Using these four passages and your own knowledge, assess the view that the main purpose of the so-called ‘Alfredian Renaissance’ was to strengthen royal power.

Interpretation A gives the opinion that Alfred’s motive behind the educational reforms was that ‘a life without knowledge or reflection was unworthy of respect.’ By having this as a reason, Stenton argues that Alfred effectively wished for respect of his Kingdom and subjects, and this can only be acquired through the gaining of knowledge. However, this can easily be disputed as one can argue that this may only have been the spoken reason in order to legitimise the reforms in the eyes of his subjects, when the underlying reason was indeed to strengthen his royal power. It can be argued on the other hand, i.e. in Stenton’s favour, as there is evidence that Alfred genuinely would want to improve the education and learning within his Kingdom, as he received a below-par education himself and later realised that he did not want the same for his subjects. He also travelled to Rome as a child, which influenced his decisions as Rome was a centre point for scholars in the world at that time. Another way of understanding Stenton’s interpretation is to believe that royal power may come through gaining the respect of his Kingdom anyway. By this I mean that if Alfred believed that the education of his people would earn enough respect from foreign powers both within the British Isles and from European ones such as the Carolingian Empire, which Alfred held in high esteem.

Secondly, Interpretation A brings to light another purpose behind the ‘Alfredian Renaissance’: ‘to bring the thought of the past within the range of his subjects’ understanding’. By this, Stenton suggests that Alfred desires a new era of education within his Kingdom and that ‘the phase of English learning which they represented came to an end with the development of a new Latin scholarship after his death.’ This would imply that Alfreds aim when embarking on the Renaissance would be entirely through selfless respects, and was purely to further educate his people and to adapt to the evolving society that was Europe. By suggesting this Stenton is in other words stating that strengthening royal power was in no way a motive for Alfred, which contradicts many other respected historians such as Arthur Bryant, who suggested that Alfred wished to enhance the power of his dynasty internally, before creating more of an impact on the wider world: ‘He wanted to leave behind a kingdom not only secure from foes but rich in the arts of civilisation.’

Thirdly, Stenton implies that there was religious motivation behind the Educational Reforms. The education itself was taught by ‘a group of literate clergy’ that Alfred himself was part of, and through the education of Bishops, Alfred hoped to therefore expand the knowledge and reflection within his Kingdom. In other words, Stenton suggests that Alfred used religion in order to educate his subjects, however religion itself may have been the underlying motive on top of an excuse that he simply wished to improve the education and lives of his subjects. By this I mean one could also assume that Alfred wished to undergo these reforms in order to improve his relationship with God, especially as ‘Alfred seems to have regarded the Viking invasions as a form of divine punishment for the decline (Keynes & Lapidge). At the time, a closer relationship with God meant a more successful reign due to the divine security you would be ensured of, and thus Alfred would have felt that by reforming the likes of the learning system he would be creating a closer relationship with God and therefore a higher level of royal power, not to mention that he would be safeguarding the next generation by doing so, as he would recognise that the reforms success would carry on much longer after his death.

Interpretation B gives the opinion that Alfred’s reforms were due to political reasons specific to the influence of the Carolingian Renaissance. Wallace-Hadrill claims that the contacts that Alfred’s dynasty had with the Carolingian Empire was too coincidental for such an educational and learning incline to suddenly occur. In my opinion, I agree that Alfred did indeed act as a reformer after being influenced by the Carolingians, yet I believe it was in order to gain power instead of the idea that the Carolingians wishing to spread their scholarship over Europe. By this I mean Alfred underwent the renaissance in order to compete with the academic powerhouses such as the Carolingians, which is due to what Wallace-Hadrill says is ‘dynastic insecurity’. This dynastic insecurity would have led to Alfred, being the ‘great and glorious king’ that he is, yearning for the royal power by which his dynasty would from then on be known for. This yearning was taken from the fact that the Carolingians had so much respect and power from their academic influences around the world: Alfred sought to acquire the same thing.

Interpretation B also suggests that Alfred initially had no royal power at all, and had inherited a dynasty that lacked the respect of its people. For example, the laws decreed at the time, such as ‘if anyone plots against the life of the king, either on his own account or by hardening outlaws, he shall forfeit his life and all that he possesses.’ shows that crown was indeed insecure. The house of Cerdic left a dynasty in tatters, and Wallace-Hadrill believed that Alfred sought to regain the royal power it once had via an educational reform. The appearance of a disunited nation for foreign countries present it as weak, which in turn increases the chances of invasion (which certainly happened courtesy of the Danes) but could also increase interest from allies such as the Carolingians, which would attempt to aid Alfred and his kingdom through introducing them to a reformation of their society.

Frantzen suggests in Interpretation C that Alfred’s motive is personal, and part of the reason for the reforms is in order to benefit his own intelligence: ‘Desiring education for himself and his followers’. By this he means that a reform in the academics of the nation would create a more sufficient system by which to study from, something which he has such personal interest due to his passion for scholarship and academics. Frantzen talks of Alfred’s reports of the situation before the reforms “Perhaps the king’s descriptions of the decline of learning is exaggerated”. This supports the idea that Alfred’s idea behind the reforms was to strengthen his royal power in this way: The King exaggerating the decline suggests that he would be doing so in order to make his acts even more necessary and ‘great’, thus his dynasty in future generations is held with a higher regard and would be respected by foreign powers.

Interpretation C tells us that Alfred’s care for improvement was the most significant factor, and that his ‘personal interest in literature balances the pragmatism usually seen in Alfred’s educational reform’. Franzen believes that seeking royal power had nothing to do with the educational reforms, and more that it was the combined ideas that by dealing with the reforms in a practical approach and realising the necessity that Wessex must evolve academically in order to catch up with society, along with his personal interests in creating a more beneficial education system that will, in the long term, create more learned clergy men, something which Wessex was lacking, according to Franzen when Alfred came to the throne there were no learned men within Mercia, and too little in Mercia that were capable of the translations Alfred had planned for the kingdom. The idea that Alfred is interested in reforming the learning of his people because of his personal interest must, however, be taken with a pinch of salt as there are other well respected historians such as D.J.V. Fisher (who argued that Alfred had a duty to God to perform the task of a reform) and Woodruff (who argued that the renaissance was a reply to the monastic decline that Wessex had seen within the previous century).

Interpretation D agrees with Keynes and Lapidge in that Alfred’s Renaissance was a response to the Viking invasions, which he regarded to be because of ‘divine displeasure’ and, similar to Fisher, Fletcher argues that it was Alfred’s duty to God which drove him to success with the reforms. Fletcher also suggests that it was Alfred’s general duties to kingship that brought him the success, which can be linked to the idea that he wanted to strengthen his royal power. His attempts to ‘expound righteousness to a troubled society’ were done so because he believe that by creating a more divinely approved nation, this would allow him to be a more powerful monarch, and such a bounce back after an invasion such as the Danish ones would send a message to foreign powers that would immediately attract not only respect but also the minds of scholars that would maintain the type of society that Alfred strived to achieve long after his death.

Interpretation D rewards the success of the Alfredian Renaissance to the fact that Alfred was so personally involved in the actual process. Fletcher compares the King to other contemporaries such as Charlemagne or Charles the Bald, describing Alfred as similar ‘though on a more modest scale’. Alfred being a ‘patron of learning’ meant that his own influence on the educational system would have been thought of by his subjects as genuine and good-willed in comparison to if Charlemagne or Charles the Bald did something similar. Alfred’s nature was kind towards his people, and therefore when the reformations were introduced, one could only assumer (Fletcher argues) that it was because this is what he personally wanted to contribute towards his society. Yet it is important to remember that most of these reforms occurred within the final two decades of his reign, and by this time it was clear to Alfred that he was not going to be around forever and must begin to think about what sort of legacy he would like to leave behind. By showing that he can care for his people, and by not doing so in a violent way or one that would in anyway jeopardise his Nations security, Alfred created a state that was known for its intellectuality and also a dynasty that was considered kind-hearted yet because of this had sufficient power over his people.

A clear path, in my opinion, can be carved in within each interpretation that follows back to the idea that Alfred’s main purpose behind the Alfredian Renaissance is that he wanted to strengthen royal power. In Interpretation A, the idea that Alfred wanted respect for his subjects means that he wanted to be further respected for his state’s intellectual capacity for learning and knowledge abroad. Interpretation B argues that the Carolingians influenced Alfred’s decision to reform his society, which is purely because Alfred wished to gain more power than that Empire had acquired. Interpretation C attempts to persuade us that Alfred’s purpose was entirely personal, however one can assume that Franzen was forgetting that many of the texts that show Alfred in such a light were written or ordered to be written and then monitored by Alfred himself. Interpretation D argues that the Kings’ responsibilities were what drove Alfred, and this is plausible, as he knew that he had a duty to leave a legacy behind whereas there is more to prove when considering Alfred