combs with their beaks.’

With the passage just quoted may be compared an extract from chapter 88 of Asser, the translation of which is given below (pp. 49, 50): ‘Ac deinde cotidie inter nos sermocinando, ad hæc investigando aliis inventis æque placabilibus testimoniis, quaternio ille refertus succrevit, nec immerito, sicut scriptum est, “super modicum fundamentum ædificat justus et paulatim ad majora defluit,” velut apis fertilissima longe lateque gronnios interrogando discurrens, multimodos divinæ scripturæ flosculos inhianter et incessabiliter congregavit, quis præcordii sui cellulas densatim replevit.’ Such Latin as this is difficult to translate into satisfactory English. If one renders it literally, the result is apt to look rather absurd; and beyond a certain point condensation is impracticable, or else misrepresents the original, faults and merits alike.

The passage just quoted may be compared with an extract from chapter 88 of Asser. A translation of the extract appears below (pp. 49, 50): ‘Ac deinde cotidie inter nos sermocinando, ad hæc investigando aliis inventis æque placabilibus testimoniis, quaternio ille refertus succrevit, nec immerito, sicut scriptum est, “super modicum fundamentum ædificat justus et paulatim ad majora defluit,” velut apis fertilissima longe lateque gronnios interrogando discurrens, multimodos divinæ scripturæ flosculos inhianter et incessabiliter congregavit, quis præcordii sui cellulas densatim replevit.’ Latin like this is difficult to translate into satisfactory English. A literal translation is likely to look rather absurd. But beyond a certain point, condensing the passage is either impractical or misrepresents the original, both its faults and its merits.

Hitherto there have been three translations of Asser into English—that by J. A. Giles in Bohn’s Six Old English Chronicles, London, 1848; that by Joseph Stevenson in Church Historians of England, Vol. 2, London, 1854; and that by Edward Conybeare, Alfred in the Chroniclers, London, 1900. As the basis of my work I have taken the translation of Giles, sometimes following it rather closely, and at other times departing from it more or less widely.

Until now, there have been three English translations of Asser. J. A. Giles’s translation appeared in Bohn’s Six Old English Chronicles, London, 1848. Joseph Stevenson’s appeared in Church Historians of England, Vol. 2, London, 1854. Edward Conybeare’s appeared in Alfred in the Chroniclers, London, 1900. I have used Giles’s translation as the basis for my work. Sometimes I follow it quite closely, while at other times I depart from it to a greater or lesser extent.

The reader familiar with the traditional Asser will miss some matter with which he is familiar, such as the story of Alfred and the cakes, that of the raven-banner of the Danes, etc. These are derived from interpolations made in the manuscript by Archbishop Parker, which modern critical scholarship has at length excised. For all matters regarding the manuscript, the earlier editions, etc., as well as for copious illustrative notes on the text, the reader is referred to Stevenson’s edition.

Readers familiar with the traditional version of Asser will miss some familiar stories. These include the stories of Alfred and the cakes and the Danes’ raven banner. Archbishop Parker added these stories to the manuscript, and modern scholars have finally removed them. For all matters concerning the manuscript, earlier editions, and so on, readers should consult Stevenson’s edition. It also provides extensive notes explaining the text.

Insertions made in the text by Stevenson, on what he considers sufficient grounds, are indicated by < >. The chapter-divisions and -numbering are Stevenson’s; the chapter-headings mine. Where modern forms of proper names exist, I have not hesitated to adopt them, and in general have tended rather to normalize them than scrupulously to follow the sometimes various spellings of the text. The notes have almost always been derived from Stevenson’s edition, whether or not explicit acknowledgment has been made, but now and then, as in the case of the long note on chapter 56, are my own.

Insertions Stevenson made in the text, on grounds he considers sufficient, are marked by < >. Stevenson divided and numbered the chapters. The chapter headings are mine. Where modern forms of proper names exist, I have used them without hesitation. In general, I have preferred to standardize the names rather than strictly follow the text’s sometimes varying spellings. The notes have almost always come from Stevenson’s edition, whether or not I have explicitly acknowledged the source. But a few are my own, including the long note on chapter 56.