1899.] on King Alfred. 79 



laymen then had. One day his mother was showing her sons a 

 book of English verse — a MS. probably containing only a few 

 short poems, or even one — and offered the book as a gift to the 

 boy who would first learn its contents. Alfred was attracted by 

 the ornamented initial letter of the MS., and though the youngest, 

 was the first to say, " Do you really mean that the book is for the 

 one who can soonest understand and repeat it to you ? " On being 

 assured it was so, Alfred carried off the book to a teacher, learnt 

 the poem — perhaps also learnt to read the words, but this is uncer- 

 tain * — and could say it to his mother when he brought the book to 

 her again. It is a pretty story, but tells us nothing about the later 

 progress or extent of Alfred's learning. The many duties and 

 distractions of the king's office left him but little time to pursue 

 letters for himself, though he did much to make them accessible 

 to others ; much less, certainly, than he wished for. He preferred, 

 it seems, to have some one to read to him if possible ; but this may 

 be intended only of Latin, f There is nothing, so far as I know, to 

 show that he could write with ease, or wrote much. He may have 

 been but little better as a penman than Charles the Great. He 

 learnt Latin, probably from Asser, in the later and more settled 

 part of his reign ; but he cannot have known it like a trained clerk. 

 Our present Sovereign Lady, acting quite in the spirit of her great 

 ancestor, is said to have attained a competent mastery of Hindustani. 

 But Latin, apart from the difference of alphabet, is a much harder 

 language than Hindustani, and the Queen, though her life is busy 

 enough, is not called upon to administer all her departments and 

 command her frontier expeditions in person. Let us imagine 

 what chance a modern Prime Minister would have of learning Arabic or 

 Russian during his tenure of office. In the translations of Latin books 

 which bear Alfred's name, the English was, no doubt, largely dictated 

 by him ; but, as I read his preface to the earliest of them, J he did not 

 trust himself alone with the Latin. He got the sense — a " construe," 

 in fact — from his learned men, and then put it into such English as he 

 chose himself. Even if his own knowledge could have sufficed for 

 the whole of the translator's business, his leisure would not. We 

 may believe that the king could follow the work of his bishops and 

 priests with intelligence ; but it would be absurd to think of him 



* Magistrum acliit et legit does not, in the Latin of the time, necessarily imply 

 that the learner read the text himself. Or he may have learnt to follow those 

 particular words as one learns to recognise a few words in a foreign tongue or 

 character. 



t Asser's statements are quite inconsistent with Alfred having ever been a 

 perfect or ready scholar. Unluckily the passage which ought to contain the most 

 decisive information is so corrupt as to give no certain sense. It tells us that 

 Alfred was always sorry for not being able to do more, but it is mere guesswork 

 whether the point of his grievance was never having had time to learn to read 

 properly, or only not having enough time for reading. 



X Gregory's ' Cura Pastoralis.' 



