Editing Æthelwulf, King of Wessex (section)

== Historiography ==
Æthelwulf's reputation among historians was poor in the twentieth century. In 1935, the historian [[Robert Howard Hodgkin|R. H. Hodgkin]] attributed his pilgrimage to Rome to "the unpractical piety which had led him to desert his kingdom at a time of great danger", and described his marriage to Judith as "the folly of a man senile before his time".{{sfn|Hodgkin|1935|pp=514–15}} To Stenton in the 1960s, he was "a religious and unambitious man, for whom engagement in war and politics was an unwelcome consequence of rank".{{sfn|Stenton|1971|p=245}} One dissenter was Finberg, who in 1964 described him as "a king whose valour in war and princely munificence recalled the figures of the heroic age",{{sfn|Finberg|1964|p=193}} but in 1979, Enright said: "More than anything else he appears to have been an impractical religious enthusiast."{{sfn|Enright|1979|p=295}} Early medieval writers, especially Asser, emphasise his religiosity and his preference for consensus, seen in the concessions made to avert a civil war on his return from Rome.{{efn|The historian Richard North argues that the Old English poem "[[Deor]]" was written in about 856 as a satire on Æthelwulf and a "mocking reflection" on Æthelbald's attitude towards him.{{sfn|O'Keeffe|1996|pp=35–36}} }} In Story's view, "his legacy has been clouded by accusations of excessive piety which (to modern sensibilities at least) has seemed at odds with the demands of early medieval kingship". In 839, an unnamed Anglo-Saxon king wrote to the [[Holy Roman Emperor]] [[Louis the Pious]] asking for permission to travel through his territory on the way to Rome and relating an English priest's dream which foretold disaster unless Christians abandoned their sins. This is now believed to have been an unrealised project of Ecgberht at the end of his life, but it was formerly attributed to Æthelwulf, and seen as exhibiting what Story calls his reputation for "dramatic piety", and irresponsibility for planning to abandon his kingdom at the beginning of his reign.{{sfnm|1a1=Story|1y=2003|1pp=218–28|2a1=Dutton|2y=1994|2pp=107–09}}

In the twenty-first century, he is seen very differently by historians. Æthelwulf is not listed in the index of [[Peter Hunter Blair]]'s ''An Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England'', first published in 1956, but in a new introduction to the 2003 edition, Keynes listed him among people "who have not always been accorded the attention they might be thought to deserve&nbsp; ... for it was he, more than any other, who secured the political fortune of his people in the ninth century, and who opened up channels of communication which led through Frankish realms and across the Alps to Rome".{{sfn|Keynes|2003|p=xxxiii}} According to Story: "Æthelwulf acquired and cultivated a reputation both in Francia and Rome which is unparalleled in the sources since the height of Offa's and Coenwulf's power at the turn of the ninth century".{{sfn|Story|2003|p=225}}

Nelson describes him as "one of the great underrated among Anglo-Saxons", and complains that she was only allowed 2,500 words for him in the ''[[Oxford Dictionary of National Biography]]'', compared with 15,000 for [[Edward II of England|Edward II]] and 35,000 for [[Elizabeth I of England|Elizabeth I]].{{sfn|Nelson|2004c}} She says:

{{blockquote|Æthelwulf's reign has been relatively under-appreciated in modern scholarship. Yet he laid the foundations for Alfred's success. To the perennial problems of husbanding the kingdom's resources, containing conflicts within the royal family, and managing relations with neighbouring kingdoms, Æthelwulf found new as well as traditional answers. He consolidated old Wessex and extended his reach over what is now Devon and Cornwall. He ruled Kent, working with the grain of its political community. He borrowed ideological props from Mercians and Franks alike, and went to Rome, not to die there, like his predecessor Ine,&nbsp;... but to return, as Charlemagne had, with enhanced prestige. Æthelwulf coped more effectively with Scandinavian attacks than did most contemporary rulers.{{sfn|Nelson|2004a}}}}