CHAPTER XXIV.

BUILDING AND REBUILDING.

ALFRED was a many-sided character, and it was his ambition to do his work thoroughly. Not only was he great as a leader and clever as a scholar, but he also commands our attention as a builder and craftsman. His early visits to Rome must have left deep impressions on his mind, and probably nothing attracted his attention so much as the magnificent houses and temples, and the gorgeous churches dedicated to the Christian Faith. Alfred had also sent abroad his ambassadors, and encouraged the visits of foreigners to his own court, so that he would hear of the superiority of the continental buildings compared with those of Wessex. Hence, when the time of peace gave him the opportunity, he at once set about building houses "majestic and good, beyond all the precedents of his ancestors, by his new mechanical inventions."

Alfred's buildings may be classed under three divisions—domestic, religious, and military, and although we cannot now point to any building which was really raised by the king, there is every reason to believe that a great advance was made in all kinds of architecture. He displayed kingly magnificence at those places where he was accustomed to reside with his court. According to his command these buildings were adorned with gold

and silver, while the halls and royal chambers were constructed of wood and stone with great skill. Some of his palaces were removed from their former sites, and placed in situations better adapted for his residence.

But the buildings with which Alfred was most concerned were chiefly churches and convents. These had suffered most severely at the hands of the Danes; indeed, they had been either burned or ruined, so that Alfred found it necessary to replace them by entirely new buildings. Here he had full scope for his inventive genius, and to assist him he had recourse to the aid of foreign artists and craftsmen. It is well known that innumerable artisans and labourers, skilled in every kind of work, and drawn from different nations, were to be met with in his employment.

Two monasteries are specially connected with Alfred's name, and as they were probably his earliest work, we may at once consider them. His first convent was built in the little island of Athelney, where once he had been a fugitive, and where he desired to erect some memorial of his deliverance. On this island he caused a convent to be erected, so that it would be defended from the wild character of the neighbourhood. Nothing now remains of what was a famous building, but in the twelfth century it was in good preservation. It appears that the church was small, and was constructed on an entirely new style of architecture. Four piers were sunk in the ground on account of the swampy nature of the soil; and upon them were placed the four arches of the circular building.

The convent at Shaftesbury was built at an early period; and it is likely that the New Minster at Winchester was used in his lifetime. Shaftesbury was a monastery for nuns, and the first abbess was Alfred's second daughter, Ethelgiva. Many noble ladies entered this convent, and the king gave a part of his revenues for its maintenance. The new monastery at Winchester was the last and most magnificent of Alfred's ecclesiastical buildings. It was intended as his burial-place, but was not finished at the time of his death. These are Alfred's chief religious foundations, but he was a liberal supporter of others, such as Sherborne and Durham cathedrals, and the abbeys of Glastonbury and Wilton.

Alfred caused the cities and fortified places throughout the kingdom to be restored or entirely rebuilt, and he provided means of defence, consisting of walls and entrenchments, so as to be ready if a fresh invasion of the Danes should be threatened. We cannot give a list of those cities that were thus fortified; and it is probable that, in some cases, he did not proceed far with the work, owing to the indolence of his own subjects.

There is, however, one city with which his name is imperishably connected, and that is London. One of our modern historians goes so far as to say that Alfred gave us London; at any rate in the year 886 the king determined to rebuild and strengthen London, and from that period, for more than one thousand years, the metropolis of England has gone on increasing in wealth and prosperity. The origin of London is wrapt in obscurity, and is connected

with the mythical characters who were probably invented by the old chroniclers. We shall not be

far wrong in saying that there was a British settlement in London before the Christian Era, and that its name was perhaps Llyn Din. There was, too,

RUINS OF GLASTONBURY ABBEY.

a good trade carried on with foreigners, who came here to barter their goods.

Then the Romans discovered Llyn Din, and they recognised its importance by fortifying it and beautifying it after the manner of a Roman city. They called it Londinium at first, but afterwards it was named Augusta, as were many of their cities. But when the Romans left, London fell from its high position, and was conquered and desolated by the Saxons. It lay neglected for nearly two hundred years, and then we find it the capital of the land of the East-Saxons, and the seat of a bishopric. Indeed, two famous churches, those of St. Paul and St. Peter, were raised, and testified to its new importance.

Then followed the pillage and ravages of the Danes, and for a time it was in their hands, and the

seat of Guthrum's government. But in the year 886 all this was changed, and Alfred gave London another chance to develop and become the seat of national life. "In the same year," says the Chronicle, "Alfred honourably rebuilt the city of London and made it again habitable." We are further told that he gave it into the custody of his brave son-in-law, Ethelred, the Earl of Mercia, under whose leadership the Londoners often sallied forth and defeated the Danes.

Never again was London taken by the Danes, for the wall was rebuilt and its strength was increased, so that its citizens were able to live and trade in peace. Alfred showed himself a true statesman in recognising the claims of London to be the metropolis of England, and for this he deserves. our lasting gratitude.