§ 97. Occasionally Alfred interprets biblical things by Saxon analogies. Thus the Hebrew cities of refuge become a Saxon ‘frithstow[695],’ as they do also in Alfred’s preface to his laws[696]. The Doctors among whom the child Jesus was found were the wisest ‘Witan’ that there were in Jerusalem[697]. Uriah, whom David murdered, was ‘his own loyal thane[698].’ In the Soliloquies Alfred speaks of the Apostles as Christ’s thanes[699]. This process is carried yet further in the sacred epic poetry both of the insular and continental Saxons, the disciples becoming Christ’s ‘comites’ or ‘gesiths,’ who are bound to die with their Lord[700]. Alfred here also, as in some of his other works[701], and in the Laws[702], lays great stress on the position of the Lord[703]. Once or twice Alfred tones down his original; thus where Gregory speaking of the death of impenitent sinners says: ‘they lament that they refused to serve God now that they can in no wise by service make good the evils of their former negligence,’ Alfred in his pity inserts the clause: ‘unless they be helped by repentance and God’s mercy[704].’ In one instance the explanation given is dogmatic, the reception of ‘the spirit of adoption’ of which St. Paul speaks, being referred to baptism[705]. No doubt for many, if not most, of these additions Alfred was indebted to his clerical assistants. Often, without any very distinct addition being made to the text, it is rather freely expanded[706]. Sometimes the rendering is rather loose[707], as if the meaning of the original had been imperfectly grasped; sometimes it is distinctly wrong[708]. And throughout one may say that the translation is made (to use Alfred’s own expression) rather ‘sense by sense’ than ‘word by word[709].’ And sometimes, though the phrase may be very close to the original, it seems to bear the stamp of Alfred’s own experience. The heading of the fourth chapter must have come straight from his heart: ‘that many times the business of government and rule distracts the mind of the ruler[710].’ ‘What,’ he exclaims in another place, ‘is rule and authority but the soul’s tempest which is always buffeting the ship of the heart with the storms of many thoughts, so that it is driven hither and thither in very narrow straits, wellnigh wrecked among many mighty rocks[711]?’ Or again: ‘the patient must be admonished to strengthen their heart after their great victory, and hold the burg of their mind against marauding bands, and fortify it with battlements[712].’ Lastly: ‘every host (here) is the less effective when it comes, if its coming is known beforehand. For it finds them prepared whom it thought to take unprepared[713].’ In these two last passages we seem almost to hear the echo of Alfred’s experience in 878[714].
Question as to the order of the Orosius and Bede translations.
§ 98. The next two works of Alfred to be considered are both historical, viz. the translations of Orosius’ Universal History, and of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation. There has been however considerable difference of opinion as to the order of these two works. The earlier critics, however much they might differ among themselves as to the succession of Alfred’s works taken as a whole, all, with the exception of Dr. Bosworth, agreed in placing the Orosius before the Bede[715]. But in recent times Wülker[716], August Schmidt[717], and my friend Professor Schipper of Vienna[718] have argued in favour of the other view. The chief ground on which they have based their conclusion is the greater freedom of the Orosius both in translation and arrangement as compared with the Bede. In the latter the translation is sometimes quite unduly literal, so as to be almost unintelligible in places without a reference to the original[719]; while as to arrangement, the modifications of the original are, for the most part, limited to omissions of matters like the Easter Controversy which had ceased to have any living interest, the additions and transpositions being very unimportant. The Orosius on the other hand is not only freer in translation, but is so recast by transposition, addition, and omission, as to be practically a new work.
Character of the two originals, and of the translations.
It is argued that this greater freedom implies a more practised hand, and therefore a later date. The argument seems to me fallacious. As regards substantial alterations we must bear in mind the different character of the two originals. Bede’s Ecclesiastical History has always been an almost sacred book to Englishmen. It needed no recasting, beyond a few omissions, to make it suitable for English readers in Alfred’s day. But Orosius’ work, written with the polemical object of enforcing the argument of Augustine’s De Ciuitate Dei against the pagan contention that the troubles of the times were due to the introduction of Christianity, by showing, in a survey of universal history, that the evils of pre-Christian days were far greater, and full therefore of ecclesiastical gloating over the crimes and calamities of pagan history, required much more drastic treatment. On the occasional over-literalness of the Bede translation I shall have something to say presently. As regards the greater freedom of the Orosius, any one who has examined in one of our Pass Schools will bear witness that there is a kind of free translation, which is very far from implying a perfect mastery of the original. And I must confess that Alfred’s freedom in the Orosius is often of the latter kind[720]. I should say that there are far more serious blunders in translation in the Orosius than in the Bede; though on the other hand it must be remembered that Bede’s Latin is a good deal easier than that of Orosius.
Arguments in favour of the priority of the Orosius. Argument on the other side.
§ 99. In the Introduction to the second volume of my Saxon Chronicle[721] I argued in favour of the priority of the Orosius, on the ground of the affinity in diction and expression between it and the Saxon Chronicle. That argument I need not repeat here; I still think that it has force, though I possibly laid too much stress upon it, as one is apt to do when one gets hold of an idea which one fancies to be new[722]. It is however capable of being reinforced. The second chapter of Bede’s first book contains an account of Caesar’s invasions of Britain. This is a matter which one would take to be of great interest to all inhabitants of this island[723]. Yet in the Bede translation it is, in the older recension, omitted altogether, and even in the later recension is passed over with the barest mention[724]. But this chapter is almost wholly taken from Orosius; and when we turn to the Orosius version, we find that Alfred has not only translated the passage in question, but has enriched it with his own local knowledge, telling us that Caesar’s first two engagements with the natives were ‘in the land which is called Kent-land,’ and that the third took place ‘near the ford which is called Wallingford[725].’ If the Orosius translation preceded the Bede, we can understand why Alfred omitted the corresponding passage in the latter. Again, in chapter v of the same book, Bede expressly corrects a mistake of Orosius’ as to the wall of Severus, saying that it was not properly a wall, but a rampart of sods with a ditch; Alfred not only adopts this correction here[726], but in another place of the Bede seems to emphasise it[727], where there is no special emphasis in the original. In the Orosius passage the mistake is uncorrected[728]. Alfred shows in many ways that he had a good memory, and that he did not shrink from correcting his authors where he thought they needed it; he would hardly have ignored Bede’s correction had he been cognisant of it when he was making the translation of Orosius. The only serious argument on the other side is one which has not, as far as I am aware, been previously noticed. I mean the affinity of passages in the Orosius with passages in the Boethius, which is, as we shall see[729], almost certainly later than either the Orosius or the Bede. Of these the most important are two in which Alfred without any hint from the original protests against the doctrine that all things happen by fate[730], a subject which occupies a prominent place in the Boethius. There would, however, be nothing impossible in the supposition that Alfred may have read the Consolation of Boethius before he undertook the work of translating it, or the subject may have been suggested to his active mind in some other way. On the whole the question of precedence as between the Orosius and the Bede must be left uncertain; though in accordance with my own view I shall take the Orosius first.
Relation of the Orosius translation to the original.
§ 100. It would be impossible to discuss in detail the modifications made by Alfred in his original. They occur on almost every page. I can only indicate their general character, and give a few specimens of some of the more important. And in doing this I very willingly acknowledge the help which I have derived from Dr. Hugo Schilling’s useful dissertation on the subject[731].
Additions. Voyages of Ohthere and Wulfstan.