THE HISTORY OF LONDON. "Nurse of art! the CITY rear'd In beauteous pride her tower-encircled head; Then Commerce brought into the public walk THOMSON. CHAPTER 1. History of London and its Environs, from the earliest period of authentic record, to the defeat of the Britons by Suetonius. THE remote history of this magnificent city, which in wealth or magnitude has never been surpassed, is involved in much obscurity. Some of the early chroniclers even go so far as to claim the Trojans as its founders. Geoffrey of Monmouth, a monkish historian, says, that Brute, a descendant of Eneas, the son of Venus, came to this country, and built this town, in the year of the world 2855 (or about 1008 years before Christ), and named it Troy Novant, or New Troy. He states that, about a century before the Roman invasion, this town was " encircled with walls," and "graced with fay're buildings and towres by King Lud, who also builded the strong gate on the west part of the citie, afterwards called Ludgate, and changed the name of Troy Novant into Caer Lud." He states, likewise, that four British Kings were buried in London; and that Malmutius Dunwallo, (whose son Belinus is said to have founded the gate and haven at Belingsgate,)" built a temple therein, and dedicated it to the God of Peace." For all this we have only the word of Geoffrey; which, however, as it was of a nature to obtain implicit credence at the time when he flourished, (during the reign of Henry I) was firmly believed, even to a later period. In memorial presented by the Lord Mayor to Henry VI. in th seventh year of his reign, this account is brought forward to prove the "great antiquity, precedence and dignity of the city of London, before Rome," &c. This memorial is among the records kept in the Tower. But dismissing this fable, it will appear that the Britons had formed towns, and that to them must be ascribed the foundation of London. Caesar, in his Commentaries, denominates it the chief city of the Trinobantes, which is easily converted to Treyn-y-bant, describing the exact situation of the British town in the valley; the vale of London being certainly one of the most extensive in the British dominions, taking it from Brentwood to Windsor one way, and from Hampstead to the Surrey hills another. Others have translated the expression made use of by Caesar, civitas Trinobantum, as the city of the Trinobantes ; while some have argued, that these words are used rather in the sense of "state" or "dominion" of the Trinobantes; and of this opinion are Bishop Stillingfleet, and a later historian, Maitland. Certainly their construction of this obscure point seems to be borne out by the sense in which Caesar afterwards applies the word civitas; but Ammianus Marcellinus, a Roman author, who lived in the reign of Valens, about 350 of the Christian era, subsequently calls it Augusta Trinobantum; and again he mentions it as "Londinium, an ancient town, which is now called Augusta," the latter being the name which the Romans, with the national spirit of all conquerors, endeavoured to attach to it after their settlement. That industrious antiquary, Sir R. C. Hoare, Bart. has thrown much light on the state of ancient British towns. He says, "Whenever we find the surfaces of our chalk hills altered by excavations and other irregularities, we may there look with a prospect of success for the habitations of the Britons, and especially if the herbage is of a more verdant hue, and the soil thrown up by the moles of a darker tint. The high lands throughou? England were the first occupied by the earliest inhabitants, at a period when the vallies were either incumbered by wood, or inundated by water. In all of them were found earth-works and barrows, the sure vestiges of ancient population. On the bleak est hills were excavated the luxury of the Romans introduced Into the British settlements, flues, hypocausts, stuccoed and painted walls, but not a single inscription has been discovered in any one of these British villages, which could throw a light upon the era in which they flourished. The British are distinguished from the Roman British settlements by articles of iron, pottery of a particular kind, flues, glass, and coins." Speaking of some remains excavated near Warminster, he says: "In this, as well as in the generality of other British villages, the attentive eye may easily trace out the lines of houses, or rather hollow ways connected with them. These are particularly visible in the upper villages on these downs, as well as the entrance to them. Between Wadham coppice and the village of Imber, a British village is placed on an elevated and commanding situation. In the centre of this village, two banks running parallel from east to west are very visible, forming a street; the ground between them being intended to secure their cattle; banks and ditches were lines of communication from one village to another." Sometimes a British village is a square earth-work. One village is an oblong square earth-work, humouring the hill. There are pits on one side, so regular in their form and plan, that Sir Richard thinks they were designed for huts of habitation, " as there is the appearance of two direct streets or lines of communication between the excavations, which are ranged in regular order along the declivity of the hill. The oblong earth-work was the fortress, but they were unacquainted with the laws of fortification; there being no uniformity in the description of the ditches, some being placed within the vallum, and others without." "The general tests of their sites are ditches, banks, and inequalities of ground; the surface of the soil abounding with very rude pottery and covered ways, communicating with a strong hold, where they could in times of danger convey their wives, families, and herds. Where the settlement is of more recent date, we find a sheltered situation is usually chosen." Another strong index of a British settlement, he states, "is to be found in numerous slight banks, intersecting the Downs, and dividing it into parcels of unequal sizes. These were marks of cultivation and the division of lands; and the portions of land divided by these banks are frequently very small. These, I may say, are the constant appendages to a British settlement. Some of these are more decided than others; and many of them are so perfect in their plan, that you may trace the entrances to streets, and the hutted places of residence, and also great cavities of earth, originally dug for the reception of water." Where the situation was covered by woods or surrounded by marshes, it was generally chosen. It was in such situations that the prince or chieftain of a tribe of settlers erected his habitation. His followers erected theirs around, as well as stalls for the cattle; a ditch and mound of earth secured the whole. A station of this description, or a fortress of strength, surrounded by habitations, as most strong fortresses then were, was called a dun. This word, modified by the various dialects into din, dun or don, is in use to designate a place of strength in Wales, Scot land, and Ireland to this day. When the Romans conquered the Gaulish towns, and planted colonies in them, they either gave new names to them, or latinised the old ones. Ptolemy, whose work, however valuable, is not free from geographical errors, has placed Londinium on the south side of the Thames. This opinion has been countenanced by the learned Dr. Gale. He mentions that many coins, tesselated works, sepulchral remains, &c. have been discovered in St. George's Fields and the Borough; his words are, "In his campis quos Sancti Georgii plebs vocat, multa Romanorum numismata, opera tesselata es, et rudera, subinde deprehensa sunt. Ipse urnam mujusculam, ossibus refertam, nuper redemi a fossoribus, qui non procul ab hoc Burgo (Southwark), ad austrum multos alios simul eruerunt.* The arguments of Dr. Gale have been opposed with some success by Mr. Maitland, Dr. Woodward, and several other eminent antiquaries. The former, who had been at great pains in investigating the ground on the south side of the Thames, observes, that the Romans would never have made choice of so damp a place for a station as St. George's Fields must have been, though afterwards by embanking and draining, they certainly frequented the southern side of the river, as is evident from the numerous discoveries of remains of this people, especially within the last few years. The site of London is such as the British settlers would select, according to their method of forming towns. The first adventurers who explored the Thames, with a view of seeking a proper place of settlement, must have perceived, for a considerable distance on their entrance, nothing but dreary marshes; for the sea then rolled uncontrolled over large tracts of the Kent and Essex coasts, which are now preserved from inundation by extensive embankments. The higher grounds by Woolwich and Greenwich could offer few temptations to arrest the progress of the adventurers; but advancing beyond the Isle of Dogs, the site of the metropolis would be presented to their view, rising from the north bank in an amphitheatric form, with gentle undulations of hill and dale, until the horizon is bounded by a range of eminences, of which Hampstead, Highgate, and Muswell Hill are the principal. They would find it secured to the west by the Fleet River, then a deep and rapid stream; to the east by a natural fosse, afterwards called Wall-brook, or beyond that, by the Wapping marsh; and protected towards the north by a thick forest, which, even so late as the time of Fitz Stephen, is stated to have been well stocked with beasts of the chace. At the base rolled a wide, deep, and, as the old records term it, fishful-river." Though some portion of the land was marshy, which circumstance, as a means of defence, would be considered by a rude people rather as an advantage than otherwise, yet on the whole it was fertile, and well adapted either for pasture or cultivation. The possession of this site gave the command of one of the most extensive vales in the country; stretching in an unvaried level of fertile alluvial soil for twenty miles, as far as Windsor; and of an extent of rich meadow land to the east, as far as the Lea River. The situation, at a convenient distance from the sea, • Antonini. Itin p. 65 was well adapted for any traffic that might be carried on with the Gaulish merchants. In short, the advantages of the site as a place of settlement, whether for defence or traffic, appear so considerable as to lead to the conclusion, that London was, at least, one of the earliest towns formed in the island by the Britons.* Having established the fact incontrovertibly, that the Britons did form what may fairly be called towns, the British name o. London is decisive as to the nature of the capital in its origin, and as to the date of its foundation being anterior to the conquest of Britain by the Romans. Various etymologies are given of the name by antiquaries. Tacitus calls it Londinium, and Colonia Augusta; Bede, Londinia; King Alfred, in his translation o the passage in Bede, Lunden-ceaster; other appellations given to it by the Saxons, were Lundenberig and Lundenwic; Can den supposes it may be from Lwyn or Lon, the Gaulish term fo a grove, and Din, a city, or "the City in the Grove." W. Owen, Esq. F.S.A. the learned editor of the Welch Archæology, considers it to be derived from Llyn, a lake, and Din, a town; Llyn being the term for a broad expanse of water. And when all the lands on the Surrey side of the river, as far as the Camberwell Hills were overflown by the Thames, as they must have been before they were protected by embankments, the term of the "Lake Town," or" the town by the lake," would certainly have been applicable. Some have supposed it might be derived from the British Llhong, a ship, and Din, a town, or " the ship-town;" but this could only have been after the place became remarkable for the resort of shipping. The translation from Lin din to Londi nium or London is easy; and this is, perhaps, the most probable etymology of the first part of the name, as serving to designate the particular situations. The name given to it by Ammianus Mar cellinus of Augusta Trinobantum,+ leads us to suppose that the Trinobantes were its founders. Antiquaries have been extremely anxious to ascertain the precise spot at which Cæsar crossed the Thames. Camden, upon the authority of a tradition, which is, without doubt, of very great antiquity, for it is mentioned by the venerable Bede, believes that it was at a place called the "Coway Stakes," at Shepperton, about a furlong beyond Walton Bridge, or nearly seventeen miles from London. Some have considered that the position of the stakes, which, instead of being so placed as to line the friendly shore with their points, inclined to the hostile bank, were ranged directly across the river, and therfore could not have obstructed the passage of troops intending to pass the * History of London, p. 13, 1825. + Camden believes they were so called "from the British Tre-nant, a town in a valley. The inhabitants of Galway, in Scotland, which is full of vallies, were formerly called in Bri. tish Noantes: and in a valley on the Rhine called Le Vault, ancienty lived a nation called the Nantuates, who had their name from their situation.' |