available for comparison and must trust that the eleventh-century copy was itself a fair representation of original. Asser’s This is an appropriate point to mention recent contentions concerning the work’s authenticity which have weighed in my decision to write about the It is important Life. that we briefly establish for our own discussion the value of the work as an authentic contemporary account. Concern over the veracity was voiced as early as 1842 by work’s Thomas Wright, who had perceived supposed anachronisms (such as the word parochia) in the text, as well as the dubious propensity for switching from the imperfect to author’s the present tense when speaking of Alfred. V.H. Galbraith later echoed in Wright’s doubts his 1949 Creighton Lecture, and expanded upon these again in 1964 when he suggested that the was a forgery penned by Leofric, Bishop of Devon and Cornwall (1046) and Life later of Exeter (1050). More recently, Alfred monograph on Alfred the Smyth’s 1995 Great reopened the discussion on the authenticy of the while criticizing what he Life perceives as the willful acceptance of the source by the academic community. Smyth attributes Frank endorsement of work and the to Life’s Stenton’s Stevenson’s authenticity wartime nationalism, considers Dorothy response to Galbraith as Whitelock’s ‘greatly and dependent on speculation upon and attributes the exaggerated’ ‘heaping speculation’, absence of and arguments in the 1983 Penguin edition of the to Life Galbraith’s Wright’s the adoration of Whitelock. editors’ Smyth maintains that the is a forgery made in the late tenth century by Life Byrhtferth of Ramsey. This would make any study of the an examination of that Life author, period, and audience, and would mean that the has limited use in assessing Life conditions during King own time. However, arguments and his critique Alfred’s Smyth’s of an of British have sparked considerable debate. For ‘orthodox school historians’ instance, Janet Nelson questions decision to omit from his book discussion about Smyth’s legislation and recent economic history. Furthermore, Nelson confronts Alfred’s Smyth’s
available for comparison and must trust that the eleventh-century copy was itself a fair representation of Asser’s original. This is an appropriate point to mention recent contentions concerning the work’s authenticity which have weighed in my decision to write about the Life. It is important that we briefly establish for our own discussion the value of the work as an authentic contemporary account. Concern over the work’s veracity was voiced as early as 1842 by Thomas Wright, who had perceived supposed anachronisms (such as the word parochia) in the text, as well as the author’s dubious propensity for switching from the imperfect to the present tense when speaking of Alfred. V.H. Galbraith later echoed Wright’s doubts in his 1949 Creighton Lecture, and expanded upon these again in 1964 when he suggested that the Life was a forgery penned by Leofric, Bishop of Devon and Cornwall (1046) and later of Exeter (1050). More recently, Alfred Smyth’s 1995 monograph on Alfred the Great reopened the discussion on the authenticy of the Life while criticizing what he perceives as the willful acceptance of the source by the academic community. Smyth attributes Frank Stenton’s endorsement of Stevenson’s work and the Life’s authenticity to wartime nationalism, considers Dorothy Whitelock’s response to Galbraith as ‘greatly exaggerated’ and dependent on ‘heaping speculation upon speculation’, and attributes the absence of Galbraith’s and Wright’s arguments in the 1983 Penguin edition of the Life to the editors’ adoration of Whitelock. Smyth maintains that the Life is a forgery made in the late tenth century by Byrhtferth of Ramsey. This would make any study of the Life an examination of that author, period, and audience, and would mean that the Life has limited use in assessing conditions during King Alfred’s own time. However, Smyth’s arguments and his critique of an ‘orthodox school of British historians’ have sparked considerable debate. For instance, Janet Nelson questions Smyth’s decision to omit from his book discussion about Alfred’s legislation and recent economic history. Furthermore, Nelson confronts Smyth’s