Asser's Life of King Alfred

TRANSLATED FROM THE TEXT OF STEVENSON’S EDITION
BY ALBERT S. COOK
Professor of the English Language and Literature in Yale University
GINN & COMPANY BOSTON · NEW YORK · CHICAGO · LONDON
Copyright, 1906 By ALBERT S. COOK ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
66.1
The Athenæum Press GINN & COMPANY · PROPRIETORS · BOSTON · U.S.A.
TO THE FRIENDS OF HONEST AND CAPABLE GOVERNMENT IN AMERICA
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.
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.
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.’