[119.14.] Alfred is here addressing the bishops collectively, and hence uses the plural īow (= ēow), not þē.
[119.16.] ðæt wē ðā. These three words are not necessary to the sense. They constitute the figure known as epanalepsis, in which “the same word or phrase is repeated after one or more intervening words.” Þā is the pronominal substitute for suma bēc.
[119.17.] Gedōn is the first person plural subjunctive (from infinitive gedōn). It and węnden are in the same construction. Two things seem “better” to Alfred: (1) that we translate, etc., (2) that we cause, etc.
[119.19-21.] sīo gioguð ... is ... hīe ... sīen. Notice how the collective noun, gioguð, singular at first both in form and function, gradually loses its oneness before the close of the sentence is reached, and becomes plural. The construction is entirely legitimate in Mn.E. Spanish is the only modern language known to me that condemns such an idiom: “Spanish ideas of congruity do not permit a collective noun, though denoting a plurality, to be accompanied by a plural verb or adjective in the same clause” (Ramsey, Text-Book of Modern Spanish, § 1452).
[120.2.] lǣre mǫn. See [§ 105, 1].
[120.11-13.] That none of these advisers of the king, except Plegmond, a Mercian, were natives, bears out what Alfred says about the scarcity of learned men in England when he began to reign. Asser, to whose Latin Life of Alfred, in spite of its mutilations, we owe almost all of our knowledge of the king, came from St. David’s (in Wales), and was made Bishop of Sherborne.
[121.1.] Translate ǣt ðǣre stōwe by each in its place. The change from plural hīe (in hīe ... wǣren) to singular hīe (in the clauses that follow) will thus be prepared for.
[121.2-3.] oððe hwā ōðre bī wrīte, or unless some one wish to copy a new one (write thereby another).
[1] = bisceop.
[2] = hwilce.