Visit ebooknice.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebooks or textbooks

(Ebook) Essential Algorithms: A Practical Approach

to Computer Algorithms by Rod Stephens ISBN
9781118612101, 1118612108

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebooknice.com/product/essential-algorithms-a-
practical-approach-to-computer-algorithms-4543036

Explore and download more ebooks or textbooks at ebooknice.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

(Ebook) Essential Algorithms : a Practical Approach to Computer

Algorithms by Rod Stephens ISBN 9781118612101, 9781118612767,
9781118797297, 9781299759992, 1118612108, 1118612760, 1118797299,
1299759998
https://ebooknice.com/product/essential-algorithms-a-practical-
approach-to-computer-algorithms-4924094

(Ebook) Essential Algorithms by Rod Stephens ISBN 9781118612101,

9781118612767, 9781118797297, 1118612108, 1118612760, 1118797299

https://ebooknice.com/product/essential-algorithms-31030430

(Ebook) Essential algorithms : a practical approach to computer

algorithms using Python and C# by Rod Stephens ISBN 9781119575993,
1119575990

https://ebooknice.com/product/essential-algorithms-a-practical-
approach-to-computer-algorithms-using-python-and-c-12274474

(Ebook) Essential Algorithms: A Practical Approach to Computer

Algorithms Using Python and C#- Second Edition by Rod Stephens ISBN
9781119575993, 1119575990

https://ebooknice.com/product/essential-algorithms-a-practical-
approach-to-computer-algorithms-using-python-and-c-second-
edition-57280052
(Ebook) Pro Machine Learning Algorithms: A Hands-On Approach to
Implementing Algorithms in Python and R by V Kishore Ayyadevara

https://ebooknice.com/product/pro-machine-learning-algorithms-a-hands-
on-approach-to-implementing-algorithms-in-python-and-r-50195058

(Ebook) Algorithms Sequential & Parallel: A Unified Approach

(Electrical and Computer Engineering Series) by Russ Miller, Laurence
Boxer ISBN 1584504129

https://ebooknice.com/product/algorithms-sequential-parallel-a-
unified-approach-electrical-and-computer-engineering-series-2539134

(Ebook) Algebraic Graph Algorithms: A Practical Guide Using Python

(Undergraduate Topics in Computer Science) by K. Erciyes ISBN
9783030878856, 3030878856

https://ebooknice.com/product/algebraic-graph-algorithms-a-practical-
guide-using-python-undergraduate-topics-in-computer-science-36373836

(Ebook) Optimization of Computer Networks: Modeling and Algorithms: A

Hands-On Approach by Pablo Pav?n Mari?o ISBN 9781119013358, 1119013356

https://ebooknice.com/product/optimization-of-computer-networks-
modeling-and-algorithms-a-hands-on-approach-5536552

(Ebook) Practical Algorithms for 3D Computer Graphics, Second Edition

by Ferguson, R. Stuart ISBN 9781466582538, 9782592632661, 1466582537,
2592632662

https://ebooknice.com/product/practical-algorithms-for-3d-computer-
graphics-second-edition-5145374
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Algorithm Basics
Approach
Algorithms and Data Structures
Pseudocode
Algorithm Features
Practical Considerations
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 2: Numerical Algorithms
Randomizing Data
Finding Greatest Common Divisors
Performing Exponentiation
Working with Prime Numbers
Performing Numerical Integration
Finding Zeros
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 3: Linked Lists
Basic Concepts
Singly Linked Lists
Doubly Linked Lists
Sorted Linked Lists
Linked-List Algorithms

2
Linked List Selectionsort
Multithreaded Linked Lists
Linked Lists with Loops
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 4: Arrays
Basic Concepts
One-dimensional Arrays
Nonzero Lower Bounds
Triangular Arrays
Sparse Arrays
Matrices
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 5: Stacks and Queues
Stacks
Queues
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 6: Sorting

O(N2) Algorithms
O(N log N) Algorithms
Sub O(N log N) Algorithms
Summary

3
Exercises
Chapter 7: Searching
Linear Search
Binary Search
Interpolation Search
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 8: Hash Tables
Hash Table Fundamentals
Chaining
Open Addressing
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 9: Recursion
Basic Algorithms
Graphical Algorithms
Backtracking Algorithms
Selections and Permutations
Recursion Removal
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 10: Trees
Tree Terminology
Binary Tree Properties

4
Tree Representations
Tree Traversal
Sorted Trees
Threaded Trees
Specialized Tree Algorithms
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 11: Balanced Trees
AVL Trees
2-3 Trees
B-Trees
Balanced Tree Variations
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 12: Decision Trees
Searching Game Trees
Searching General Decision Trees
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 13: Basic Network Algorithms
Network Terminology
Network Representations
Traversals
Finding Paths

5
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 14: More Network Algorithms
Topological Sorting
Cycle Detection
Map Coloring
Maximal Flow
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 15: String Algorithms
Matching Parentheses
Pattern Matching
String Searching
Calculating Edit Distance
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 16: Cryptography
Terminology
Transposition Ciphers
Substitution Ciphers
Block Ciphers
Public-Key Encryption and RSA
Other Uses for Cryptography
Summary

6
Exercises
Chapter 17: Complexity Theory
Notation
Complexity Classes
Reductions
NP-Hardness
Detection, Reporting, and Optimization Problems
NP-Complete Problems
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 18: Distributed Algorithms
Types of Parallelism
Distributed Algorithms
Summary
Exercises
Chapter 19: Interview Puzzles
Asking Interview Puzzle Questions
Answering Interview Puzzle Questions
Summary
Exercises
Appendix A: Summary of Algorithmic Concepts
Chapter 1: Algorithm Basics
Chapter 2: Numeric Algorithms
Chapter 3: Linked Lists

7
Chapter 4: Arrays
Chapter 5: Stacks and Queues
Chapter 6: Sorting
Chapter 7: Searching
Chapter 8: Hash Tables
Chapter 9: Recursion
Chapter 10: Trees
Chapter 11: Balanced Trees
Chapter 12: Decision Trees
Chapter 13: Basic Network Algorithms
Chapter 14: More Network Algorithms
Chapter 15: String Algorithms
Chapter 16: Cryptography
Chapter 17: Complexity Theory
Chapter 18: Distributed Algorithms
Chapter 19: Interview Puzzles
Appendix B: Solutions to Exercises
Chapter 1: Algorithm Basics
Chapter 2: Numerical Algorithms
Chapter 3: Linked Lists
Chapter 4: Arrays
Chapter 5: Stacks and Queues
Chapter 6: Sorting
Chapter 7: Searching

8
Chapter 8: Hash Tables
Chapter 9: Recursion
Chapter 10: Trees
Chapter 11: Balanced Trees
Chapter 12: Decision Trees
Chapter 13: Basic Network Algorithms
Chapter 14: More Network Algorithms
Chapter 15: String Algorithms
Chapter 16: Encryption
Chapter 17: Complexity Theory
Chapter 18: Distributed Algorithms
Chapter 19: Interview Puzzles
Glossary
Introduction

9
Chapter 1
Algorithm Basics
Before you jump into the study of algorithms, you need a little
background. To begin with, you need to know that, simply stated, an
algorithm is a recipe for getting something done. It defines the steps for
performing a task in a certain way.
That definition seems simple enough, but no one writes algorithms for
performing extremely simple tasks. No one writes instructions for how to
access the fourth element in an array. It is just assumed that this is part of
the definition of an array and that you know how to do it (if you know
how to use the programming language in question).
Normally people write algorithms only for difficult tasks. Algorithms
explain how to find the solution to a complicated algebra problem, how to
find the shortest path through a network containing thousands of streets, or
how to find the best mix of hundreds of investments to optimize profits.
This chapter explains some of the basic algorithmic concepts you should
understand if you want to get the most out of your study of algorithms.
It may be tempting to skip this chapter and jump to studying specific
algorithms, but you should at least skim this material. Pay close attention
to the section “Big O Notation,” because a good understanding of runtime
performance can mean the difference between an algorithm performing its
task in seconds, hours, or not at all.

Approach
To get the most out of an algorithm, you must be able to do more than
simply follow its steps. You need to understand the following:
• The algorithm's behavior. Does it find the best possible solution,
or does it just find a good solution? Could there be multiple best
solutions? Is there a reason to pick one “best” solution over the
others?

10
 • The algorithm's speed. Is it fast? Slow? Is it usually fast but
sometimes slow for certain inputs?
• The algorithm's memory requirements. How much memory will
the algorithm need? Is this a reasonable amount? Does the
algorithm require billions of terabytes more memory than a
computer could possibly have (at least today)?
• The main techniques the algorithm uses. Can you reuse those
techniques to solve similar problems?
This book covers all these topics. It does not, however, attempt to cover
every detail of every algorithm with mathematical precision. It uses an
intuitive approach to explain algorithms and their performance, but it does
not analyze performance in rigorous detail. Although that kind of proof
can be interesting, it can also be confusing and take up a lot of space,
providing a level of detail that is unnecessary for most programmers. This
book, after all, is intended primarily for programming professionals who
need to get a job done.
This book's chapters group algorithms that have related themes.
Sometimes the theme is the task they perform (sorting, searching, network
algorithms), sometimes it's the data structures they use (linked lists,
arrays, hash tables, trees), and sometimes it's the techniques they use
(recursion, decision trees, distributed algorithms). At a high level, these
groupings may seem arbitrary, but when you read about the algorithms,
you'll see that they fit together.
In addition to those categories, many algorithms have underlying themes
that cross chapter boundaries. For example, tree algorithms (Chapters 10,
11, and 12) tend to be highly recursive (Chapter 9). Linked lists (Chapter
3) can be used to build arrays (Chapter 4), hash tables (Chapter 8), stacks
(Chapter 5), and queues (Chapter 5). The ideas of references and pointers
are used to build linked lists (Chapter 3), trees (Chapters 10, 11, and 12),
and networks (Chapters 13 and 14). As you read, watch for these common
threads. Appendix A summarizes common strategies programs use to
make these ideas easier to follow.

11
Algorithms and Data
Structures
An algorithm is a recipe for performing a certain task. A data structure is
a way of arranging data to make solving a particular problem easier. A
data structure could be a way of arranging values in an array, a linked list
that connects items in a certain pattern, a tree, a graph, a network, or
something even more exotic.
Often algorithms are closely tied to data structures. For example, the edit
distance algorithm described in Chapter 15 uses a network to determine
how similar two strings are. The algorithm is tied closely to the network
and won't work without it.
Often an algorithm says, “Build a certain data structure and then use it in a
certain way.” The algorithm can't exist without the data structure, and
there's no point in building the data structure if you don't plan to use it
with the algorithm.

Pseudocode
To make the algorithms described in this book as useful as possible, they
are first described in intuitive English terms. From this high-level
explanation, you should be able to implement the algorithm in most
programming languages.
Often, however, an algorithm's implementation contains niggling little
details that can make implementation hard. To make handling those
details easier, the algorithms are also described in pseudocode.
Pseudocode is text that is a lot like a programming language but that is not
really a programming language. The idea is to give you the structure and
details you would need to implement the algorithm in code without tying
the algorithm to a particular programming language. Hopefully you can
translate the pseudocode into actual code to run on your computer.

12
The following snippet shows an example of pseudocode for an algorithm
that calculates the greatest common divisor (GCD) of two integers:
// Find the greatest common divisor of a and b.
// GCD(a, b) = GCD(b, a Mod b).
Integer: Gcd(Integer: a, Integer: b)
While (b != 0)
// Calculate the remainder.
Integer: remainder = a Mod b
// Calculate GCD(b, remainder).
a = b
b = remainder
End While
// GCD(a, 0) is a.
Return a
End Gcd

The Mod Operator

The modulus operator, which is written Mod in the pseudocode, means the
remainder after division. For example, 13 Mod 4 is 1 because 13 divided by 4 is 3
with a remainder of 1.
The equation 13 Mod 4 is usually pronounced “13 mod 4” or “13 modulo 4.”

The pseudocode starts with a comment. Comments begin with the

characters // and extend to the end of the line.

The first actual line of code is the algorithm's declaration. This algorithm
is called Gcd and returns an integer result. It takes two parameters named
a and b, both of which are integers.

Note
Chunks of code that perform a task, optionally returning a result, are variously called
routines, subroutines, methods, procedures, subprocedures, or functions.

The code after the declaration is indented to show that it is part of the
method. The first line in the method's body begins a While loop. The
code indented below the While statement is executed as long as the
condition in the While statement remains true.

The While loop ends with an End While statement. This statement
isn't strictly necessary, because the indentation shows where the loop ends,
but it provides a reminder of what kind of block of statements is ending.

13
The method exits at the Return statement. This algorithm returns a
value, so this Return statement indicates which value the algorithm
should return. If the algorithm doesn't return any value, such as if its
purpose is to arrange values or build a data structure, the Return
statement isn't followed by a return value.
The code in this example is fairly close to actual programming code.
Other examples may contain instructions or values described in English.
In those cases, the instructions are enclosed in angle brackets (<>) to
indicate that you need to translate the English instructions into program
code.
Normally when a parameter or variable is declared (in the Gcd algorithm,
this includes the parameters a and b and the variable remainder), its
data type is given before it, followed by a colon, as in Integer:
remainder. The data type may be omitted for simple integer looping
variables, as in For i = 1 To 10.

One other feature that is different from some programming languages is

that a pseudocode For loop may include a Step statement indicating the
value by which the looping variable is changed each trip through the loop.
A For loop ends with a Next i statement (where i is the looping
variable) to remind you which loop is ending.
For example, consider the following pseudocode:
For i = 100 To 0 Step -5
// Do something...
Next i

This code is equivalent to the following C# code:

for (int i = 100; i >= 0; i -= 5)
{
// Do something...
}

The pseudocode used in this book uses If-Then-Else statements,

Case statements, and other statements as needed. These should be
familiar to you from your knowledge of real programming languages.
Anything else that the code needs is spelled out in English.

14
One basic data structure that may be unfamiliar to you depending on
which programming languages you know is a List. A List is similar
to a self-expanding array. It provides an Add method that lets you add an
item to the end of the list. For example, the following pseudocode creates
a List Of Integer that contains the numbers 1 through 10:
List Of Integer: numbers
For i = 1 To 10
numbers.Add(i)
Next i

After a list is initialized, the pseudocode can use it as if it were a normal

array and access items anywhere in the list. Unlike arrays, lists also let
you add and remove items from any position.
Many algorithms in this book are written as methods or functions that
return a result. The method's declaration begins with the result's data type.
If a method performs some task and doesn't return a result, it has no data
type.
The following pseudocode contains two methods:
// Return twice the input value.
Integer: DoubleIt(Integer: value)
Return 2 * value
End DoubleIt
// The following method does something and doesn't
return a value.
DoSomething(Integer: values[])
// Some code here.
...
End DoSomething

The DoubleIt method takes an integer as a parameter and returns an

integer. The code doubles the input value and returns the result.
The DoSomething method takes as a parameter an array of integers
named values. It performs a task and doesn't return a result. For example,
it might randomize or sort the items in the array. (Note that this book
assumes that arrays start with the index 0. For example, an array
containing three items has indices 0, 1, and 2.)
Pseudocode should be intuitive and easy to understand, but if you find
something that doesn't make sense to you, feel free to post a question on

15
the book's discussion forum at www.wiley.com/go/
essentialalgorithms or e-mail me at
[email protected]. I'll point you in the right
direction.
One problem with pseudocode is that it has no compiler to detect errors.
As a check of the basic algorithm, and to give you some actual code to use
for a reference, C# implementations of most of the algorithms and many
of the exercises are available for download on the book's website.

Algorithm Features
A good algorithm must have three features: correctness, maintainability,
and efficiency.
Obviously if an algorithm doesn't solve the problem for which it was
designed, it's not much use. If it doesn't produce correct answers, there's
little point in using it.

Note
Interestingly, some algorithms produce correct answers only some of the time but are still
useful. For example, an algorithm may be able to give you some information with a
certain probability. In that case you may be able to rerun the algorithm many times to
increase your confidence that the answer is correct. Fermat's primality test, described in
Chapter 2, is this kind of algorithm.

If an algorithm isn't maintainable, it's dangerous to use in a program. If an

algorithm is simple, intuitive, and elegant, you can be confident that it is
producing correct results, and you can fix it if it doesn't. If the algorithm is
intricate, confusing, and convoluted, you may have a lot of trouble
implementing it, and you will have even more trouble fixing it if a bug
arises. If it's hard to understand, how can you know if it is producing
correct results?

Note
This doesn't mean it isn't worth studying confusing and difficult algorithms. Even if you
have trouble implementing an algorithm, you may learn a lot in the attempt. Over time
your algorithmic intuition and skill will increase, so algorithms you once thought were
confusing will seem easier to handle. You must always test all algorithms thoroughly,
however, to make sure they are producing correct results.

16
Most developers spend a lot of effort on efficiency, and efficiency is
certainly important. If an algorithm produces a correct result and is simple
to implement and debug, it's still not much use if it takes seven years to
finish or if it requires more memory than a computer can possibly hold.
In order to study an algorithm's performance, computer scientists ask how
its performance changes as the size of the problem changes. If you double
the number of values the algorithm is processing, does the runtime
double? Does it increase by a factor of 4? Does it increase exponentially
so that it suddenly takes years to finish?
You can ask the same questions about memory usage or any other
resource that the algorithm requires. If you double the size of the problem,
does the amount of memory required double?
You can also ask the same questions with respect to the algorithm's
performance under different circumstances. What is the algorithm's
worst-case performance? How likely is the worst case to occur? If you run
the algorithm on a large set of random data, what is its average-case
performance?
To get a feeling for how problem size relates to performance, computer
scientists use Big O notation, described in the following section.

Big O Notation
Big O notation uses a function to describe how the algorithm's worst-case
performance relates to the problem size as the size grows very large. (This
is sometimes called the program's asymptotic performance.) The function
is written within parentheses after a capital letter O.

For example, O(N2) means an algorithm's runtime (or memory usage or

whatever you're measuring) increases as the square of the number of
inputs N. If you double the number of inputs, the runtime increases by
roughly a factor of 4. Similarly, if you triple the number of inputs, the
runtime increases by a factor of 9.

Note

17
 Often O(N2) is pronounced “order N squared.” For example, you might say, “The
quicksort algorithm described in Chapter 6 has a worst-case performance of order N
squared.”

There are five basic rules for calculating an algorithm's Big O notation:
1. If an algorithm performs a certain sequence of steps f(N) times
for a mathematical function f, it takes O(f(N)) steps.
2. If an algorithm performs an operation that takes O(f(N)) steps
and then performs a second operation that takes O(g(N)) steps for
functions f and g, the algorithm's total performance is O(f(N) +
g(N)).
3. If an algorithm takes O(f(N) + g(N)) and the function f(N) is
greater than g(N) for large N, the algorithm's performance can be
simplified to O(f(N)).
4. If an algorithm performs an operation that takes O(f(N)) steps,
and for every step in that operation it performs another O(g(N))
steps, the algorithm's total performance is O(f(N) × g(N)).
5. Ignore constant multiples. If C is a constant, O(C × f(N)) is the
same as O(f(N)), and O(f(C × N)) is the same as O(f(N)).
These rules may seem a bit formal, with all the f(N) and g(N), but they're
fairly easy to apply. If they seem confusing, a few examples should make
them easier to understand.

Rule 1
If an algorithm performs a certain sequence of steps f(N) times for a
mathematical function f, it takes O(f(N)) steps.
Consider the following algorithm, written in pseudocode, for finding the
largest integer in an array:
Integer: FindLargest(Integer: array[])
Integer: largest = array[0]
For i = 1 To <largest index>
If (array[i] > largest) Then largest =
array[i]
Next i
Return largest
End FindLargest

18
The FindLargest algorithm takes as a parameter an array of integers
and returns an integer result. It starts by setting the variable largest
equal to the first value in the array.
It then loops through the remaining values in the array, comparing each to
largest. If it finds a value that is larger than largest, the program
sets largest equal to that value.

After it finishes the loop, the algorithm returns largest.

This algorithm examines each of the N items in the array once, so it has
O(N) performance.

Note
Often algorithms spend most of their time in loops. There's no way an algorithm can
execute more than N steps with a fixed number of code lines unless it contains some sort
of loop.
Study an algorithm's loops to figure out how much time it takes.

Rule 2
If an algorithm performs an operation that takes O(f(N)) steps and then
performs a second operation that takes O(g(N)) steps for functions f and
g, the algorithm's total performance is O(f(N) + g(N)).
If you look again at the FindLargest algorithm shown in the
preceding section, you'll see that a few steps are not actually inside the
loop. The following pseudocode shows the same steps, with their runtime
order shown to the right in comments:
Integer: FindLargest(Integer: array[])
Integer: largest =
array[0] // O(1)
For i = 1 To <largest
index> // O(N)
If (array[i] > largest) Then largest =
array[i]
Next i
Return
largest //
O(1)
End FindLargest

19
This algorithm performs one setup step before it enters its loop and then
performs one more step after it finishes the loop. Both of those steps have
performance O(1) (they're each just a single step), so the total runtime for
the algorithm is really O(1 + N + 1). You can use normal algebra to
combine terms to rewrite this as O(2 + N).

Rule 3
If an algorithm takes O(f(N) + g(N)) and the function f(N) is greater than
g(N) for large N, the algorithm's performance can be simplified to
O(f(N)).
The preceding example showed that the FindLargest algorithm has
runtime O(2 + N). When N grows large, the function N is larger than the
constant value 2, so O(2 + N) simplifies to O(N).
Ignoring the smaller function lets you focus on the algorithm's asymptotic
behavior as the problem size becomes very large. It also lets you ignore
relatively small setup and cleanup tasks. If an algorithm spends some time
building simple data structures and otherwise getting ready to perform a
big computation, you can ignore the setup time as long as it's small
compared to the length of the main calculation.

Rule 4
If an algorithm performs an operation that takes O(f(N)) steps, and for
every step in that operation it performs another O(g(N)) steps, the
algorithm's total performance is O(f(N) + g(N)).
Consider the following algorithm that determines whether an array
contains any duplicate items. (Note that this isn't the most efficient way to
detect duplicates.)
Boolean: ContainsDuplicates(Integer: array[])
// Loop over all of the array's items.
For i = 0 To <largest index>
For j = 0 To <largest index>
// See if these two items are duplicates.
If (i != j) Then
If (array[i] == array[j]) Then
Return True

20
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
chapters[732]. The most important additions are to Ohthere and
Wulfstan.
be found in the geographical introduction which
Orosius prefixes to his work. It is here that Alfred inserts the well-
known description of the geography of Germany, which for him
includes all central Europe from the Rhine on the west to the Don on
the east, and from the Danube on the south to the White Sea on the
north[733]. Here too are inserted the yet more famous accounts of
the voyages of Ohthere[734] and Wulfstan[735], on which so much
has been written. Ohthere’s account begins: ‘Ohthere told his lord
king Alfred that of all the Northmen he dwelt furthest to the North’;
and this is the only direct evidence which the work contains as to its
authorship. These accounts and also the description of Germany,
which, like them, must have been carefully derived from oral
information, illustrate what Asser tells of Alfred’s intercourse with
strangers and his eagerness to learn from them[736], a trait which
was characteristic also of the great Charles[737]. In the historical part
the chief additions are the description of a Roman triumph[738], and
of the temple of Janus[739]. But there are endless smaller additions;
and of these one of the most interesting is the anecdote, ultimately
derived from Suetonius, how Titus used to say that the day was a
lost day on which he had done no good to any one[740]. This saying
is quoted also in the Chronicle, and is one of the links connecting the
two works[741]. We can understand how this saying of the ‘deliciae
generis humani’ would come home to the heart of England’s
darling[742]. Some of these shorter insertions are brief explanatory
notes[743] like those which we have already met with in the Cura
Pastoralis, and, like them, are by no means always correct.
§ 101. Sometimes the explanations are longer;
and many of these are due entirely to Alfred’s Editorial
explanations.
imagination, and are intended to make clear to us
how, in his view, the event narrated came about. It is not in
accordance with our modern notions that editorial explanations of
this kind should be incorporated in the text of an author. But the
idea of literary property is a comparatively modern one, and
footnotes and appendices had not then been invented. It is more
questionable when the phrase ‘cwæð Orosius’ which Alfred
frequently[744] uses to indicate that a sentiment or a statement is
his author’s, not his own, is used, as is the case in one or two
instances, to introduce something for which there is no warrant in
the original; for instance, one of the passages about fate alluded to
above[745].
Of these editorial explanations the most
interesting perhaps are those which relate to These frequently
relate to military
military matters; because they seem in some cases matters.
to reflect Alfred’s own military experience—a point
which Schilling has not noticed. For instance, when Alfred gives as
Hannibal’s reason for his terrible winter march over the Apennines,
that ‘he knew that Flaminius the consul was fancying that he might
remain securely in his winter quarters, … being fully persuaded that
no one would attempt such a march by reason of the intense
cold[746],’ we think of the sudden swoop of the Danes on Alfred at
Chippenham that Epiphany tide 878[747]; the stratagem of a
simulated flight, by which he explains the defeat of Regulus[748], is
one which there is reason to believe that the Danes more than once
resorted to[749]; as also the device which he attributes to Hannibal,
without any warrant from the original text, of sending out parties to
ravage in various directions in order to make the enemy imagine that
his whole force was occupied in this manner[750]; though this also
closely resembles the feigned attacks which Alfred himself made
from Athelney, in order to mask his advance in force to
Ethandun[751].
§ 102. The same is true of some things for which
there is a basis in Orosius himself; for instance, the Passages in
Orosius illustrated
story how, within sixty days from the felling of the by Alfred’s own
trees, Duilius had a fleet of 130 ships ready ‘both experience.
with mast and sail[752]’ recalls Alfred’s own
shipbuilding efforts; the story how Dercyllidas dealt Anecdote of
Nelson.
with the opposing forces of Pharnabazus and
Tissaphernes is extraordinarily like Alfred’s attempt to detach the
Danes of Milton from those at Appledore in 893 [894][753]: ‘As soon
as the Lacedemonian general knew that he had to deal with two
hosts (heras), he thought it more advisable to make peace with the
one, in order that he might the more easily overcome the
other[754]’; while I have already suggested that the twofold division
of the Amazonian host[755], one to remain at home while the other
was on active service, may have even suggested Alfred’s similar
division of the native fyrd or militia. And, indeed, if the workings of
the human mind were always traceable, I fancy we should find,
more often than is commonly supposed, that what seem like brilliant
intuitions on the part of great commanders and statesmen, had
really been suggested by their reading. Nor is this any detraction
from their originality. To remember at the right time, and apply in
the right way, the hints furnished by previous experience, is as much
a mark of genius as invention. There is an interesting tradition that
Nelson’s manœuvre of anchoring his vessels by the stern at the
bombardment of Copenhagen in 1801, was suggested by the fact
that he had that morning been reading the twenty-seventh chapter
of the Acts, which tells how St. Paul’s shipwrecked companions ‘cast
four anchors out of the stern, and wished for the day[756].’
§ 103. Often the additions and expansions let us
see Alfred’s own sentiments; his religious The alterations
sometimes
feelings[757], his admiration for genius, patriotism, illustrate Alfred’s
and courage, as exemplified in such men as own sentiments.
Mistakes. Alfred’s
Alexander[758], Scaevola[759], Regulus[760], the character
two Scipios[761] and Caesar[762]; his disgust at displayed.
ingratitude to God[763] and man[764], at
cruelty[765], treachery[766], or sloth[767]. The omissions are often
dictated by similar motives. He leaves out or abridges many of the
civil wars, the calamities, the crimes, the unclean mythologies[768],
over which Orosius gloated as proofs of heathen depravity; though
often the omissions have no special motive beyond the necessity for
shortening the work. It must be confessed that these omissions
frequently have the effect of wholly dislocating the succession of
events. And it may be said generally that Alfred, though he
apprehends individual incidents with extraordinary vividness, is by no
means clear as to the connexion of events. For the latter quality
greater knowledge was required than was accessible in his day. In
regard to the additions, moreover, we must bear in mind the
possibility that some of them may be due, not to Alfred himself, but
to interpolations or glosses in the MSS. which he used. This, as we
shall see[769], is a consideration of great importance in the case of
the Boethius, but it has been proved to apply to one or two
passages of the Orosius also[770]. That there are many errors as to
persons bearing the same or similar names[771], many confusions of
personal and geographical appellations[772], many quaint mistakes
of translation[773] and of fact, as when he says that Augustus took
his name from the eighth month of the year instead of vice
versa[774], turns the snake-charming tribe of Psylli[775] into a kind of
serpent, and infers from Augustus’ heart-broken exclamation, ‘Vare,
redde legiones,’ that that ill-fated commander had escaped alive
from his defeat[776]; this is only what we might expect, and it would
be ungracious to dwell upon such things[777]. Dr. Schilling has truly
and excellently said[778] of the Orosius: ‘We see Alfred here weak in
historical and linguistic knowledge; but we see him also simple,
high-hearted, and earnest; full of warm appreciation for all that is
good, and of scorn for all that is evil; putting himself to school that
he may educate and raise his people.’
 LECTURE VI
LITERARY WORKS (continued); SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSION

§ 104. We have seen[779] that in the case of the

Orosius, the only direct hint of authorship Authorship Orosius
of the

contained in the book itself is the address of translation

Ohthere to ‘his lord King Alfred’; and the earliest undisputed.
Recent doubts as
external testimony on the subject is to be found in to the Bede
William of Malmesbury in the early part of the translation. Ælfric
twelfth century. But no one has ever doubted King distinctly
Alfred’s authorship. Till recently the same might attributes it to
Alfred, which he
have been said of the Bede; in 1877 Professor does not do in the
Wülker spoke of Alfred’s authorship of the Bede as case of the
‘a fact which no one hitherto has doubted or could Dialogues.
doubt[780].’ Since then, however, Mr. Sweet, in his Anglo-Saxon
Reader[781], and Dr. Thomas Miller in his edition of the Bede
translation, published by the Early English Text Society[782], have
tried to overthrow the traditional view; the former, mainly on the
ground of that occasional over-literalness of the version already
alluded to[783]; the latter, because he thinks that it shows Mercian
characteristics incompatible with a West Saxon origin. Now we must
admit at once that the book itself contains no direct evidence of
authorship, not even such a hint as is dropped in the Orosius. On the
other hand the external evidence is very much earlier. Ælfric, the
homilist, distinctly quotes the book as Alfred’s. In his homily on St.
Gregory he says: ‘Many books tell of his conversation and holy life,
as does Historia Anglorum, which King Alfred translated out of
English into Latin.… We will however tell you something about him
because the fore-said book is not known to all of you, although it is
translated into English[784].’ This was written within a hundred years
of Alfred’s death. For many books of which the authorship has never
been doubted we cannot produce evidence anything like as early. I
may note in passing that in speaking of the translation of Gregory’s
Dialogues Ælfric makes no assertion as to the Alfredian authorship,
merely saying ‘the book has been translated into English, and in it
any one who will read it may learn profitably of these matters[785].’
In another place he gives interesting evidence that, till he himself
took pen in hand, Alfred’s translations were the only books
accessible to those who did not know Latin[786].
Moreover the Cambridge University MS. of the
Anglo-Saxon Bede, which is said to be of the Evidence of MSS.
middle of the eleventh century, has at the
beginning and end the following distich:—

‘Historicus quondam fecit me Beda Latinum,

Alfred, rex Saxo, transtulit ille pius.’

The same MS. contains, between Bede’s Preface and the History
proper, a copy of the West Saxon genealogy in the exact form in
which it appears in MS. of the Saxon Chronicle; i.e. it comes
down to the accession of Alfred, and no further. This again connects
the work with Alfred. The Cambridge MS. is, as far as we can test it,
an undoubted copy of one which exists in the library of my own
college. This is unfortunately imperfect, both at the beginning and
the end. But if, as is likely, it also contained originally the distich and
the pedigree, the evidence is thrown yet further back[787].
Curiously enough both Laȝamon[788] and Rudborne[789] speak of
the Saxon version as if it were Bede’s own.
§ 105. The question of its authorship must not
be regarded as outside the pale of discussion. Only The negative
arguments
I do not think that the arguments hitherto inconclusive. The
advanced are sufficient to establish a negative argument from
dialect.
conclusion. As to Dr. Miller’s Mercian theory, I may
say at once that I have no pretensions to pose as an expert in early
English dialects. I can get up no enthusiasm for the minute
distinctions of form and spelling which form their criteria. They have
for me only the practical and unpleasant interest that they oblige me
often to look up a word in three or four different places in the
dictionary before finding it. I may however mention that Professor
Schipper, the latest editor of the Anglo-Saxon Bede[790], does not
regard the Mercian theory as established[791]. But even if it were
established, it does not seem to me incompatible with Alfred’s
authorship. It is agreed that all our existing MSS. go back to a single
archetype, though they branch off into two groups which form to
some extent a twofold recension[792]. The scribe of that archetypal
MS. may have been a Mercian, and there may have been other MSS.
in which these Mercian peculiarities were wanting. Even if it be
assumed (for it certainly could not be proved), that this Mercian
archetype was the original MS. of all, it is equally open to us to
suppose that the scribe to whom Alfred dictated his translation in the
first instance may have been a Mercian. Or again it is quite possible
that the Mercian characteristics, if they exist, may be due to the
influence of the Mercian scholars who assisted Alfred in his work—
Plegmund, Werferth, and the two Mercian chaplains mentioned by
Asser[793]. And it is some confirmation of this that there is a certain
affinity noticeable between the diction and style of the Bede
translation and that of the earlier or unrevised version of the
Dialogues, which, as we have seen, there is good reason to attribute
to Werferth[794].
§ 106. As to the over-literalness of the
translation in places, the fact must be admitted, Argument from
style. Influence of
though the extent of it has been, I think, Latin on early
somewhat exaggerated. The cases fall under three prose. The Bede
heads: (1) where a Latin construction is may never have
been finally
unidiomatically imitated in the Saxon[795]; this revised.
applies especially to constructions with the ablative absolute[796],
the accusative and infinitive[797], and the use of the passive
voice[798], the range of which is much more restricted in Saxon than
in Latin[799]; (2) where a Latin word is translated by a Saxon one
which may correspond fairly well with the general meaning of the
Latin word, but does not give its sense in the particular
passage[800]; (3) where a phrase or sentence is translated, to use
Alfred’s own expression, ‘word by word,’ instead of ‘sense by
sense[801].’ To all these classes the explanation suggested by
Professor Schipper would often apply, viz. that the translator may
have embodied in his work interlinear glosses which had been made
to assist him; and he cites in illustration the difference between the
West Saxon and Northumbrian versions of the Gospels, the former of
which is a genuine translation, while the latter is an interlinear gloss
made word for word[802]. Some however of the cases where Latin
constructions are reproduced, and also one or two of the second
class, give me the impression, not that the translator could not have
translated more idiomatically if he had pleased, but rather that he
was trying experiments with the language. The development of early
prose in almost all European languages has been largely influenced
by Latin models, and it was only experience which could show how
far the process of assimilation might be carried. Similarly for some
two centuries after the Renaissance English prose literature is full of
experimentally transplanted Latinisms, of which a large proportion
failed to make good their footing in the language. Another possibility
must also be borne in mind; that the Bede may never have received
Alfred’s final revision. We have seen that in the case of the Dialogues
an extensive revision was found desirable at a later time, and we
seem to have traces of a partial revision of the Bede in the younger
group of MSS. mentioned above, in which not only does the
translation vary, at times very considerably[803], but a passage is
inserted which the earlier recension omits[804], and conversely[805].
When this partial revision was made I cannot say, but probably not
by Alfred himself. On the whole, then, I do not regard Mr. Sweet’s or
Dr. Miller’s argument as conclusive, either against Alfred’s authorship
of the Bede translation, or against the priority of the Orosius.
§ 107. I have already said[806] that the principal
changes made by Alfred in the Bede are in the way Omissions made
by Alfred in the
of omission, the additions being comparatively Bede. The Easter
slight. It is worth while to see what considerations Controversy.
guided him in this. First of all he omits almost all
documents[807], in two instances he just gives a brief summary of a
letter in oratio obliqua[808]. He seems at first to have intended to
omit the interrogations and responses of Augustine and Gregory, but
afterwards to have changed his mind, as in all the MSS. they occur
after the third book instead of in their proper place near the end of
the first[809]. He also omits all the metrical compositions, epitaphs,
&c.[810], which occur in the course of the work. Then, too, he omits
almost everything bearing on the Easter Controversy[811]; partly no
doubt because he felt, as modern readers feel, the intolerable
tediousness of the whole thing; but partly also, we may well believe,
because he disliked the bitterness which even the gentle Bede shows
on this question[812], for there are little touches which seem to
prove that the piety and self-devotion of the Celtic missionaries had
made a deep impression on his heart[813]. The early history prior to
the conversion of the Saxons is also a good deal abbreviated[814], no
doubt as having less direct interest for his readers. So the
description of the sacred places which Bede largely borrowed from
Arculfus is omitted, probably for similar reasons[815].
§ 108. It has often formed a subject both of
wonder and regret that Alfred should not have The additions
unimportant.
enriched the Bede with additions drawn from his
own knowledge of the traditions of his people, as he might so easily
have done. Reverence for his original may have had something to do
with this; but I agree with Professor Wülker[816] that the main
reason probably was, because all that Alfred desired in this line had
already been done in the compilation of the Saxon Chronicle. It is
confirmatory of this that the chronological summary appended to his
history by Bede, which had, as I have elsewhere shown[817], such
an important influence on the development of annalistic writing in
general, and of the Saxon Chronicle in particular, is omitted in the
Bede translation.
Smaller additions and expansions there are, but they seldom really
add anything to the narrative. They are as a rule merely inserted to
make it a little more clear[818], or a little more vivid, or a little more
in accordance with the translator’s ideas[819]. Occasionally, though
rarely, they show a touch of personal feeling; as where Diocletian is
characterised as the bad emperor[820], Constantine as the good
emperor[821], and Aidan as the good bishop[822]. Sometimes, as in
the other works, they are brief explanations of things which the
readers might not know[823]. Occasionally statements of Bede’s are
altered[824], or omitted[825], because they were no longer
applicable, or they are marked distinctly as being Bede’s and not
Alfred’s[826]. But in other cases similar statements are retained,
though it would not be safe to argue from this that the state of
things indicated still subsisted in Alfred’s day[827].
Here too there are mistakes[828], though fewer
Mistakes.
and less serious than in the Orosius. In some cases
they may be due to erroneous readings in the MS. which Alfred
used[829]. In one or two instances Alfred’s version shows a
remarkable divergence of historical fact, which can hardly arise
wholly from misunderstanding[830].
But on the whole the translation is a worthy one,
preserving, and in one or two instances Merits of the
translation.
enhancing[831], the beauty of the original, the most
beautiful historical work which the Church had produced since Luke
and John wrote their Gospels.
 One incidental merit of the translation, as Stubbs has
remarked[832], is that it enables us to equate the Saxon technical
terms of officers and institutions with the corresponding Latin
ones[833].
§ 109. We come now to what is in many respects
the most interesting and important of all Alfred’s The translation of
Boethius. Fame of
literary works, viz. the translation of Boethius on the original in the
the Consolation of Philosophy. It is here that the Middle Ages.
additions made by Alfred to his original give us the Causes of this
popularity; its
clearest insight into his own character and modes form. Sympathy
of thought. And the original is in itself one of the with the author.
most noteworthy books of the Middle Ages. Just as
Orosius was to those ages the accepted manual of universal
history[834], and the Cura Pastoralis their accepted manual of
Spiritual Counsel, so the Consolatio of Boethius was their accepted
manual of practical and speculative philosophy; the one channel
through which some tincture of ancient speculation passed into the
popular thought of the early Middle Ages. Perhaps no book except
the Bible and the Imitatio has been translated into so many
languages; and in more than one European country the early
translations of the Consolatio have had an important influence on
the development of a vernacular literature[835]. For this popularity
several reasons may be given. Something was probably due to the
form of the work, which is written in that mixture of verse and prose
known as the Satura Menippaea[836]. The lyrics of the Consolatio
won the enthusiastic admiration of the great Renaissance scholar, F.
C. Scaliger[837], and I must confess that to me they seem extremely
beautiful, though their beauty is of a somewhat frosty order. But if
they have something of the hardness and coldness of marble, they
have also its purity and high polish[838]. But the chief reason was,
no doubt, sympathy with the author’s misfortunes, whose sudden
fall, from being the favourite and chief minister of Theodoric, to
prison and to death, made him one of the most signal examples in
that ever-lengthening treatise De casibus illustrium uirorum, on
which the Middle Ages pondered with intense and morbid interest,
feeding that contempt for the world[839] and all things human, which
finds such passionate expression in many mediaeval writings:—

‘O esca uermium, o massa pulueris,

O ros, o uanitas, cur sic extolleris?[840]’

To this power of the work as a record of human

suffering pathetic testimony is borne by the title of Was Boethius a
Christian? The
an anonymous French translation of the fifteenth Consolatio not
century, which announces itself as the work of ’un distinctively
pauvre clerc désolé, quérant sa consolation par la Christian.
traduction de cestui livre[841]’; it is the book to
which Dante resorted for comfort after the death of Beatrice[842];
and our own Sir Thomas More while in prison wrote an imitation of
Boethius, which he calls ‘Three Books of Comfort in Tribulation[843].’
‘Dost thou think,’ asks Philosophy of Boethius in Alfred’s translation,
‘that to thee alone such change of state and sorrow have
come[844]?’ And, in spite of Tennyson, the fact ‘that loss is common’
does ‘make Our own less bitter[845]’; and the ‘sense of tears in
mortal things[846]’ knits mankind together in bonds of sympathy
which do make the common burden lighter. And in the case of
Boethius this natural feeling was heightened by the erroneous
impression, which prevailed in the Middle Ages, that the sufferings of
Boethius were due to the rage of an Arian ruler against his Catholic
servant[847]. A superficial inspection of dates is sufficient to dispel
this illusion[848]; and how little support it derives from the work itself
is shown by the fact, that few questions in literary history have been
more keenly debated than the question, whether the author was a
Christian at all[849]. The question turns largely on the authenticity of
certain theological tracts which bear the name of Boethius, and do
not concern us here[850]. On the whole it is probable that Boethius
was by profession a Christian, though it would seem that his
Christianity did not go very deep. Certainly in the hour of trouble,
which generally shows the real basis of a man’s thought and
character, he turns for consolation, not to the doctrines of
Christianity, but to the teachings of Neo-platonic philosophy; and I
unhesitatingly affirm that there is far more of the spirit of Christianity
in the writings of acknowledged pagans like Seneca and Marcus
Aurelius, than in this work of a nominal Christian, who enforces the
duty of prayer, not by the authority of Christ and His Apostles, but by
that of Plato in the Timaeus[851].
§ 110. It might have been thought that this
absence of any distinctively Christian character This non-Christian
character
would have militated against the popularity of the concealed by
Consolatio in the Middle Ages. That it did not do so glosses and
was due partly to causes already enumerated, commentaries,
from which many
partly to the fact that the non-Christian character of Alfred’s
of the work was to some extent concealed by the additions are
Christian interpretation given to various passages derived.
in the commentaries and glosses on Boethius;
which interpretations were in turn embodied in the different
translations of the Consolatio, at the head of which stands Alfred’s
version.
This interesting fact, that many of the additions
in Alfred’s Boethius, especially those of a distinctly Yet the additions
illustrate Alfred’s
Christian character, are not really due to Alfred thought.
himself but to the glosses and commentaries which
were used by him or his learned assistants, was first pointed out by
Dr. Schepss in a very suggestive article in the Archiv für’s Studium
der neueren Sprachen[852]. It is much to be regretted that Dr.
Schepss’ death prevented him from pursuing this line of investigation
further. Till this field has been fully explored, we incur the danger of
citing as specially characteristic of Alfred something which he only
borrowed from others. In some instances I have noticed that the
additions made by Alfred are really taken from, or at least suggested
by other passages in the text of Boethius[853]. But, when all
deductions have been made, there remains enough that we may
safely take as evidence of Alfred’s thought and feeling. I have
already cited the passage bearing on the needs and instruments of a
king[854]. This was to some extent suggested by a commentary, but
it is instinct with the mind of Alfred, as is the oft-quoted sentence
with which the chapter closes: ‘My will was to live worthily as long as
I lived, and after my life to leave to them that should come after my
memory in good works[855].’ Very Alfredian too are the thoughts that
reward should not be looked for in this world[856], but should be
sought from God alone[857]; that a good name is better than any
wealth[858]; that true nobility is of the mind, not of the body[859];
that an honest purpose is accepted, even though its accomplishment
be frustrated[860]; that a king without free subjects is nothing
worth[861]; that no one should be idle[862], or wish to live a soft
life[863]. But perhaps the noblest passage is that in which by a
splendid metaphor Philosophy is made to say: ‘When I with my
servants mount aloft, then do we look down upon the stormy world,
even as the eagle when he soars above the clouds in stormy
weather, so that the storms cannot hurt him[864]’;—a metaphor
which so strikingly expresses Alfred’s own soaring superiority to what
he elsewhere calls ‘the wind of stern labours, and the rain of
excessive anxiety[865].’
And this brings me to another point. If any one
will look through the additions made by Alfred to Wealth of similes
in the translation.
the text of Boethius, which are very conveniently
distinguished by italic type in Mr. Sedgefield’s handy rendering of
Alfred’s version into modern English[866], he can hardly fail to notice
how many of them consist in metaphors and similes; none perhaps
so fine as that just quoted, but often of great interest and
beauty[867]. Even where the simile was suggested by something in
the text or commentary which Alfred had before him, it is often
developed at much greater length. This is a point of some interest,
because it shows that Alfred’s mind was of the class which delights
in parable and figure, and makes it not unreasonable to look for
deeper meanings in what he wrote and wrought[868].
§ 111. I have said that the subject of fate
occupies a prominent place in the Consolatio and in Discussion on
Fate and Freewill.
Alfred’s translation of it[869]. The relation of fate to
providence, of divine foreknowledge to human freedom, the nature
of evil, the existence of chance, these are the high themes round
which much of the latter part of the argument circles. They are the
themes which occupied the more intellectual spirits among Milton’s
fallen angels:—

‘Others apart sat on a hill retired

In thoughts more elevate, and reason’d high
Of providence, foreknowledge, will, and fate,
Fix’d fate, freewill, foreknowledge absolute,
And found no end, in wand’ring mazes lost[870].’

And fallen man has succeeded as little as fallen angel in solving

these high doubts. Alfred realises, as indeed does Boethius, the
arduous nature of the inquiry; and his conclusion is, as we should
expect, much more than is the case with Boethius, the conclusion of
Christian faith and practical Christian piety: ‘I say, as do all Christian
men, that it is the divine purpose that rules, and not Fate[871].’ He
sees, as all moralists have seen, that morality is only possible on a
basis of freedom, that fatalism reduces vice and virtue, punishment
and reward to unmeaning terms[872]. ‘To men and to angels God
gave the gift of freedom that they might do good or evil, whichever
they pleased[873].… But if it be true that the good and the wicked
are so made as to be unable to act otherwise than they do, then
vain is our labour when we pray, and fast, or give alms, if we have
no more thank therefor than those who in all things … run after their
fleshly lusts[874]; … and vain too is the commandment which God
gave to man that he should eschew evil and do good[875].’ God
knows all our works, before we even conceive them in our thought;
but this knowledge is not a cause compelling us so to act, any more
than the knowledge of the steersman that a storm is coming, is the
cause of the storm[876].
There are other points which illustrate Alfred’s
studies, tastes, and circumstances; the saying that Other points
characteristic of
in the golden age no one had heard of a pirate Alfred.
host[877]; the allusion to the wise goldsmith,
Weland[878]; the explanations about India and Thule[879].
And there are things in the text itself which evidently come home
to Alfred; the beauty of gems[880], the fairness of the country-side—
the fairest of all God’s creations[881], the song of the birds in the
woods[882], the worth of friends[883]; the stories of kings reduced to
poverty[884], of the sword of Damocles[885], the joy of a calm haven
after storms[886].
 Here too, as in the case of the Orosius, Alfred
has modified his original by omissions as well as Omissions.
additions; but it is unnecessary to go minutely into
this point, as Mr. Sedgefield has prefixed to his edition of Alfred’s
version an elaborate table showing the relation of that version to the
original[887].
§ 112. In regard to the translation as a whole no
doubt has ever been expressed as to the No doubt as to
Alfred’s
authorship of Alfred[888]; and it is the only one of authorship of the
Alfred’s works which is mentioned by name by prose translation.
Ethelwerd, who wrote towards the end of the tenth Did
he also write
the alliterative
century[889]. There is, however, an interesting version of the
literary question connected with it, which is this. Metra?
negative
The

The translation exists in only two MSS., one in the arguments for the
Cottonian Collection[890], the other in the most part purely
subjective.
Bodleian [891] . In the older or Cottonian MS. the
metrical parts of Boethius are, with three exceptions[892], rendered
into alliterative Saxon verse; in the later or Bodleian MS. they are
rendered into prose. It is as to Alfred’s authorship of the alliterative
poems that the controversy has raged; and those who deny their
authenticity are compelled to deny also the authenticity of the two
proems in prose and verse[893], in both of which the poems are
distinctly ascribed to Alfred. The question, though interesting as a
literary problem, is not intrinsically of great importance. The poems
are not of the highest order, though they have been, I think, unduly
depreciated. Alfred’s fame will not be much exalted if he wrote them,
or much depressed if they should be adjudged to another. I must
confess, however, that a great deal of the argument on the negative
side seems to me to be of that purely arbitrary and subjective kind
which in its ultimate analysis amounts to this: ‘it can’t have been so,
because I don’t think that it was[894].’
§ 113. One thing is agreed on all sides; the verse translation is
made from the prose translation, and is not an independent
rendering made direct from the Latin; and the main
argument of the negative critics is that it is Logical result of
this style of
impossible to suppose that a man like Alfred can criticism.
have occupied himself in turning his own vigorous
prose into indifferent verse. On this I would remark: first, does it
follow, because Alfred was a great man and a great prose-writer,
that he was also necessarily a considerable poet[895]? Secondly, if
Alfred wrote the verses, does it necessarily follow that he thought
them poor and unworthy of the trouble of making? Great writers are
not always gifted with the faculty of self-criticism; otherwise we
should not have Wordsworth taking apparently equal pleasure in the
composition of Betty Foy and of Laodamia. Indeed, on my
conscience, I believe that he liked Betty Foy the better of the
two[896]. Thirdly, even if Alfred were conscious of his limitations as a
poet, is it not possible that his conscientious spirit may have felt
bound to give as true a representation of the original as possible, by
reproducing one of its most salient features, the alternation of verse
and prose? In truth this style of criticism, if logically carried out,
would lead us very far. It would prove, for instance, that at least two
hands were concerned in the composition of the third book of
Wordsworth’s Prelude. That book contains the glorious and well-
known lines:—

‘And from my pillow, looking forth by light

Of Moon or favouring Stars, I could behold
The antechapel where the statue stood
Of Newton with his prism and silent face,
The marble index of a mind for ever
Voyaging through strange seas of thought, alone.’

But it also contains the no less well-known, but most inglorious line:
 And at the Hoop alighted, famous Inn.

It would also prove (to take a closer parallel) that the late Professor
Conington never wrote a verse translation of the Aeneid. Unlike
Alfred, Mr. Conington was, as we all know, a very considerable Latin
scholar; but I must be pardoned for saying that, like Alfred, he was
not a very considerable poet. He wrote a prose translation of the
Aeneid, of which he thought so little that it was not published till
after his death; he wrote a verse translation of the same poem, of
which he evidently thought a good deal. Yet can we not imagine a
German critic a thousand years hence arguing that the author of the
prose translation could never have penned a couplet like the
following?—

‘Three calves to Eryx next he kills,

A lambkin’s blood to Tempest spills[897].’

§ 114. For my own part, so far from regarding

the existence of the prose translation of Boethius’ Probability that
the prose version
Metra as inconsistent with Alfred’s authorship of of the Metra was
the alliterative version, I am inclined to regard the intended merely
former as intended from the first to serve as the as a basis for the
verse translation.
basis of the latter. I would bring into connexion Illustration from
with this the interesting statement of William of the Old High
Malmesbury, that Asser, for Alfred’s benefit, German version.
Mutual relations
unravelled the meaning of the De Consolatione in of the two
plainer words; ‘a labour,’ says Malmesbury, with the editions.
sniff of the superior person, ‘in those days Illustration from
two French
necessary, in ours ridiculous[898].’ Zimmermann versions.
understood this as meaning a preliminary
translation made by Asser. ‘Entschieden falsch,’ cries Professor
Wülker[899], with the usual brusqueness of a German critic. But the
criticism may be retorted on his own explanation that Asser glossed
a manuscript for the king’s use. The passage clearly refers to a
paraphrase of the original in simpler language, and more natural
order, like that which occupies the margin of some of the Delphin
Classics, an illustration which had occurred to myself before I knew
that Dr. Schepss had also made use of it in his admirable essay
referred to above[900]. It is an interesting fact that in the case of
early High German we possess just such a paraphrase of this very
work. This is how Mr. Stewart, in his excellent monograph on
Boethius, describes the translation of the Consolatio made by Notker
III of St. Gallen, about a century after Alfred’s time: ‘His method of
translation is to give a sentence or group of words of the original,
which he arranges for the sake of his pupils in as simple and
straightforward a form as possible, followed by the German
equivalent. This last is expanded, as the occasion seems to require,
by passages of explanation and paraphrase of varying length[901].’
Except as to the ‘German equivalent,’ this illustrates very aptly what
I conceive to have been Asser’s procedure. It also illustrates the way
in which many of Alfred’s additions may have found their way into
his translation. And it would be especially in the poetical portions of
the work that such a paraphrase, giving the words of the original in
a less intricate order, would be required. So that while Asser
paraphrased Boethius’ poetry in prose, Alfred, by a reverse process,
first translated Asser’s prose into prose, and then at a later time
paraphrased his own prose version in verse. That, in the interval
which elapsed between the two versions, the earlier edition should
have been copied and circulated, that at a later time scribes should
have prefixed to copies of the first edition the prose proem which in
strictness is only applicable to the second, is easily intelligible[902];
and it is curious that to this also an almost exact parallel can be
produced from the fortunes of the Consolatio in another European
country. There exist in French two thirteenth-century translations of
the Consolatio. To quote Mr. Stewart once more: ‘The one is in
prose, a word-for-word rendering; … the other, a more scholarly
performance, follows the scheme of the Latin original’; i.e. in the
alternation of verse and prose. Yet to both versions the same
prologue is prefixed, in which the translation which follows is in each
case attributed to Jehan de Meun[903]. That Alfred intended from the
first to give a verse rendering of the Metra, and that he did not see
his way at once to carry out his intention, seems to me to be hinted
at in a passage near the end of the book, which has very little
corresponding to it in the original: ‘It is nigh unto the time when I
had purposed to take other work in hand, and I have not yet done
with this; … I cannot now so soon sing it, nor have I leisure
therefor[904].’
Another point which, as Hartmann showed[905], tells in favour of
Alfred’s authorship is the way in which in the poems references are
made to the prose portions of the work.
On the whole I regard the attack on Alfred’s
authorship of the Metra as having decidedly broken The attack has
broken down.
down[906]; and in this opinion I am glad to have
the concurrence of a very competent critic in the Times of August
20, 1901. I am breaking no confidence in identifying that critic with
my friend and teacher Professor Earle.
§ 115. The last undoubted work of Alfred’s that
has come down to us is one which bears the title Alfred’s last work,
the Soliloquies, or
‘Blooms,’ or, as we might say, ‘Anthology[907].’ The ‘Blooms.’
first two books are derived mainly from St.
Augustine’s two books of Soliloquies. The first book and part of the
second follow the original fairly closely, but the remainder of the
second book is very free, and is mainly Alfred’s own. The third book
is based to some extent on St. Augustine’s Epistle to Paulina on the
Vision of God, with additions from the De Ciuitate Dei, St. Gregory’s
Dialogues, the Moralia, together with reflexions of Alfred’s own[908].
The use of the De Ciuitate Dei is especially interesting, as it was the
favourite book of Charles the Great[909]. It is a noteworthy proof of
Alfred’s advance in literary art, that whereas in this third book his
materials were not originally in dialogue form, he has very skilfully
thrown them into that form in order to make them harmonise with
the first two books.
The work has come down to us in a pitiable
condition, in a single late and corrupt manuscript, Bad state of the
text.
mutilated both at the beginning and end, and with
evident lacunae in other places. At the beginning part of the preface
is gone; at the end I do not myself think that more is lost than part
of the final colophon; the concluding words of the actual text seem
to me to mark undoubtedly the close of the work. Professor Wülker
indeed thought otherwise; but he was led to his conclusion partly by
the wish to give greater probability to his theory which would
identify this work with Alfred’s Encheiridion or Commonplace Book; a
theory from which, as already stated[910], I strongly dissent, and
which Wülker himself has since withdrawn[911]. Still even in its ruin
the work reflects clearly the features of its author. The Preface in
particular is so characteristic that, as it is comparatively little known,
I give it here:—
‘I gathered me then staves, and props, and bars,
and helves for each of my tools, and boughs; and The Preface.
for each of the works that I could work, I took the
fairest trees, so far as I might carry them away. Nor did I ever bring
any burden home without longing to bring home the whole wood, if
that might be; for in every tree I saw something of which I had need
at home. Wherefore I exhort every one who is strong and has many
wains, that he direct his steps to the same wood where I cut the
props. Let him there get him others, and load his wains with fair
twigs, that he may weave thereof many a goodly wain, and set up
many a noble house, and build many a pleasant town, and dwell
therein in mirth, and ease, both winter and summer, as I could never
do hitherto. But He who taught me to love that wood, He may cause
me to dwell more easily, both in this transitory dwelling … while I am
in the world, and also in the eternal home which He has promised us
through … the holy fathers. And so I believe He will do for their
merits, both make this [earthly] way better than it was ere this, or at
least enlighten the eyes of my mind, that I may find the right way to
the eternal home, and to the eternal country, and to the eternal rest,
which is promised to us through the holy fathers. So be it.’
§ 116. It is Alfred looking back over the whole of
his storm-tossed life, and realising that the calm Significance of
this Preface. It is
haven is close at hand[912], and that he must leave the Epilogue to
it to others to carry on the work which he had Alfred’s literary
begun. Professor Wülker, in the interest of the works.
theory alluded to above, says that this preface refers to a larger
collection than any to be found in these three books of ‘Blooms[913].’
True; most true. But the larger collection to which it refers is not
this, or any other single work of his, however hypothetically
enlarged; but the whole of his literary works. And just as the Preface
to the Pastoral Care is in some sense a Prologue to the whole
collection, so this is, in a very real sense, the Epilogue. We may not,
here in Oxford, claim Alfred as our founder; but surely our hearts
may be uplifted at the thought, that in all that we do here in the
cause of true learning and of genuine education, we are carrying on
the work which Alfred left us to do.
The book is in other ways also the most mature
of Alfred’s works. It is very closely related to the The most mature
of Alfred’s works.
Boethius both in thought and diction[914]. And just
as in the Orosius we had a foretaste of the discussion on fate which
holds so prominent a place in the Boethius[915], so the subject of the
immortality of the soul, which is only just touched on in the
Boethius[916], is here developed at length[917]. And here, as in the
Boethius, Alfred’s conclusion is much more distinctly Christian than
that of his original. The Soliloquies is one of Augustine’s earliest
works, written at a time when a good deal of the gentile rhetorician
still hung about him[918]. It must be confessed that his philosophical
arguments on this subject are not very convincing, but in Alfred they
are strongly reinforced by the authority of Scripture and of the
fathers.
 Here, too, many of the additions which Alfred
makes to his original consist of those similes and Wealth of similes.
parables[919] which he loved so well; the most
beautiful perhaps being one in which the soul made fast to God is
compared to a ship riding securely on her anchor[920].
§ 117. I have said that in the third book Alfred
casts into a dialogue form materials which have not Confusion of
author and
that shape in the original. The interlocutors still translator.
remain as before, Augustine and Reason. It is a
quaint proof of the completeness with which Alfred lost the sense of
translation in the consciousness of authorship, that in a passage
where the De uidendo Deo is spoken of, the Augustine of the
dialogue is made to say: ‘I have not now leisure to go through all
that book[921],’ although the historical Augustine was the actual
author of it.
Of thoughts characteristic of Alfred I will quote
but two. The first is this: ‘No man may do aught of Characteristic
thoughts.
good unless God work with him. And yet no one
should be idle and not attempt something in proportion to the
powers which God gives him[922].’ The other is contained in the last
sentence of the book[923]. And I think you will feel with me that we
have here ‘the conclusion of the whole matter’; that anything added
to this would be of the nature of an anticlimax: ‘Therefore he seems
to me a very foolish man, and very wretched, who will not increase
his understanding while he is in the world, and ever wish and long to
reach that endless life where all shall be made clear.’
They are the last words not merely of this book;
they are the last words of Alfred to us all across Alfred’s last
words.
the chasm of a thousand years. We have seen
some reason for thinking that the earliest of Alfred’s own works, the
Pastoral Care, cannot be earlier than 894[924]; and as the years 894-
6 were largely occupied with warfare[925], it is probable that Alfred’s
literary activity falls mainly into the last four years of his reign, those
four silent years for which our authorities fail us almost wholly, but in
which Alfred had something of that ‘stillness’ for which he wishes in
the Preface to the Pastoral Care.
One little glimpse we do get of him during his
later years. William of Malmesbury, who had special Alfred and his
grandson
materials for the life of Athelstan[926], tells us how Athelstan.
he, a child, like Alfred himself, of singular beauty
and attractiveness, was invested by his famous grandsire, who
discerned his early promise, with a scarlet cloak, a jewelled belt, and
a Saxon sword with golden scabbard[927]. And thus Alfred inherited
the twofold blessing of the Psalmist: ‘Thou shalt see thy children’s
children, and peace upon Israel.’ Nor was it least among Alfred’s
blessings that he left a son like Edward, and a grandson like
Athelstan, to carry on his work.
§ 118. It was while he was occupied with these
high thoughts of Providence and immortality, that Death and
character of
he passed away. How the call came to him to quit Alfred.
these shadows for the ‘life where all things are
made clear’ we do not know. We only know that it came on October
26, and probably in the year 900[928]. He was only fifty-two. But
even if the tradition of his constant illness be rejected, he had been
through what might well have worn out even a strong man in a
shorter time. Those who witnessed the extinction of so great a light
might have exclaimed with Shakespeare’s tawny queen:

‘And there is nothing left remarkable

Beneath the visiting moon[929].’

Florence’s noble panegyric on Alfred is well known, where he tells

how there passed away ‘Alfred the king of the Anglo-Saxons, the son
of the most pious king Æthelwulf, the famous, the warlike, the
victorious, the careful provider for the widow, the helpless[930], the
orphan and the poor; the most skilled of Saxon poets, most dear to
his own nation, courteous to all, most liberal; endowed with
prudence, fortitude, justice and temperance; most patient in the
infirmity from which he continually suffered; the most discerning
investigator in executing justice, most watchful and devout in the
service of God[931].’ Even the turgid, tasteless Ethelwerd becomes
simple and dignified in the face of this great event. ‘There passed
from the world,’ he says, ‘the high-souled Alfred, the immovable
pillar of the West Saxons; a man full of justice, learned in discourse,
imbued especially with the sacred Scriptures, … whose body rests at
Winchester in peace. O reader, breathe the prayer “Christ, the
Redeemer, save his soul[932].”’ He must be a stern Protestant who
would refuse to obey Ethelwerd’s behest.
§ 119. Some of us probably know the story of
the little boy who, when asked in an examination Lessons of
Alfred’s life.
paper a foolish question as to what Alfred, if he
were alive now, would think of certain present-day problems, made
the sage reply: ‘If King Alfred were alive now, he would be much too
old to take any interest in politics.’ It was an instance, sublime,
though unconscious, of answering a fool according to his folly. And
yet we should surely be wrong if we thought that, because Alfred
died a thousand years ago, his life and work have therefore no
lessons for ourselves.
The question may not be of dividing the national
militia into two parts, one to be at home and one Army. Navy.
Learning.
out; but the problem still confronts us how to Education.
provide an army which shall both defend our
shores at home, and also be adequate to the needs of the empire
abroad. The question may not be whether our ships shall be built on
Frisian or on Danish lines; but there are problems of naval
construction on the right solution of which the safety of England may
very largely depend. The knowledge of Latin is happily not extinct
among us now, as it practically was in Alfred’s day; but the necessity
still exists, which he felt so strongly, to mediate between the best
thoughts of the past and the needs and aspirations of the present;
while in education we have hardly perhaps fully realised even
Alfred’s modest wish that ‘all the youth of England of free men … be
set to learn … until that they are well able to read English
writing[933].’
Again, few things are more striking in Alfred,
than the way in which he keeps an equal hand on Unity of
administration.
all branches of the national life, army, navy, church, Faith in God, and
justice, finance, education, learning. It is no doubt in England.
a harder task to co-ordinate the administration of
an empire with world-wide possessions and world-wide
responsibilities, than of a little state like Wessex. But we need
something of this unifying guidance from above, if our government
is not to fall apart into a chaos of independent, and possibly jealous
and hostile departments. But above all we need Alfred’s high faith; a
faith first of all, unswerving, unfaltering, in an over-ruling
Providence, the guidance of a Higher Hand; but faith also in the
destiny of his country and his people. Had he, like Burgred of Mercia,
given up the struggle in despair, and gone as a pilgrim to Rome, no
one in his own day would have thought the worse of him; and he
might have won that pale halo of mediaeval saintship, which, as it
was, he did not gain[934]. But England would have been lost to
Christianity[935]; and Alfred had faith that it was not in the purposes
of God so far to roll back the tide of progress, as to let England
become once more a heathen land. Surely Alfred stands high in the
muster roll of those ‘Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought
righteousness, … turned to flight the armies of the aliens[936].’
And we need scarcely less that force of individual
character which was the secret, as we have seen, Personal
character.
of so much of Alfred’s power. To realise this, we
have only to compare him for instance with Henry II, a man who in
mere intellectual capacity was possibly his superior, and whose reign
conferred incalculable benefits upon England. But his aims were
merely selfish, and his life impure; and so the greatness of his
achievement is known to few beyond professed students of
history[937].
§ 120. Of some points in which our late Queen
resembled her great ancestor I had the honour of Comparison with
other sovereigns;
speaking before the University in another Queen Victoria,
place[938]. But when we think of kings and Marcus Aurelius,
Charles the Great.
emperors worthy to be compared with our own
Alfred, the four names which perhaps most readily occur to us are
Marcus Aurelius, the imperial saint of paganism, Louis IX, the royal
saint of mediaevalism, Charles the Great, and our own Edward I. But
the sad self-suppression of Marcus Aurelius, the melancholy refrain
which seems to sigh through the golden book of his thoughts,

‘Entbehren sollst du, sollst entbehren[939],’

is as unlike Alfred’s glad and willing service as anything can be.

Charles the Great is of course one of the most towering figures in
the whole of history. Alike in physical and intellectual strength he is
head and shoulders above all his predecessors and successors. We
have noticed several points of taste and character in which Alfred
resembled him[940], and they were alike too in the large and
generous activities of their many-sided natures. Charles worked no
doubt on a gigantic scale, to which Alfred can make no pretence. But
this very fact has given to Alfred’s work a permanence which is
wanting to that of Charles. Every succeeding century has but verified
more and more Alfred’s vision of a united England, and has led her
on gradually to an empire of which neither Charles nor Alfred could
have dreamed[941]. Every succeeding century has given the lie to
Charles’s system of a united Germany and France:
 μέγα ἔργον, ὃ οὐ δύο γ’ ἄνδρε φέροειν,
οἶοι νῦν βροτοί εἰσ’, ὁ δέ μιν ῥέα πάλλε καὶ οἶος[942].

But, apart from this, there are stains on Charles’s character, from
which Alfred is free; the lax morality for which Walafrid Strabo in a
curious passage places him in purgatory[943], the occasional
outbursts of cruelty which on one occasion led him to execute 4,500
rebel Saxons on a single day[944], have no counterpart in our English
hero-king.
Edward I is one of the noblest monarchs who
ever sat upon an earthly throne; brave, and dutiful, Edward I.
and true. But we have only to think of his
lawyerlike, almost tradesmanlike, way of suing for his pound of flesh
on the letter of his bond, and then recall Alfred’s comment on the
golden rule: ‘by this one law every one may know how he ought to
judge another, he needs no other law book[945],’ in order to feel the
difference between them.
It is only when I think of St. Louis that my heart
becomes a little divided. St. Louis is, to my St. Louis.
thinking, one of the most beautiful characters in
the whole of history. His saintliness is no doubt of the mediaeval
type. But this is not surprising, seeing that he lived in the thirteenth
century, the central and culminating period of the Middle Ages.
Dante, and Joan of Arc, and Thomas à Kempis are mediaeval too.
And he went on Crusade, when, according to every utilitarian
standard, he would have been better employed in governing his own
kingdom. Yet I, at least, cannot love him less, because as a ‘young
man’ he ‘saw visions,’ and went on the quest of the Holy Grail. And
he was fortunate in his biographer. What would we not give to have,
instead of Asser’s stilted and confused Latin, a memoir of Alfred in
our native tongue which might rank with Joinville’s picture of his
master? And yet in some ways the very saintliness of Louis became
a curse to France; for it shed a consecration on an evil despotism,
which finally exploded in one of the most hideous convulsions in
history:

‘Sword and fire,

Red ruin, and the breaking up of laws[946].’

It seems a hard thing to say, but there is a very real connexion

between St. Louis and the French Revolution.
Alfred on the other hand is one of the very few
rulers whose work in life, and whose memory after No deductions to
be made from
death have been, as far as may be said of anything Alfred.
here below, an unmixed blessing to their peoples.
Alfred’s aspiration has indeed been abundantly fulfilled: ‘My will was
to live worthily as long as I lived; and after my life to leave to them
that should come after my memory in good works[947].’ If I have
done something in these lectures to place so great a memory in a
clearer light, and to sweep away some of the false traditions by
which it has been obscured, I shall regard myself as having done a
real, if humble, service, not only to historical truth, but also to the
national life. We need to keep our historical memories not only fresh
but true. For, in the words of the great historian, with the
remembrance of whom I began these lectures: ‘The healthy nation
has a memory as well as aspirations involved in the consciousness of
its identity; it has a past no less living than its future[948].’

Subjection to the Higher Powers

 A Sermon
Preached before the University of Oxford
on Sunday, January 27, 1901

BEING THE SUNDAY AFTER THE DEATH OF OUR LATE

MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN
QUEEN VICTORIA

BY THE
REV. CHARLES PLUMMER, M.A.
FELLOW AND CHAPLAIN OF
CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, OXFORD
 APPENDIX
‘Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
For there is no power but of God: the powers that be
are ordained of God.… Render therefore to all their
dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom
custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.’—
Rom. xiii. 1, 7.

It is impossible, I think, to read the Epistles of the New Testament

with any degree of attention, and not to see how anxious the writers
are that the Christianity which they preach should not be regarded
as a revolutionary and explosive force, upsetting and destroying
existing institutions, social and political; how concerned they are that
their converts should give no offence (beyond what was involved in
the fact of their religion) to the heathen neighbours among whom
they lived; that they should ‘Walk in wisdom toward them that are
without[949],’ and have their ‘conversation honest among the
Gentiles[950]’; how careful they are to say no word which should
disturb the existing relations of slaves and masters, of wives and
husbands, of subjects and sovereigns; even though the sovereign,
the husband, the master might be heathen, and the slave, the wife,
the subject might be Christian. If there must be a breach, let it come
from the heathen member of the bond. The rule for the Christian
was: ‘let him not depart[951].’
And, in thus writing, the Apostles were but following out the
teaching and example of our Lord Himself. When He compares the
kingdom of Heaven to leaven[952], He means, I suppose, that the
working of His doctrine was to be, as a rule, gradual and
assimilative, not sudden and explosive.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebooknice.com