INTRODUCTION.

THIS book has been written to assist the national celebration of the millenary, or thousandth anniversary, of the death of King Alfred, which tradition has assigned to 901 A.D. Apart from the supreme merits of the great King, the date of his death is an interesting and rather curious landmark in English History. For if we begin to reckon the history of our country from the birth of Julius Cæsar, who first brought it within the sphere of western civilisation, we have almost exactly two thousand years to the present year, when the death of Queen Victoria coincides so remarkably with the end of the nineteenth century and with the millenary of the death of Alfred. So the death of Alfred comes half-way in the course of the recorded history of England to the present time.

Looked at in this way, he seems much nearer to us than as the hero of these famous stories which are everyone's first lesson in English History; and it is right that we should regard him as living in the full stream of the history of England, for some of the most important things that ever happened in

England had taken place before his time. The Romans had been here for nearly five hundred years, and had left us the framework of their civilisation which never entirely disappeared, and, most important of all, the country had been twice brought into the Christian Church, first under the Roman occupation, and finally, after the Anglo-Saxon invasion, by S. Augustine and his monks.

The work of Alfred was to defend the civilisation and religion which England had already acquired against the attacks of the less civilised and heathen Danes, to consolidate into one strong and united state all those parts of the country which he could preserve from the enemy, to set his people forward on the old paths of Christian training and European education, and, above all, to be himself the best example of bravery, perseverance, justice, love of learning, self-devotion, and self-restraint.

This is a brief summary of what we owe to King Alfred, and it will help us to appreciate our debt if we compare him with the great Frankish sovereigns of the Carlovingian line, especially with Charles the Great (or Charlemagne), whose glorious reign came to a climax in his coronation as Roman Emperor in 800 A.D., just a hundred years before the death of Alfred. Alfred's father, Ethelwulf, and his grandfather, Egbert, always maintained friendly relations with the Imperial Court, and we know that Alfred, as a child, not only paid two visits to the Pope at Rome, but also stayed on his way at the Court of Charlemagne's grandson and successor, Charles the Bald. So it is no mere fancy to connect

and compare the life-work of Alfred with that of Charlemagne, and, though Alfred's work was simpler and on a smaller scale, yet we may in some respects contemplate it with purer satisfaction than that of his great continental counterpart. Alfred, like Charlemagne, was compelled to spend a large part of his time and energies in war, and Alfred's war with the Danes was similar in many ways to Charlemagne's longest and most difficult war with the Saxons. In both cases a fierce and heathen people were pressing on a more civilised and Christian state, and in both cases the end of the war could only be gained by the forcible conversion of the barbarians to Christianity. But while Charlemagne's war, though probably inevitable, was in form a war of aggression and aggravated by many cruel acts, Alfred's war was strictly defensive, and carried on with humanity and moderation throughout. He was content, for his own time, to build up a smaller state than had owned allegiance to Egbert, but that smaller state was really stronger than a larger and less united country would have been, and it grew ultimately to absorb and model all the rest of England.

But the most striking likeness between Alfred and Charles the Great lies in the fact that though both were compelled by circumstances to spend themselves and their subjects in fighting, both were eager to turn to the works of peace, and both set most store on the spiritual and intellectual progress of their people. This is curiously shown in the two parallel legends, that Charlemagne founded the University of

Paris, and Alfred the University of Oxford. Both are, of course, untrue in fact; but both have a true meaning in the sense that the two great kings encouraged learning around them and fostered the schools which were the germ of the university movement in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

It was the greatest glory of both Alfred and Charlemagne that they cherished this passion for learning and for self-improvement both in themselves and in others while living in a rude society, where crimes of violence were frequent and the arts were few, and men might any day be called out to fight a ruthless enemy in close and desperate combat. Yet Charlemagne, as we know, was an eager learner all his life, and used to practise to the end the art of writing by his bedside at night: and Alfred, to judge by the works he had translated and circulated among his people, was himself no mean scholar, for many passages, especially in the Boethius, bear the mark of his own ideas and composition.

Alfred's various activities, as a rule, will be fully described in later chapters of this book. What most excites our wonder is the multiplicity of his interests and the unity of their aim. Every side of the nation's life received his care and was improved by him. He rebuilt and fortified the towns which had been wasted by the Danes. He re-organised the army, dividing the nation into two parts, so that one might always be able to guard the home and fields, while the other was on military service. He improved the local government of the country, and kept the whole more directly under his own control.

He issued a new code of laws, reconciling different usages and bringing Danes as well as English, as far as possible, under one system. He endowed religious and educational institutions and brought learned men from the continent to help him in the enlightenment of the people. And all this was done in a short life of fifty years by a man afflicted ever since his maturity by some painful, internal ailment.

No other nation has a nobler hero in its annals, nor can our own history produce another type, so free from blemishes, so manifold in its goodness, so active and efficient for the public weal. It is indeed only in a smaller and simpler society that such a comprehensive genius can be developed and have full play. As communities grow and life becomes more complex, all of us, rulers and ruled alike, must submit to personal limitations and work in narrower channels, though we may strive to realise the convergence of all goodness and all honest work in the welfare of our fellows. The grand old types of allround goodness and activity, of which Alfred is the most perfect in English annals, will inspire us best with courage and a high ideal in facing the more complex problems of the present. Just as the ancient Greeks will always remain the purest and most inspiring examples for us, of philosophic thinking and the pursuit of knowledge, so the heroic rulers of earlier and simpler times, Charlemagne and Louis IX., Ferdinand and Isabella, Alfred and Edward I., will be remembered as models of wise leadership and self-sacrifice for the public good. And of all these Alfred deserves our