Читать книгу The Life and Times of Alfred the Great - Charles Plummer - Страница 11
ОглавлениеEvidence of the work as to the author. He was a native of South Wales.
§ 28. But even when all has been done that criticism can do for the restoration and purification of the text, the work still remains a puzzle almost insoluble. What can we make out as to the author? It is clear that he was a Celt from South Wales. This is proved partly by his language and terminology, partly by his knowledge of South Welsh affairs. As to the former point, he has the special Celtic use of the terms ‘right-hand’ and ‘left-hand,’ to express the ideas of south and north. The Celt always faced the east, and named the quarters of the heaven from that point of view. Thus Chippenham is in the left-hand part of Wiltshire[121]. The author’s own home was to the left and west of Severn[122]. The Danes throw up earthworks on the right-hand side of Reading[123]; Sussex is the region of the right-hand Saxons[124]; and, lastly, all the regions of the right-hand part of Britannia belonged to Alfred[125]. This does not, however, exclude the use of the more ordinary words ‘meridianus’ and ‘aquilonaris’ for south and north[126].
Ambiguous use of the term Britannia.
§ 29. The example last cited brings me to another characteristic of the author’s terminology; viz. his ambiguous use of the word Britannia, which sometimes means Britain in the ordinary sense[127], but more often means Wales. Historians have gone wrong through ignoring this distinction. Thus Dr. Pauli[128], in the passage just quoted, takes Britannia in what is to us the ordinary sense. But that all the southern parts of Britain belonged to Alfred is so obvious as not to be worth saying. That all the southern districts of Wales had submitted to Alfred is a new and most interesting fact. And this clearly is the meaning; for the statement is introductory to that sketch of the troubles in South Wales which explains both why the South Welsh princes commended themselves to Alfred, and why the author consented to enter his service. Moreover this use is paralleled again and again in the Book of Llandaff, a primary South Welsh authority. We find there Asser’s very phrase ‘dextralis pars Britanniae’ several times repeated[129]. We have the clergy and people, the inhabitants, the churches, the archbishop, the kings and princes, the kingdom, the islands, ‘Dextralis Britanniae[130].’ To return to Asser:—Æthelwulf reduces ‘Britannia’ under Burgred of Mercia[131]; Offa’s dyke divides Mercia from ‘Britannia[132],’ and finally Asser himself agrees to spend half his time ‘in Britannia’ and half with Alfred ‘in Saxonia[133].’
Use of the terms Saxones and Saxonia. Limitation of the term Saxonia.
§ 30. This brings me to my next point. For our author, as for all branches of the Celtic race, the Germanic tribes settled in Britain bear the common name of Saxons[134]. So much is this the case that he once writes ‘regnum Orientalium Saxonum, quod Saxonice Eastengle dicitur[135].’ This is a mere slip, for in other cases he has ‘Orientales Angli’ quite correctly[136]. But it shows how much more natural the word ‘Saxones’ was to him than the other. So too their language is ‘Saxonica lingua[137],’ as opposed to Welsh, which is ‘Britannicus sermo[138]’; a place bears one name, ‘Saxonice,’ ‘in English[139],’ and another, ‘Britannice,’ ‘in Welsh[140]’; and we hear of the ‘Saxon’ poems which Alfred loved from his boyhood[141], and of the ‘Saxon’ books[142], in which they and other English writings were contained. So too the country of these tribes is ‘Saxonia[143].’ But here it is important to notice the precise limitations under which Asser uses this last term. It is not coextensive with the whole of Germanic Britain. It includes Wessex, Sussex, Kent, Surrey, and Essex. Cornwall is excluded as being Celtic[144]; but Mercia is also excluded[145], and a fortiori, though this is not expressly mentioned, East Anglia and Northumbria[146]. In other words it includes that part of the island which, at the death of Egbert, was under the direct rule of Wessex; or, to borrow Bede’s useful distinction, it connotes the ‘regnum’ as opposed to the ‘imperium[147]’ of the West Saxon house. It is possible that in many cases the term ‘Saxones’ should be understood with a like limitation, for the Mercii, Northanhymbri, and Orientales Angli are generally mentioned separately. But I do not think that this limitation can be carried out quite so rigorously, for instance where Asser speaks of the ‘Schola Saxonum’ at Rome[148], answering to the ‘Angelcynnes scolu’ of the Chronicle. In one case he does expressly distinguish ‘Angli et Saxones[149].’
Alfred ‘king of the Anglo-Saxons.’
§ 31. And in this connexion it is deplorable to remark that for Asser Alfred is always ‘king of the Anglo-Saxons[150]’; but then we must remember that Asser never had the advantage of reading Mr. Freeman’s history of the Norman Conquest, or of attending the lectures of Professor Napier. But, jesting apart, it is important to note that by the use of this title our author intends to mark a real advance in power and dignity on the part of Alfred as compared with his predecessors, none of whom bears any higher style than that of king of the West Saxons[151], and the change of style is justified by the fact that a large number of Mercian Angles became Alfred’s immediate subjects in 878. On the other hand Asser does not exaggerate Alfred’s position, as later Chroniclers do, calling him ‘monarch of the whole of Britain’ and so on[152]. If the heading of the work is genuine, as I am inclined for this very reason to think it is, Alfred is addressed as ‘ruler of all the Christians of the isle of Britain[153].’ In other words the writer recognises exactly the same limitations to Alfred’s power as does the Saxon Chronicle, where it says that, after Alfred’s occupation of London, all the English kin submitted to him, except what was under the thraldom of the Danes[154].
Other Celtic terms.
Another term of Celtic origin is probably to be found in the unique title of ‘secundarius’ given by Asser to Alfred during the reign of Æthelred[155]; but of this I shall have more to say in another lecture; while for ‘graphium’ in the sense of ‘donation’ or ‘written grant,’ the only other authority quoted is from the life of a Welsh saint[156].
Celtic use of the term Germania.
§ 32. Another trace of Celtic influence is to be found, I believe, in the innocent-looking passage where it is said that in 884 an army of pagans from Germany, ‘de Germania,’ invaded the Old or Continental Saxons[157]. It might be thought that this merely refers to the fact that part, at any rate, of the invading army had wintered at Duisburg on the Rhine[158]. But could they be said to be going from Germany when they invaded Saxony? I cannot speak positively as to all the mediaeval uses of the word ‘Germania,’ but one would think that it must include Saxony[159]. But however this may be, the fact remains that Asser nowhere applies the name ‘Germania’ to any part of the Carolingian empire. The people of that empire are Franks[160]. Charles the Great[161], Charles the Bald[162], Charles the Fat[163], Louis the Stammerer[164], Louis, king of Northern France[165], are all kings of the Franks. Carloman, king of Aquitaine and Burgundy, is king of the Western Franks[166]. We hear also of the kingdom or region of the Western Franks[167]. The territory included in the empire as a whole is called Francia[168]. The eastern kingdom is Francia Orientalis[169]. The western territory is sometimes called Gallia[170], and its inhabitants are Gauls[171], or of Gallic race[172]. Charles the Fat, before he gained the western kingdom, is king of the Alamanni[173]. I believe that Germania here means Norway, a meaning which, strange as it may seem, it unquestionably has in the Welsh Annals. Thus at 1036 the Brut y Tywysogion calls Canute king of England, Denmark, and Germania, while at 1056 the title king of Germania is given to Harold Hardrada. In other words, the invaders of Saxony, according to Asser, came from Norway, and not from Denmark, which he calls Danubium[174].
Other Celtic characteristics.
Another very obvious characteristic of the writer is his fondness for giving Welsh equivalents for English names of places[175].
May I add without offence that I think another Celtic trait in our author is a certain largeness of statement? Mons. Henri Martin, a great admirer of the Celts, notes as characteristic of them a certain ‘rebellion against facts[176]’; and there are many things in Asser which we can hardly accept as literally true, though, as I have shown already, and shall have to show again, some of the criticisms directed against him rest on misunderstandings of his words.
Knowledge of South Welsh affairs.
§ 33. We have next to consider the author’s knowledge of South Welsh affairs. The principal passage is the one already alluded to where Asser describes his motives for entering Alfred’s service[177]. He and his friends hoped thereby to check the mischief inflicted on St. David’s by Hemeid, king of Dyfed, who had on one occasion expelled Archbishop Novis, Asser’s relative, and himself. Alfred was in a position to help, for some time previously all the princes of South Wales had commended themselves to Alfred; Hemeid himself, and Helised ap Teudyr, king of Brecheiniog, owing to the pressure of the sons of Rotri Mawr, king of North Wales; while Howel ap Rhys, king of Glewissig, Brochmail and Fernmail, sons of Mouric, kings of Gwent, took the same step, owing to the pressure of Æthelred of Mercia. Even Anaraut, son of Rotri himself, with his brothers, leaving the friendship of the Northumbrians (by which I take the Northumbrian Danes to be meant) sought the king’s friendship; and after being honourably received by him, and made his godson at confirmation, agreed to stand to him in the same relation of subordination as Æthelred did in Mercia, and was dismissed with rich presents—a scene which almost repeats the submission of Guthrum, and incidentally perhaps supports the view that the defect of which Augustine complained in Welsh baptismal practice, was the omission of the rite of confirmation[178]; while the comparison with Æthelred of Mercia illustrates the semi-royal position of Alfred’s son-in-law[179] at least as forcibly as it illustrates Anaraut’s dependence.
Relations of Wales to Wessex.
§ 34. Many years ago the late Mr. Bradshaw laid stress on the forms of these Welsh names as showing that Asser could not be a late forgery[180]. This argument becomes of less importance in view of the results we have already arrived at as to the date, and of the fact that names of the same type occur in documents later than the latest date which any reasonable critic could propose for Asser[181]. But the whole passage throws a flood of light on the state of Wales, and its relations to the house of Wessex. We see South Wales forced to submit to Wessex by the joint pressure of North Wales and Mercia; while North Wales, which had remained hostile at any rate up to 880, when a battle was fought which was regarded as avenging the slaughter of Rotri Mawr by the Saxons in 877[182], ultimately found it to its interest to seek the shelter of the West Saxon overlord. Thus we see actually going on before our eyes the transition from the state of things under Egbert, when the Celtic population joined eagerly with the Scandinavian invaders in the hope of undoing the work of the Saxon Conquest[183], to a state of things in which they combine with their Saxon rivals against the common foe. It seems to me that such a passage, introduced so incidentally and naturally, could only have been written by a contemporary writer. Moreover all the South Welsh princes, with two exceptions, are mentioned in the Book of Llandaff, several of them occur in the Annals. Hemeid of Dyfed, Asser’s enemy, died in 892 or 891[184]. Howel ap Rhys is probably the Howel who died at Rome in 885[185] whither he had gone, it is not unlikely, in expiation of the crime—a peculiarly foul case of treachery—recited in the Book of Llandaff[186]. His district, Glewissig, is often mentioned in the same authority; it is ‘roughly the district between the lower courses of the Usk and Towy[187].’ Mouric of Gwent and his sons Brochmail and Fernmail also occur frequently[188]. Mouric is probably the one whose death is recorded in 873[189]. The only prince as to whom I can find nothing is Helised ap Teudyr of Brecheiniog. But there is a Teudyr ab Elised, king of Brecheiniog[190], contemporary with Llunwerth or Llwmbert, the successor of Novis in the see of St. David’s, who is not impossibly his father. Of Novis himself I have said enough above (p. 20).
Events of 878.
Another place where the author shows his knowledge of South Welsh affairs is in the interesting addition which he makes to the Chronicle under 878, to the effect that the heathen force which besieged Cynwit on the north coast of Devon, had wintered in Dyfed, and massacred many Christians there[191]. Facts like this explain the change of attitude on the part of the Welsh. South Wales also suffered severely in 895[192].
Question as to unity of authorship. Peculiar sense of the word aedificia.
§ 35. I have so far spoken of ‘our author’ in the singular. But the question must now be faced: is the work (apart from actual and possible interpolations) the composition of a single hand? When I first took up this question I rather hoped that the result to be arrived at would be, that the annals were the work of one author, the biographical notes of another, while the florid head-links, of which I spoke before[193], would be the work of the later editor who combined the two documents. This would have been a result dear to the heart of the higher critic. But any such theory, however pretty, will not stand a moment’s examination. Allowing for the difference of subject-matter, the same characteristics appear both in the annalistic and biographical sections. Thus of five instances of the Celtic use of left and right instead of north and south, two occur in the annals and three in the biography; ‘Britannia,’ in the sense of ‘Wales,’ occurs six times in the biography and once in the annals[194]. So there are some not quite common words and expressions, for which the writer has an evident predilection, which are sprinkled about both parts of the work. The details are too dry for reproduction here, and may be safely relegated to the obscurity of a footnote[195]. But one instance is of sufficient general interest to merit discussion. This is the use of the word ‘aedificia’ in the sense of articles of goldsmiths’ work. To this I can produce no parallel from any other writer; but the meaning seems to me practically certain in three instances, and probable in the fourth; and of these four cases one occurs in the annals, and the rest in the biography. The first instance is where Alfred, after Guthrum’s baptism, gives him ‘multa et optima aedificia[196].’ It is clear that Guthrum did not carry away with him edifices, in the ordinary sense of the word. Lappenberg would alter ‘aedificia’ into ‘beneficia[197]’; ‘mit vollem Rechte,’ says Pauli[198]; but this will hardly do in other cases, as we shall see.
The next instance is where Asser says that Alfred ‘by his novel contrivance made “aedificia” more venerable and precious than any of his predecessors[199].’ Here the ordinary meaning is just possible, though the epithet ‘pretiosiora’ and the fact that ‘aurifices et artifices’ are mentioned just before, point decidedly the other way. The third passage speaks of ‘aedificia of gold and silver incomparably wrought under his instructions[200].’ Even the most Celtic imagination cannot suppose that Alfred built edifices, in the ordinary sense, of the precious metals, especially as his own royal halls and chambers are expressly stated to have been of stone and wood[201]. The fourth passage tells how Alfred had workmen who were skilled ‘in omni terreno aedificio[202],’ where the meaning is probably the same. The use of the word in so strange a sense in both parts of the work seems to me a strong proof of unity of authorship. The usage, however, becomes a little less strange if we remember how much of the goldsmith’s art at that time would go to the making of shrines and reliquaries, which really were ‘edifices’ in miniature. The two middle passages which speak of Alfred’s ‘novel contrivance,’ and of his personal instructions to his workmen, are of singular interest in connexion with the Alfred Jewel; and the fact that my friend Professor Earle, who has made a special study of that jewel, agrees with my interpretation of these passages, adds greatly to my confidence in advancing it. Alfred’s love for this kind of art seems to have been hereditary. William of Malmesbury gives an account of a shrine which Æthelwulf had made to contain the bones of St. Aldhelm. ‘The covering is of crystal, whereon the king’s name may be read in letters of gold[203].’ This exactly answers to the character of the Alfred Jewel.
Asser’s style.
§ 36. Of Asser’s style two prominent characteristics are a fondness for long parentheses[204], and a tiresome trick of repeating a word or phrase, sometimes with a slight variation, at intervals, in some cases longer, in others very short[205]. He certainly would have had no chance with the editor who objected to the quotation ‘to the pure all things are pure,’ on the ground that it sinned against the rule of the office that the same word must not be repeated within six lines. Occasionally he seems as if he could not get away from a phrase, but clings to it, as a drowning man clings to a plank; and I think that this feature is due, not to any love for these particular words and phrases, but to a poverty of expression like that which causes the repetitions of an unpractised speaker. These characteristics come out most strongly no doubt in the biographical sections, but they are not wholly absent from the others[206].
Relation of Asser to the Saxon Chronicle. Mistranslation, or misunderstanding.
§ 37. The next question which must be considered is the relation of the Latin Annals of Asser to the corresponding passages of the Saxon Chronicle. Sir Henry Howorth indeed expresses roundly his conviction that Asser wrote (if indeed he would not rather say forged) the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle[207]. This I regard as quite inconceivable. Sir James Ramsay, without going so far as this, records that ‘several’ passages have convinced him that the Latin of Asser is more original than the Saxon of the Chronicle[208]. Unfortunately he does not indicate these passages. My own conviction is unfalteringly the other way. In the first place there is at least one passage in Asser which can only be explained as a mistranslation of the Chronicle. It occurs under 876. Here the Chronicle has a phrase which puzzled all translators of the Chronicle, mediaeval and modern, till it was cleared up by Professor Earle. It runs thus: ‘The mounted force (i.e. of the Danes) stole away from the fyrd and got into Exeter.’ Asser misunderstands this, making it a defeat of a native body of cavalry by the Danes[209]. At 886[210] there seems also to be a mistranslation or misunderstanding, but the text is possibly corrupt, and Florence has not improved it.
‘East-Seaxum.’
Again, such forms as ‘Middel-Seaxum[211],’ ‘East-Seaxum[212],’ ‘Suð-Seaxum[213],’ ‘Eald-Seaxum[214],’ which contain the Saxon dative plural surely imply a Saxon original. It may be noted too that Asser retains the Saxon name of the river Seine, Signe[215], whereas the more classical Florence translates it into the Latin form, Sequana. Phrases again like ‘ipso eodem anno[216]’ for ‘þy ilcan geare,’ and the constantly recurring ‘loco funeris dominati sunt[217]’ for ‘ahton wælstowe geweald,’ ‘superius’ for ‘ufor[218]’ point the same way.
Omission.
Again, Asser accidentally omits the annal 884, which is a very brief one in the Chronicle. Consequently, he mechanically puts the events of 885 under 884.
Chronology.
Lastly, Steenstrup showed by a comparison of the continental Chronicles that the movements of the Danes from 879 to 897 in the Saxon Chronicle (= 878-896) are probably dated a year too late[219]. This is confirmed by the mention of a solar eclipse under 879 at one o’clock of the day. Now in 878 there was a solar eclipse on October 29, at 1.30 p.m. There was a solar eclipse also in 879, on March 26, but this was at 4 p.m. Asser gives the hour of the eclipse as ‘between nones and vespers but nearer to nones[220].’ In other words he has altered the hour of the eclipse given by the Chronicle to suit the wrong numbering of the Annal. The force of these arguments taken together seems to me overwhelming.
Asser’s additions to the Chronicle.
§ 38. But Asser is not content to be a mere translator. He makes considerable additions to the Chronicle, which vary very much in value. Some are pure rhetoric, others are mere inferences from the words of the Chronicle, legitimate enough it may be, but of no higher authority than similar inferences deduced by ourselves. Many consist of interpretations of Saxon names[221], or statements of their Welsh equivalents[222]. A considerable number are geographical glosses explaining the situation of the places mentioned[223]. These three last classes of additions occur only in the Annals, and all three seem to point to an interpreter wishing to make his original clearer to his readers, who are assumed to be unfamiliar with Saxon names and places. Even the situation of London is carefully explained. But other additions, like the one discussed above about the wintering of the Danish fleet in Dyfed[224], are of real value, and evidently rest on authentic information.
Abrupt termination.
§ 39. The abrupt termination of the work after the year 887 has always been a difficulty. If we could trust the statement that the work was written in Alfred’s forty-fifth year, i.e. about 894[225], we might account for this by supposing that the Chronicle, from which the writer borrows so much, had not at that time got much beyond 887. And the work may have been laid aside and never taken up again. Unfortunately this date occurs in one of those suspicious passages about Alfred’s illness, though not in the one most open to suspicion. Or, again, the work may be mutilated.
Asser to be used with caution; but there is a genuine nucleus.
§ 40. 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. But that there is a nucleus which is the genuine work of a single writer, a South Walian contemporary of Alfred, I feel tolerably sure, and I know no reason why that South Walian contemporary should not be Asser of Menevia. There is a slight confirmation of this view in the quotation which the writer makes from Gregory’s Cura Pastoralis[226], for we know from Alfred’s own mouth that Asser was one of those who helped him in the translation of that work. Another coincidence with Alfred’s preface to the Cura Pastoralis is to be found in the phrase ‘aliquando sensum ex sensu ponens,’ which Asser uses in reference to the translation of Gregory’s Dialogues[227]. Anyhow, as I have shown[228], 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.
A puzzling work.
§ 41. Still the book remains a puzzle both in form and substance. It was a curious work to offer to Alfred if it contained the scandals about Æthelbald and Judith, and what we must regard as the idealised description of Alfred’s court and administration. I am conscious that I am very far from having solved the problem. I shall be content if I am thought to have contributed something towards a solution, which will perhaps be given before long by Mr. Stevenson. The suggestion of Mr. Macfadyen that the work was drawn up with a view to Alfred’s canonisation[229] may be dismissed at once. People are not canonised in their lifetime.
Lives of saints.
§ 42. In one class of historical literature, which often very usefully supplements more formal histories, the reign of Alfred is singularly barren, I mean the lives of saints. We have nothing like the lives of Dunstan, Oswald, and Æthelwold, which give us so much help towards the end of the next century; or like the lives of Wilfrid and Cuthbert at an earlier period. The times, indeed, were not favourable to the development of saintship of the mediaeval pattern. The monasteries, the chief schools of that type of sanctity, suffered more than any other institutions at the hands of the Danes; and the virtues which the age required were of a more active kind than those which went to make up the mediaeval ideal. The title of saint is indeed given by one authority to Werferth, bishop of Worcester; but this rests, as we shall see, on a misconception; though in truth, as Mr. Taylor has remarked, the conduct of Werferth in accepting the see of Worcester in 872, the very year preceding the expulsion of Burgred, king of Mercia, Alfred’s brother-in-law, by the Danes, was as heroic as that of any Christian missionary[230].
