Editing Asser (section)

==Claims of forgery==
{{anchor|forgery}}
During the 19th and 20th centuries, several scholars asserted that Asser's biography of King Alfred was not authentic, but a forgery. A prominent claim was made in 1964 by the respected historian [[Vivian Hunter Galbraith|V.H. Galbraith]] in his essay "Who Wrote Asser's Life of Alfred?" Galbraith argued that there were anachronisms in the text that meant it could not have been written during Asser's lifetime. For example, Asser uses "rex Angul Saxonum" ("king of the Anglo-Saxons") to refer to Alfred. Galbraith asserted that this usage does not appear until the late 10th century. Galbraith also identified the use of "parochia" to refer to Exeter as an anachronism, arguing that it should be translated as "diocese" and hence that it referred to the [[bishopric of Exeter]], which was not created until 1050. Galbraith identified the true author as [[Leofric, Bishop of Exeter|Leofric]], who became Bishop of [[United sees of Devon and Cornwall|Devon and Cornwall]] in 1046. Leofric's motive, according to Galbraith, was to justify the re-establishment of his see at Exeter by demonstrating a precedent for the arrangement.<ref name=KL /><ref name="Abels321-324">See "On the Authenticity of ''Asser's Life of King Alfred''" in Abels, ''Alfred the Great'', pp. 321–324. Pages 319–321 review Galbraith's argument, and the academic response; 321–324 cover Smyth.</ref>

The title "king of the Anglo-Saxons" does, however, in fact occur in royal charters that date to before 892 and "parochia" does not necessarily mean "diocese", but can sometimes refer just to the jurisdiction of a church or monastery. In addition, there are other arguments against Leofric's having been the forger. Aside from the fact that Leofric would have known little about Asser and so would have been unlikely to construct a plausible forgery, there is strong evidence dating the Cotton manuscript to about 1000. The apparent use of Asser's material in other early works that predate Leofric also argues against Galbraith's theory. Galbraith's arguments were refuted to the satisfaction of most historians by [[Dorothy Whitelock]] in ''Genuine Asser'', in the Stenton Lecture of 1967.<ref>{{cite book |last=Whitelock |first=Dorothy |title=Genuine Asser |publisher=University of Reading |year=1968 |url=http://whitlockfamilyassociation.com.s3.amazonaws.com/sources/references/R2413.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220115181941/http://whitlockfamilyassociation.com.s3.amazonaws.com/sources/references/R2413.pdf |archive-date=2022-01-15 |url-status=live|access-date=4 May 2018}}</ref><ref name=KL /><ref name="Abels321-324" />

More recently, in 2002, [[Alfred P. Smyth|Alfred Smyth]] has argued that the ''Life'' is a forgery by [[Byrhtferth]], basing his case primarily on an analysis of Byrhtferth's and Asser's Latin vocabulary. Byrhtferth's motive, according to Smyth, is to lend Alfred's prestige to the Benedictine monastic reform movement of the late tenth century. However, the argument has not been found persuasive, and few historians harbour doubts about the authenticity of the work.<ref name="KL" /><ref name="Abels321-324" /><ref name="Smyth">{{Cite book|last= Smyth|first= Alfred P.|title= The Medieval Life of King Alfred the Great|year= 2002|publisher= Palgrave Macmillan|isbn=978-0-333-69917-1 }} Smyth's book is also [http://www.palgrave.com/pdfs/0333699173.pdf available online].</ref>