institution was laid at _Medeshamstede_; that it was completed seven
years afterwards;--and was destroyed by fire in 870. The architectural
character of the building at this period cannot be strictly
ascertained; but, from the accounts given of it by monkish writers, it
is supposed to have been of the pure Saxon style. The monastery was
again re-built in 966, and again destroyed by the lawless hands of
barbarian invaders. Five successive times did it undergo various
changes of ruin and desolation, until the year 1117, when a new
building was raised upon the foundations of the old one, and many
additions were made to it;--extending its circuit, and improving its
architectural appearance.

The immense stones which were laid as the foundation of the minster of
_Medeshamstede_, is a sufficient proof of the vastness and massive
strength of the building which was raised upon it;[25]--yet, as we have
no definite information respecting the size of the monastery, we must
leave it to be imagined by the reader, and proceed with the "new
church," which was commenced in 1117, under the rule of John de Sais,
and which we have already noticed in the first chapter of our history.

This John was a Norman by birth, and an admirer of the Norman style of
architecture, which is discernable throughout the whole of this great
building. That there is a mixture of style, however, in the monastery,
is admitted on all hands;--nor could it well have been otherwise, if we
take into consideration the different character of the ages in which
additions were made to it. Still the leading features of the building
clearly show that they are of Norman origin; and in this opinion we are
supported by Mr. Britton, who says, "I cannot consent to discontinue
this phrase, [viz. that the cathedral is a specimen of Norman
architecture,] although it offends certain critics, who manifest more
prejudice than discrimination in their reprobatory animadversion. That
the Normans not only employed a peculiar style and character in the
buildings of their own provence, and in England, after they possessed
this country, is sufficiently proved by history, by the older edifices
still remaining, and by the admission of the best informed antiquaries.
It seems to me therefore absurd, as well as false, to say there is no
Norman architecture--that the term is misapplied,--that the Normans
were incompetent either to invent a novelty in art, or improve upon any
thing of their Saxo