Chapter M: H. B. = Monumenta Historica Britannica, vol. i (all published) (4)

§ 71. Another and very important point is this. The chief difficulties of our forefathers under Alfred, as of us, their descendants, in South Africa at the present day, arose from the extreme mobility of the enemy[503], and the way in which they used the horses which they brought with them or captured[504], not indeed for fighting (that was never either the Danish or the Saxon mode of warfare), but for dashing from point to point, and eluding[505] and surprising the enemy. They were, in modern phrase, mounted infantry. It would seem as if the English were learning to copy them in this. You may have noticed that in the extract from the Chronicle which I read just now, describing the sequel of the battle of Edington, it is said that Alfred ‘_rode_ after the enemy to their fort.’ The only other occasion up to this campaign[506], where any such phrase is used of an English force, is in the preceding year, where the Chronicler describes the brave but ineffectual dash which Alfred made to try and intercept the treacherous Danes before they got into Exeter[507].

[Sidenote: Alfred’s personal influence.]

But after all, the greatest of all human causes of success (though it is not merely human) is contained in those words of the Chronicler already quoted, ‘they were fain of him.’ The personality of Alfred was beginning to tell, and to rally to itself all that was worthiest in the nation. It has been compared, not unaptly, to the resurrection of France under Joan of Arc[508].

[Sidenote: Comparative peace. Revolt of the East Anglian Danes.]

§ 72. For the next few years Alfred had comparative peace, the Danes being mostly occupied on the Continent. There was a small, but successful, naval engagement in 881 or 882[509], and in 884[510] a body of the enemy landed in Kent and laid siege to Rochester, throwing up their usual fortifications round their own positions. But the besieged defended themselves successfully till Alfred came with the fyrd, and the besiegers were in their turn besieged, and withdrew, possibly by agreement, to the Continent once more, leaving their prisoners, and the horses which they had brought with them from over seas, in Alfred’s hands[511]. The appearance of their kinsmen in Kent seems to have been too much for the loyalty of the Danes in East Anglia. ‘They broke the peace with King Alfred[512].’ Alfred at once sent his fleet from Kent[513], where it had no doubt been supporting his operations at Rochester, across the broad estuary of the Thames, and at the mouth of the Stour, between Essex and Suffolk, the English defeated and captured a fleet of sixteen sail; but on their way back were met by a superior fleet of East Anglian Danes, and defeated in their turn. It will be remembered that it is in reference to this defeat that the earlier writer in Simeon of Durham gives us the wonderful story based on the corrupt reading in Asser of ‘dormiret’ for ‘domum iret[514].’

[Sidenote: Alfred wins London.]

§ 73. The next stage in the liberation of England was a very important one, being nothing less than the acquisition of London by Alfred. This is placed by the Chronicle in 886. But we have seen that the Chronicle is here in advance by a year of the true chronology; the true date is therefore probably 885. It is clear that Alfred did not gain this great success without the use of force[515]; and I am inclined to see in this the culmination of the measures which he took to chastise the East Anglian Danes for their breach of the peace in the preceding year[516]. It is with this that we must associate the document known as Alfred and Guthrum’s peace[517], often wrongly confused with the settlement of 878. By this treaty the boundaries of 878 were materially modified in Alfred’s favour. They now ran up the Thames to the mouth of the Lea, up the Lea to its source, thence to Bedford, and so up the Ouse to Watling Street. By this, not only London, but a considerable district east of Watling Street was made over to Alfred. The Danes had paid heavily for their momentary treachery. But again it illustrates the fragmentary nature of our sources, that we hear nothing of the military operations which must have led up to this success.

[Sidenote: Effect of this on Alfred’s position. Alfred, the second founder of London.]

It had an immense effect upon Alfred’s position, and made him more clearly than ever the head of the nation. ‘There submitted to him the whole Angle-kin that was not in subjection to the Danes.’ The city was restored and fortified, and committed to the care of Alfred’s son-in-law, Æthelred, whom soon after 878[518] he had made ealdorman of the part of Mercia which fell to him by the settlement of that year. Once, in 851, under Berhtwulf, the Danes had captured London; they had occupied it in 872 under Burgred; it had fallen to their share at the division of Mercia in 877. But never again, after Alfred’s restoration of it, was it ever forcibly captured by them or by any other foreign host. Alfred is rightly called the second founder of London[519].

[Sidenote: Peace.]

Once more, for a few years, Alfred had peace. In 889 or 890 his old enemy and god-son, Guthrum-Athelstan of East Anglia, died. How far he had really become a Christian we cannot tell. In spite of his baptism Ethelwerd uncharitably dismisses him below: ‘he breathed out his soul to Orcus[520].’ But for the present the Danes of East Anglia made no movement.

[Sidenote: The final storm.]

§ 74. In 892 the final storm burst on England; but the result was only to show the strength of the system which Alfred had built up during the years of peace[521]. The splendid annals 893-7 (892-6 according to the true chronology), in which, as has been said, we seem to hear the very voice of Alfred himself[522], and beside which, as the same authority declares[523], ‘every other piece of prose not in these Chronicles merely, but throughout the whole range of extant Saxon literature, must assume a secondary rank,’ give us some insight into the reforms which Alfred had effected.

[Sidenote: Military reforms; (1) the _fyrd_ divided.]

(1) To counteract the standing weakness of citizen-armies, which made them liable to melt away at the critical moment, when their short term of service was expired, he divided the fyrd into two divisions, which were to relieve one another at fixed intervals, ‘so that always half were at home, and half on service.’ This measure is particularly interesting, as it may have been suggested to Alfred by his studies in Orosius, where a similar institution is attributed to the Amazons, and in Alfred’s translation is described in language very similar to that of the Chronicle[524].

[Sidenote: (2) Fortifications.]

(2) Besides the two alternating divisions of the fyrd, the Chronicle enumerates ‘the men who were bound to keep the burgs[525].’ If the Danes had taught the Saxons the importance of mobility when in movement, they had no less surely taught them the importance of fortifications when stationary. In the first place the towns were encouraged to fortify themselves—we have a very interesting document, unfortunately without date, which tells how Æthelred of Mercia, and his wife, Æthelflæd, lady of the Mercians, ‘bade work the burg at Worcester for the protection of all the people[526]’; while in 898 there was a formal conference at Chelsea between Alfred, Æthelred, Æthelflæd, and Archbishop Plegmund on the fortifications of London[527]. But besides this, fortified camps were erected at strategic points. The important document known as the burghal hidage[528], which is only a very little later than Alfred’s reign, seems to show that certain districts were appurtenant to these burgs, while ‘the men who were bound to keep the burgs’ would possibly hold their lands by a tenure analogous to that known under the feudal system as ‘castle-guard.’ Asser also insists strongly on the importance which Alfred attached to the construction of ‘castella’ or ‘arces’ (= burgs); though he also shows that Alfred had considerable difficulty in getting his subjects to adopt this novel mode of defence[529]. It would seem then that, in creating the famous lines of forts by which Edward and Æthelflæd secured the country which they won from the Danes, they were but carrying out the policy of their father[530].

[Sidenote: (3) Number of thanes increased.]

(3) It seems to have been part of Alfred’s military policy to increase considerably the number of thanes, by conferring the privileges, and enforcing the obligations of thanehood on all owners of five hides of land, an estate analogous to the later knight’s fee. This would give the king a nucleus of highly equipped troops, whom he could moreover call out on his own authority, without going through the form of consulting the Witan[531]. It can hardly be a mere accident that, whereas in the records of Alfred’s reign, the only mention of king’s thanes hitherto has been in connexion with the minor military operations of the great ‘year of battles,’ 871, in the annals 894-7 they are mentioned no less than six times.

[Sidenote: (4) Greater mobility.]

(4) These annals also furnish abundant evidence of that increased mobility of the English forces which we have already noticed. They also show

[Sidenote: (5) Fortified positions carried.]

(5) That the English had learned not only to make fortifications, but to storm them[532]. After this preamble we return to the history of Alfred’s last contest.

[Sidenote: Battle of the Dyle. Renewed invasion of England by the Danes. A concerted attempt to conquer England. Danish plan of campaign. Battle of Farnham.]

§ 75. On November 1, 891[533], Arnulf, king of the Eastern Franks, had defeated the Northmen in a brilliant engagement on the Dyle, which freed the interior of Germany for ever from these foes. This, and the famine which prevailed on the Continent in 892 in consequence of an exceptionally severe winter, disgusted them with their continental quarters; and in the autumn of 892[534] a fleet of 250 sail put forth from Boulogne, and entered the mouth of the then navigable river Lymne, drew their ships four miles up the river, and, after capturing an unfinished[535] fort, entrenched themselves at Appledore. Shortly after, a smaller detachment of eighty ships under Hæsten sailed into the estuary of the Thames, entered the Swale, and fortified itself at Milton. In view of these new encampments on English soil, Alfred, early in 893 (894), exacted oaths from the Northumbrian and East Anglian Danes, with hostages in addition from the latter, that they would take no part with the invaders. This is the first time that we have had mention of any dealings of Alfred with the Northumbrian Danes, and it shows what new possibilities were opening before him; while, on the other side, the important part which, in spite of their oaths, the Northumbrian and East Anglian Danes took in the following struggle, and the fact that the new invaders brought their wives and children with them, prove that this was no mere predatory raid, but a deliberate and concerted attempt to conquer England. Alfred with his fyrd took up a position between the two Danish camps, so as to watch them both. Numerous small skirmishes took place, but no general engagement. Meanwhile Alfred was negotiating with the smaller body of Danes at Milton; whom he may have thought to detach by making a separate agreement with them. Hæsten entered into negotiations, and even allowed his two sons to be baptised, Alfred himself and Æthelred of Mercia acting as sponsors. But on the part of Hæsten the negotiations were only a blind; if indeed they had not been originally proposed by him with this object. While they were in progress, he ordered the Danes at Appledore to send their ships round to Benfleet in Essex, and themselves to break out in force, and marching through Surrey, Hampshire, and Berkshire, cross the upper Thames, and then, turning eastwards, regain their ships at Benfleet, to which he himself now crossed, threw up a fortification, and occupied himself with harrying the districts, which had been ceded to Alfred by the settlement of 885 (886). This plan was put into execution. But though the Danes at Appledore succeeded in breaking out, they were pursued by the fyrd under Alfred’s eldest son Edward[536], which overtook them (or, in the Chronicler’s words, ‘_rode_ before them’), compelled them to fight a general engagement at Farnham, in which the Danes were defeated, and driven in confusion across the Thames, and up the Hertfordshire Colne, where they took refuge in an island called Thorney[537], which the fyrd proceeded to blockade. Unfortunately at this crisis the term of service of Edward’s division of the fyrd expired, and their provisions being exhausted they were forced to raise the blockade.

[Sidenote: The Danes in the west.]

Alfred was on his way to relieve them with the other division of the fyrd, when he heard[538] that two fleets of Northumbrian and East Anglian Danes were operating in the west, the larger one of 100 ships besieging Exeter, the smaller one of forty ships besieging an unnamed fort on the coast of North Devon. Alfred at once hurried westward, detaching however a small force under Edward to watch the Danes at Thorney. Alfred was ultimately[539] successful in raising the siege of Exeter; the fate of the North Devon fort is not recorded.

[Sidenote: Edward reduces the Danes in Thorney. Capture of Benfleet.]

Meanwhile Edward, reinforced by Æthelred from London, renewed the blockade of Thorney, the Danes having been unable to avail themselves of his temporary absence, owing to the fact that their chief had been wounded in the battle of Farnham. They had accordingly to submit and give hostages, and were then allowed to march off. Edward and Æthelred returned to London, and collecting reinforcements there and from the west, marched to Benfleet, which they found garrisoned by their former antagonists from Thorney; Hæsten himself with his division being away plundering. The fort was carried, the garrison put to flight, all the women, and children, and plunder captured; Hæsten’s own wife and sons were among the captives, though either now or later Alfred chivalrously restored them, because of the relationship which baptism had created between them. The ships were burned or broken up, or carried off to London and Rochester. It was as complete a victory as could well be imagined.

[Sidenote: The Danes make a dash across England. They are driven northwards, defeated at Buttington, and retire to Shoebury. They winter at Chester, and retire to Essex.]

§ 76. The defeated Danes fell back on Shoebury, where they were joined by Hæsten, and threw up another fortification. They then set out to march up the Thames, being joined by large reinforcements from Northumbria and East Anglia. The object of this move was probably to co-operate with their friends in Devonshire against Alfred’s force. If so, it was frustrated. The three great ealdormen, Æthelred of Mercia, Æthelnoth of Somerset, and Æthelhelm of Wilts., ‘with the thanes who were at home at the forts,’ raised a levy, the extent of which, as Professor Earle has remarked[540], seems to astonish the Chronicler himself, ‘from every burg east of Parret, west and east of Selwood, north of Thames, west of Severn, with some of the North Welsh’; the co-operation of these last being especially noteworthy. In view of these gathering forces the Danes were obliged to head off northwards up the Severn valley, being finally overtaken at Buttington, and blockaded on both sides of the river. The locality of this place has been much disputed; some authorities placing it at Buttington Tump, at the junction of the Wye with the Severn, others identifying it with Buttington on the borders of Shropshire and Montgomeryshire. Contrary to my former opinion, I am now inclined to take the latter view; not because of Sir James Ramsay’s objection that the Severn is too wide to be blockaded at Buttington Tump, for on that theory the river on which the Danes were blockaded would be the Wye; but because the phrase of the Chronicler that the Danes marched ‘up along Severn,’ just as they had marched ‘up along Thames,’ seems to imply that they followed the Severn valley northwards; whereas to reach Buttington Tump they would have had to cross the Severn and turn south; and moreover, in that case, their fleets in Devonshire would probably have made some attempt to relieve them. However this may be, the English blockaded them for ‘many weeks,’ until they were starved out, their horses having all died of hunger or been eaten. They then made a desperate attempt to break through the English lines on the eastern side of the river, but were defeated with loss; those who escaped returning to Shoebury; then, leaving their ships, their women, and their booty in East Anglia, and drawing in large reinforcements from East Anglia and Northumbria, they made a sudden dash across England, marching ‘without stopping[541] day or night,’ till they reached the ruined Roman walls of Chester, where they fortified themselves for the winter. The fyrd failed to cut them off before they reached Chester, and the approach of winter and the heavy work already done probably prevented them from attempting another blockade; they therefore contented themselves with destroying everything in the neighbourhood from which the Danes could gather sustenance, and retired. Not since the great year of battles in 871 had there been such a bustling year in England, and what a different result!

[Sidenote: They fortify themselves on the Lea, but are out-manœuvred.]

§ 77. The measures taken by the English proved effective, for early in the next year, 894 (895), want of provisions forced the Danes to evacuate Chester, and withdraw into Wales, whence they retired to Mersea in Essex; ‘marching through Northumbria and East Anglia, so as the fyrd might not reach them[542]’; words which give eloquent testimony to the changed state of things. At Mersea they were joined by the fleet from Exeter, which had been beaten off with heavy loss in an attempt which they had made on Chichester. At the end of this year and the beginning of the next, 895 (896), the Danes drew their ships up the Thames and Lea to a spot twenty miles above London, and there fortified themselves. An attempt by the garrison of London with other forces to storm the Danish lines failed; and so during harvest Alfred encamped in the neighbourhood to protect the inhabitants of the district, while they were reaping their corn. One day as he was riding up the river, he noticed a spot where it seemed to him possible, by constructing obstacles on either side of the stream, to prevent the Danish ships from getting out[543]. He at once proceeded to put his plan into execution, but he had hardly begun when the Danes realised that they were out-manœuvred, and abandoning their ships once more struck off for the upper waters of the Severn. The fyrd pursued, but here again no attempt was made to blockade them, and the Danes wintered at Bridgenorth.

[Sidenote: Break-up of the Danish host.]

The next summer, 896 (897), the Danish host broke up, ‘some to East Anglia, some to Northumbria. Those who had no property [in England] got them ships and fared south over sea to the Seine.’ The long campaign was over. ‘And through God’s mercy,’ says the Chronicler once more, ‘the [Danish] host had not wholly ruined the Angle-kin, but they were much more ruined in those three years with murrain of men and cattle, and with the loss of many of the most excellent king’s thanes who passed away in those three years.’

[Sidenote: Alfred’s new ships. Not a great success. Alfred’s claim to be the founder of the English navy doubtful. Earlier naval engagement.]

§ 78. The only thing that remained to be done was to suppress the predatory raids of Northumbrian and East Anglian ships on the south coasts of Wessex. With this object Alfred turned the constructive ability which he undoubtedly possessed to the building of a new type of ship, just as Caesar did when he invaded Britain[544]. They were much larger in all their measurements than the wiking vessels, built neither on Frisian nor Danish lines, but according to the king’s own ideas. To tell the honest truth, they do not seem to have been a great success. In an engagement between nine of the new ships and six wiking vessels in the neighbourhood of the Isle of Wight all the English ships got aground, ‘very uncomfortably,’ as the Chronicler quaintly says, six on one side of the strait and three on the other. Moreover at the end of the same annal it is recorded: ‘and the same summer perished no less than twenty ships on the South Coast, crews and all’; so that the new ships do not seem to have been very capable of weathering a storm. We have noticed earlier naval operations of Alfred in the years 875, 877, 881 (882), 884 (885). I am, however, inclined to think that both Alfred’s claims to be called the founder of the English navy, and also the previous disuse of the sea by the Saxons have been somewhat exaggerated. The mention of Frisians as fighting on the English side[545] in the naval engagement just referred to, shows indeed that Alfred was glad to avail himself of these skilled mariners, who had probably come over to England in consequence of the wiking settlements in Frisia[546], just as the Danish descent on Wessex, in 878, drove many West Saxons to take refuge on the Continent. And Asser expressly mentions Frisians among those who settled under Alfred’s rule[547]. There was certainly a naval engagement in 851, under Æthelwulf[548], in which the English were victorious, if not yet earlier in 833 and 840[549]. Still it is no doubt true that there was no fleet capable of safeguarding the English coasts. The silence of the Chronicle as to any later attacks may indicate that this was effected in Alfred’s later years. Unhappily, for the last four years of Alfred’s reign the Chronicle is silent as to almost everything. So the argument is at best precarious. The stress laid on the description of Alfred’s new ships shows that he saw in this the necessary completion of his work for the defence of England; but did it really require such an immense amount of genius to discern that, as the invaders came by sea, it was desirable to stop them, if possible, before they got to land?

[Sidenote: The problems of peace.]

§ 79. We are constantly being told that ‘Peace hath her victories not less renowned than war.’ But the victories of peace are worthy of double renown when they have to be won, as in Alfred’s case, from the ashes left by an exhausting war. For, as Alfred says himself, ‘throughout all England everything was harried and burnt[550].’

The most needful of the works of peace is, as men have often learnt by bitter experience, to be prepared for war. Not only the works of peace, but peace itself, are impossible except under the guarantee of an adequate military and naval force. We have said enough already of Alfred’s efforts to reorganise his kingdom on this side.

[Sidenote: Civil reorganisation. The shire system. Legislation not very important in early times.]

Much too would be needed in the way of civil reorganisation, especially in the non-West-Saxon districts which had been won from the Danes. And this fact is probably the basis of the legend which makes Alfred the inventor of shires, hundreds, and tithings[551]. Indeed, in the districts which previously had formed part of Mercia, it is probable that the shire system was introduced for the first time, either now or a little later. For, as Mr. Taylor has pointed out[552], whereas every existing shire division south of the Thames is mentioned in the oldest MS. of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle before the first change of hand at the year 892, there is no mention of any Mercian shire in any MS. of the Chronicle prior to 1000. Legislation too would be required, though we must always remember that legislation, as we understand it, played a very small part in Anglo-Saxon times. The idea of a code or body of statutes covering all departments of civil life was quite foreign to their notions, and every attempt to explain the existing Anglo-Saxon laws on any such hypothesis must be a failure. Into the details of Alfred’s laws I do not propose to enter. To do so with any profit would require more space than I can afford, and a minuter knowledge of the earlier and later laws than I can pretend to. Indeed, I must confess that the study of the Anglo-Saxon laws often reduces me to a state of mental chaos. I may know, as a rule, the meaning of individual words; I can construe, though not invariably, the separate sentences. But what it all comes to is often a total mystery. The reason (apart from my own shortcomings) is to be sought in the fact alluded to above, that a very small part of Anglo-Saxon life and institutions is to be found in the laws, which imply a whole body of unwritten custom, of which only the most salient changes are registered in the laws. And as this body of unwritten custom is, to a large extent, beyond our reach, it is not surprising that the written law, to which it was the key, should often be obscure.

[Sidenote: Alfred’s laws probably passed late in his reign.]

§ 80. The date of Alfred’s laws is unfortunately nowhere given. But it must be comparatively late in his reign. The introduction consists, as is well known, largely of passages taken from the Old and New Testaments, translated from the Vulgate with a degree of skill and freedom, which seems to imply some practice in the work of translation and adaptation, which, as we shall see, Alfred probably did not begin at any rate before the year 887[553]. We may therefore conjecture that the enactment of these laws should be placed either just before, or just after the last great struggle with the Danes, 892-6; for William of Malmesbury’s statement that while, as a rule, ‘inter arma silent leges,’ Alfred carried on his legislation amid the din of war[554], need not be taken for more than the rhetorical flourish which it evidently is.

[Sidenote: Points of interest connected with them.]

One or two points in the preface and in the laws may just be briefly noted. In the former there is an interesting mistranslation of the fifth commandment, the feminine relative in the last clause: ‘which the Lord thy God giveth thee,’ being taken to refer not to land (terra) but to mother (matrem); ‘honour thy father and thy mother whom the Lord gave thee[555].’ Was it the thankful thought of his own noble mother Osburh which prompted this mistake?

The insertion among the causes which excuse the non-return of a deposit, of the case of its having been captured by the enemy[556], throws light on the circumstances of the time, as does the provision of one of the laws that, for certain offences, the punishment is doubled when the ‘fyrd’ is out[557]. Characteristic too of the times is the fact that treason against the lord is ‘boot-less[558],’ i.e. incapable of being atoned for by money-payment, and the provision against harbouring the king’s fugitives[559]. Nor is it surprising that Alfred the truth-teller should be specially severe against falsehood; if any man commits folk-leasing, i.e. public slander, he is to suffer no lighter punishment than the loss of the offending member[560].

At the end of the Apostolic letter, which Alfred translates from Acts xv, is found a version of the golden rule in its negative form, ‘that which ye would not that other men should do to you, do not ye to other men[561].’ This is not, as is often alleged[562], an insertion made by Alfred from the Sermon on the Mount[563], but is an addition to the text of Acts, found in some Greek and Old Latin MSS., from the latter of which it passed into some MSS. of the Vulgate[564]. Most characteristic of Alfred’s thought is the comment: ‘by this one law any one may know how he ought to judge another; he needs no other law book.’

[Sidenote: Alfred’s administration of justice.]

§ 81. Asser gives a striking picture[565], which there is no reason to distrust, of the pains which Alfred took to secure a good administration of justice, and especially to ‘see that such as are in need and necessity have right.’ From this point of view we can understand Alfred’s recasting the precept of Exodus xxiii. 3: ‘pauperis quoque non misereberis in iudicio,’ ‘neither shalt thou favour a poor man in his cause’ (R.V.). The warning that justice is no more to be wrested in favour of the poor, than of the rich, is one not unneeded now. But undue favouring of the poor was a remote danger in Alfred’s day, when, as Asser says, the poor had few helpers, or none, besides the king[566]. And so Alfred puts the precept in a general form: ‘Judge thou very equally, judge not one judgement for the rich, and another for the poor[567].’ And it would seem from Asser’s account that he kept a control on the local administration of justice, not only by constantly hearing appeals himself, but also by a system of special envoys analogous to the Carolingian ‘missi dominici,’ and to the later ‘justices in eyre[568].’

[Sidenote: Alfred’s accessibility to suitors.]

Of Alfred’s accessibility as the fountain of justice a very pleasant picture is given in a document addressed to Edward the Elder detailing the progress of a suit which had come before his father Alfred: ‘we went in to the king and told him how we proposed to settle the matter, and the king stood and washed his hands at Wardour within the bower, and when he had finished, he asked us[569],’ and so forth. It reminds us of the sketch which Josephus gives of Philip, tetrarch of Ituraea, almost the only amiable member of the odious Herod family; how he would stroll through his little state, with a chariot following him on which was his curule chair, and if any of his subjects approached him with their causes, he would at once have the chair brought forward, and sit and give his judgement there and then[570]. It reminds us still more of the great Charles, of whom Einhard relates: ‘When he was putting on his shoes or dressing, he would not only admit his friends, but also, if the Count of the Palace reported that there was some suit which could not be settled without his command, he would have the parties brought in at once, and, as if sitting in his tribunal, would hear the matter, and give his decision[571].’ The satisfaction given by Alfred’s decisions appears not only from Asser’s panegyric, but also from the document already cited, where the writer continues: ‘And, sire, if every judgement which King Alfred gave is to be upset, when shall we come to any conclusion?’

[Sidenote: Alfred’s laws drawn mainly from earlier sources. Action of the Witenagemót under Alfred.]

§ 82. The last section of the Preface to the Laws which tells how Alfred gathered these laws from older sources, and rejected others, with the advice of his Witan, not daring to add to them many of his own, which might not be suitable to after ages[572], has been often quoted as an illustration of Alfred’s wise conservatism. It is also the best illustration that we have of the action of the Witenagemót in his reign. Others may be found in the charters, but charters, as we have seen[573], are not numerous. The most interesting illustration is to be found in Alfred’s will, which shows how anxious Alfred was not to bring any undue influence to bear upon his councillors. The will tells us how in a Witenagemót at Long Dean[574] the provisions of Æthelwulf’s will and the agreements made between Alfred and his brothers were recited, in order that the Witan might judge whether Alfred’s proposed disposition of his property was in harmony with these: ‘Then prayed I them all for my love, and gave them my pledge, that I would never bear any grudge against any for what they might conscientiously decide, and that none for love or fear of me should hesitate to declare the law of the case[575].’ The Chronicle does not mention a single meeting of the Witan; and though it would be wrong to argue from this silence, for the same is true of many other reigns, yet it is probable that the circumstances of the time, combined with Alfred’s character and ability, would tend to throw more power into the hands of the king, and to reduce proportionally the importance of the Witenagemót[576].

[Sidenote: Obscurity of ecclesiastical history under Alfred. Alfred’s relation to the Church.]

§ 83. Of synods or special ecclesiastical legislation I can find no trace under Alfred. More than one bishop’s see became temporarily or permanently extinct owing to the ravages of the Danes[577]. The monasteries ‘once filled,’ as Alfred says, ‘with treasures and books[578]’ were favourite objects of attack. In the Preface to the Cura Pastoralis Alfred thanks God for ‘the learned bishops which we now have’; but, with the exception of the two archbishops of Canterbury, Æthelred and Plegmund, Werferth of Worcester, and Asser, it is hard to say anything about any of them. It is the same with the abbots. Thorne, the historian of St. Augustine’s, Canterbury, gives a list of abbots about this time, but he can say nothing as to any of them[579]. Beyond the broad fact of the ruin caused by the ravages of the Danes, the whole history of the Church under Alfred is most obscure[580]. This does not mean that there is any truth in Ailred of Rievaulx’ myth[581] that Alfred regained it as a king’s chief dignity to have no power in the Churches of Christ. What little evidence there is points distinctly the other way[582]. There is a curious letter of Pope John VIII to Archbishop Æthelred[583] in which he says: ‘We admonish you to set yourself as a wall for the house of God not only against the king, but also against all who are minded to act perversely.’ There seems some ground for Sir John Spelman’s remark: ‘The life and ways of Alfred were not perfectly pleasing to the Fathers of Rome[584].’ A letter, from Archbishop Fulk of Rheims to Æthelred’s successor, Plegmund[585], shows that clerical and episcopal marriages were common in England at that time; and there are traces of something like hereditary succession to ecclesiastical lands[586]. There is no evidence that Alfred attempted to alter this state of things; there is some evidence that he disapproved it. In the Soliloquies of St. Augustine, the Anglo-Saxon translation of which[587] is almost certainly by Alfred[588], there is a passage in which Augustine declares that he has no desire to marry. This, which in the original is purely personal to Augustine, is by the translator extended to all clergy: ‘I say however that it is better for priests not to marry than to marry[589].’

[Sidenote: Decline of monasticism.]

Alfred made some attempt to revive the monastic life in England. He built a monastery for men at Athelney[590], no doubt as a thank-offering for the deliverance there begun, and a convent for women at Shaftesbury[591]; he also made arrangements, though he did not live to carry them out, for founding the New Minster at Winchester[592]. But he had but small success. The taste for the monastic life had almost been extinguished among men in England; and of the two contradictory causes which Asser suggests[593] for this fact, viz. the Danish ravages, and the too great riches of the English, which caused them to despise the monastic life, there can be no doubt that the former is nearer the truth. Alfred had accordingly to fill his monasteries with foreign monks. The result was not always satisfactory, if there is any truth in Asser’s story[594] how two of these foreign monks at Athelney tried to murder their abbot, John the Old Saxon. Besides his own foundations, Alfred was a liberal contributor to other monasteries, not only in England, but also in Ireland and on the Continent[595]. Yet there is no monastic halo round the head of Alfred, like that which adorns his great-grandson Edgar.

LECTURE V

CIVIL ADMINISTRATION (_continued_) EDUCATION; LITERARY WORKS

[Sidenote: Finance.]

§ 84. That Alfred would be a careful and exact steward of all the resources of his kingdom, we may assume without any proof. But, for my own part, I wholly and entirely distrust the account which Asser gives[596] of the minute and mathematical divisions and subdivisions of revenue instituted by Alfred. I regard it as an indication that at this point of his work Asser was attacked by an acute fit of imagination[597]. Dr. Stubbs has said that there is no point on which we are more in the dark than on the financial system of the Anglo-Saxons[598]. We must also remember that since so much of the revenue of an Anglo-Saxon king was payable in kind, there was much less room for finance, in the strict sense of the word, than in more modern states.

Of Alfred’s interest and skill in mechanical and artistic inventions enough has perhaps been said already[599]. Under this head would come the well-known story of the candles and the lantern shades[600]. I cannot myself go into raptures over this, as some writers profess to do. But the mention of tents[601] in connexion with this invention, may perhaps indicate that it was specially during campaigns that the need of some such contrivance would be felt. It is one of the many curious parallels between things English and Frankish, that Pope Paul I sent to Pippin, the father of Charles the Great, an instrument for showing the time at night[602].

[Sidenote: Intercourse with other nations. Ireland. Irish love of pilgrimage.]

§ 85. Of Alfred’s intercourse with foreign nations Asser[603] gives a ‘heightened and telling’ picture, speaking of ‘daily embassies of nations who dwell from the Tyrrhene Sea to the furthest bound of Ireland.’ Of relations of Alfred with the Irish princes[604] I have found no evidence. But an interesting and pathetic instance of accidental intercourse with Ireland is given in the Chronicle under 891: ‘In this year three “Scots” (i.e. Irishmen) came to Alfred king, on a boat without oars or rudder. They had stolen away from Ireland, because they would be for God’s love on pilgrimage, they recked not where. The boat on which they fared was wrought of two and a half hides, and they took with them meat for a sevennight. And at the end of a sevennight they came to land in Cornwall, and straightway fared to Alfred king. Thus were they named, Dubslane, and Macbeth, and Maelinmain.’ The story is most genuine, and redolent through and through of the spirit of Irish History and Saga. The love of pilgrimage became a passion in the Irish Church[605]; the Irish Sagas and the lives of the Irish Saints furnish many illustrations of this desire for exile, this self-abandonment (as they deemed it) to the will of God involved in committing themselves to the deep in a frail skin-covered coracle without oarage or steerage, the slender provision of food for the voyage. In the Book of Leinster is a story how three young Irish clerics set out on a pilgrimage; ‘they took as provision on the sea only three loaves. “In the name of Christ” (said they), “let us throw our oars into the sea, and let us commend ourselves to our Lord.”’ So in the voyage of Maelduin, the Irish Saga so well known to English readers through Tennyson’s poem, Maelduin and his companions exclaim: ‘leave the boat alone, and cease rowing; whither God wills it to be borne, He will bear it[606].’ According to Ethelwerd[607], these ‘Scots’ after leaving Alfred went on to Rome and Jerusalem; and if so, it may well be that this was one of the channels whereby Alfred communicated with the East; for we have seen[608] that Alfred’s intercourse with Elias III, patriarch of Jerusalem, rests on very good evidence.

[Sidenote: A ninth century pilgrimage to Jerusalem.]

§ 86. It so happens that we have an account[609] of a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, made just twenty-five years earlier, by a Frankish monk named Bernard, who, with two companions, a Spanish and an Italian monk, set out from Rome about the year 865 with the blessing of Pope Nicholas (c. 1). From Rome they went to Bari, then ‘a city of the Saracens,’ from the ‘sultan’ of which they obtained letters to the rulers of Alexandria and Egyptian Babylon, i.e. Old Cairo (c. 3). From Bari they walked to Taranto, where they found six ships proceeding to Alexandria with a cargo of 9,000 Christian captives from Beneventum (c. 4). The admiral refused, however, to let them land, until they had paid a ransom of six ‘aurei’ (c. 5). And when they presented the letters of the sultan of Bari to the governour of Alexandria they helped them not a whit; and only on paying thirteen ‘denarii’[610] apiece were they sent on by water with letters to the governour of Cairo (c. 6). Here the same fate awaited them. In spite of all their letters they were thrown into prison, but on payment of another thirteen ‘denarii’ per head they were released, and furnished with letters which did really prove effective, though they had to get them sealed, or, as we should say, they had to have their passports visaed in every town which they passed through, and this meant ever fresh exactions (c. 7). From Cairo they turned north by the Damietta branch of the Nile and proceeded by Tanis (c. 8) to Farama[611], the traditional abode of the Holy Family, where they procured camels on which they crossed the desert (c. 9) to El Arisch, and so by Gaza, Ramleh, and Emmaus to Jerusalem, where the patriarch was Theodosius, the immediate predecessor of Alfred’s correspondent, Elias III. Here they lodged in the hospice founded for pilgrims by ‘the glorious Emperor Charles,’ near which was the church of St. Mary with a noble library of books, also given by Charles (c. 10). After visiting the holy places (cc. 11-18), they returned all the way by sea, having an unfavourable passage of sixty days to Mont’ Auro (c. 19), whence they returned to Rome, ‘where innumerable bodies of the saints repose’ (c. 20). In some ways, apparently, a pilgrimage to Rome was more dangerous than one to Jerusalem. There is good peace, says the writer, between Christians and pagans both in Egypt and Jerusalem, though they are very strict on all travellers who have no passports (c. 22). In Romagna, on the other hand, things were very bad, and brigands so numerous, that pilgrims had to go in bands and fully armed (c. 23).

I have thought it worth while to give an outline of this most interesting little tract, because it shows us the route taken, and the difficulties encountered, by a pilgrim to Jerusalem in the reign of Alfred’s immediate predecessor[612].

[Sidenote: Earliest recorded instance of intercourse between England and India.]

But Alfred’s messengers went further East than Palestine. I have already quoted the passage from the Chronicle which tells how in 883 Alfred sent alms to India to St. Thomas and St. Bartholomew, in fulfilment of the vow which he made ‘when they encamped against the Danes at London.’ On the route taken by these messengers I can unfortunately throw no light. But the entry is of transcendent interest. It is the first recorded instance of a connexion between England and Hindustan, a connexion which has meant so much to India and to England; for it is, I venture to think, to her government of India that England largely owes the position in the world which she holds to-day.

[Sidenote: Intercourse with Rome, and the Frankish empire.]

Of missions and alms sent to Rome by Alfred five instances[613] are recorded in the Chronicle, and probably there were many others not recorded, for the omission of a formal embassy seems to be noted as exceptional[614].

Of intercourse with the Frankish empire we shall have some illustrations when we come to speak of the foreign scholars imported by Alfred.

[Sidenote: Alfred’s need of trained subordinates.]

§ 87. But of all the objects which Alfred had in view the one probably to which he attached most importance was, in the words of our University bidding-prayer, ‘a succession of persons duly qualified for the service of God in Church and State.’ In a passage in the Consolation of Philosophy[615] Boethius says to his instructress: ‘Thou knowest that ambition never was my mistress, though I did desire materials for carrying out my task’; ‘which task,’ adds Alfred, in his own words[616], ‘was that I should virtuously and fittingly administer the authority committed to me. Now no man … can … administer government, unless he have fit tools and the raw material to work upon.… And a king’s raw material and instruments of rule are a well-peopled land, and he must have men of prayer, men of war, and men of work.… Without these tools he cannot perform any of the tasks entrusted to him.’

[Sidenote: Court school.]

It was with a view to providing these necessary ‘tools,’ that Alfred seems to have established, probably after the example of Charles the Great[617], a Court school, for the education specially of the sons of the upper classes, in which books of both languages, Latin and Saxon, were read, especially the Psalms and Saxon poems, and writing also was taught; and to these studies the pupils applied themselves, till they were old enough to learn ‘hunting and other arts, befitting well-born men.’

This account of Asser[618] agrees well with the wish expressed by Alfred in the Preface to the Pastoral Care, ‘That all the freeborn youth of England who have sufficient means to devote themselves thereto, be set to learning so long as they are not strong enough for any other occupation, until such time as they can well read English writing. Let those be taught Latin whom it is proposed to educate further, and promote to higher office.’ This passage is most interesting; but we must not, on the strength of it, bring Alfred into court as an advocate either for or against classical education. On the one hand Alfred clearly wished that all who had the time and means should be taught Latin; on the other hand Latin was then, as it is not now, the sole vehicle of Western culture and science.

[Sidenote: Want of teachers supplied by Mercia, Wales, and the Frankish empire. John the Old Saxon. Grimbald. Letter of Archbishop Fulk to Alfred. Question of its genuineness.]

§ 88. But the great difficulty was to find teachers. Of England, the part which had suffered least from the ravages of the Danes was Western Mercia; moreover Offa had had a real desire to promote learning in his kingdom, as Alcuin’s letters show[619]; and from Mercia came Plegmund[620], whom Alfred ultimately made archbishop of Canterbury in succession to Æthelred, Werferth, the faithful bishop of Worcester, and two priests, Æthelstan and Werwulf, whom Alfred made his chaplains. The fact that Asser applies to these two last the term ‘sacerdotes,’ which, as I have elsewhere shown, is ambiguous in mediaeval Latin, sometimes meaning bishops, sometimes priests[621], has led Roger of Wendover not only to convert these priests into bishops, but to give them sees at Hereford and Leicester[622]; another illustration of the way in which myths arise. From Wales Alfred got Asser, as we have seen. But Britain alone could not supply Alfred’s needs; and the Frankish empire was now to repay to England some small portion of the debt which it owed for Boniface and Alcuin, in the persons of Grimbald and John the Old Saxon. Of the latter not much is known[623]. He was a monk of Corvey, and was made by Alfred abbot of his new monastery of Athelney. The story of his attempted murder there has been already alluded to[624]. The date of his coming to England is not known. The chronology of Grimbald’s life is also very obscure. Mabillon indeed was led to postulate two Grimbalds, who both came to England under Alfred. But his perplexity was largely caused by his acceptance of the Oxford interpolation in Asser as genuine; and his solution is quite incredible. Grimbald was a monk of St. Bertin’s in Flanders. He held various offices in that monastery, and in 892, on the death of Abbot Rudolf, the monks wished him to become their abbot; but with a view of protecting the monastery against the attacks of Count Baldwin of Flanders, Fulk, archbishop of Rheims, who had been abbot before Rudolf, was allowed to resume the abbacy, and hold it with his archbishopric[625]. If all this is true, Grimbald cannot have come to England much before 893, and as he is mentioned in the Preface to the Pastoral Care as one of Alfred’s helpers in that work (along with Plegmund, Asser, and John), it is obvious that this date for Grimbald’s arrival in England, if it be regarded as established, will have a very important bearing on the chronology of Alfred’s writings[626]. There is a letter extant[627] which purports to be Fulk of Rheims’ answer to Alfred’s application for Grimbald. Certainly, if Fulk was holding the abbacy of St. Bertin’s at this time, he would be the natural person to give permission to a monk of that house to leave his cloister[628], and Dr. Stubbs thought that the MSS. in which the letter is found were sufficiently ancient to exclude the suspicion of forgery. Its authenticity has however been doubted[629], and I confess it presents one very great difficulty to my mind. The letter throughout is written on the assumption that Grimbald is to be a bishop in England; he is to be placed over the care of pastoral rule, he is already a priest, and is worthy of pontifical honour; if Alfred will send Grimbald’s electors and certain leading men in Church and State, Fulk will then ordain him (i.e. as bishop, for he was already priest), and they can escort him to his proper see[630]. Alfred is represented as having stated in his application that, owing to the ravages of the Danes, the lapse of time, the carelessness of prelates, and the ignorance of the people, ecclesiastical order had much decayed in England[631], which is true enough, whoever wrote it. But there is no other evidence anywhere of any intention of making Grimbald a bishop. Dean Hook’s idea[632] that Alfred intended to make him archbishop of Canterbury, but finding the appointment of a foreigner unpopular, substituted Plegmund, has not a scrap of evidence to support it; while if Grimbald did not come to England till 893 the primacy had long been filled up. Ultimately Grimbald was made abbot of the New Minster at Winchester, where he died in 903, and became one of the tutelary saints of that foundation, winning a place in the English Calendar[633]. The tradition that Asser was one of the embassy sent to escort Grimbald to England has been already alluded to[634].

[Sidenote: Alfred’s translations; their object.]

§ 89. But it was not only by educational institutions whether in Court or monastery that Alfred endeavoured to raise the culture of his people. The art of translation, which he had practised at first for his own instruction and edification, he came afterwards to use in order to place within reach of his people[635] the most useful works in different branches of knowledge. The object which Alfred had in view is clearly laid down in the oft-quoted Preface to the Pastoral Care. After tracing the practical extinction of the knowledge of Latin south of the Thames[636], which made all the knowledge contained in that language inaccessible to a degree which would have seemed inconceivable to previous generations, he continues: ‘therefore it seems to me best, if you agree[637], that we should translate some books, those namely which are most necessary for all men to know, into the language which we all understand.’

[Sidenote: Story how Alfred began to translate. The Handbook.]

§ 90. The story how Alfred first began to combine translation with reading[638] is told in a well-known passage of Asser[639]. He relates how one day, while the king and himself were reading and talking together, Alfred was much struck by a passage in the work which Asser was reading to him, and begged him to write it down for him in the little book of psalms and prayers which he always carried about with him. Asser suggested that it would be better to start a separate book for such extracts, and went and fetched a quire of parchment, and in course of time the book of translated extracts grew, until it reached nearly the size of a Psalter. Alfred called it his Encheiridion, Manual, or Handbook[640], because he always kept it close at hand. This according to Asser took place in the year 887.