LONDON BEFORE THE CONQUEST
[Illustration: LONDON AND THE THAMES, FROM SPEED'S MAP, 1610]
LONDON BEFORE
THE CONQUEST
BY W. R. LETHABY
"Now would I fain
In wordys playn,
Some honoure sayen,
And bring to mynde
Of that auncient cytie
That so goodly is to se."
--_Fabyan._
LONDON
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
MCMII
_All rights reserved_
"_Lundres est mult riche cite,
Meliur n'ad en Cristienté
Pur vaillance, ni melx assisé,
Melx gaurnie, de grant prisee;
Al pe del mur li curt Tamise
Pur li vent la marchandise
Des tutes les qui sunt
U marcheans Crestiens vient._"
_Roman de Tristan._
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER I
ORIGINS--THE LEGEND OF LONDON--THE BRITISH CHURCH--THE
ENGLISH COME TO LONDON--ALFRED'S LONDON 6
CHAPTER II
RIVERS AND FORDS 38
CHAPTER III
ROADS AND THE BRIDGE 52
CHAPTER IV
THE WALLS, GATES, AND QUAYS 74
CHAPTER V
THE CITADEL--SOUTHWARK--THE DANES' QUARTER--THE
PORTLANDS AND CNIHTENGILD 101
CHAPTER VI
THE WARDS AND PARISHES--THE PALACE 126
CHAPTER VII
STREETS--CRAFT GILDS AND SCHOOLS--CHURCHES 145
CHAPTER VIII
THE GUILDHALL--LONDON STONE--TOWN BELL AND FOLKMOTE 175
CHAPTER IX
THE GOVERNMENT OF EARLY LONDON 187
CHAPTER X
LONDINIUM 198
APPENDIX
ON MATERIALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MAPS OF EARLY
LONDON 212
NOTES ON FIGURES
London and the Thames, from Speed's Map, 1610 _Frontispiece_
PAGE
FIG. 1.--Goddess of Hope. (Roman bronze found in London).
Restored from Roach Smith's _Collectanea_. About
two-thirds full size 4
FIG. 2.--Stone Weapons, from the Thames at Westminster. From
the Roach Smith Collection 7
FIG. 3.--Centre of Celtic Bronze Shield, from the Thames at
Wandsworth. Now in the British Museum 8
FIG. 4.--Celtic Bronze Swords 9
FIG. 5.--Coin of Cunobeline. Enlarged 10
FIG. 6.--Bronze Lamp, Roman, found in London 11
FIG. 7.--Coin of Claudius and another of Constantius, the
latter inscribed London (P. LON). Enlarged. The first shows
an equestrian statue over a triumphal arch lettered DE
BRITANN; the second an altar to Peace, inscribed BEAT
TRANQLITAS 18
FIG. 8.--Christian Monogram from Cakes of Pewter found at
Battersea. Now in the British Museum. One, in addition to
the [Greek: CHR], has the words SPES IN DEO; the other
[Greek: A·Ô·] 21
FIG. 9.--Bronze Bracelet found in London; ornamented with a
Cross. Now in the British Museum 23
FIG. 10.--Head of a Pin found in London. Now in the British
Museum. A little less than full size. The subject seems to
represent Constantine's vision of the Cross 24
FIG. 11.--Enamelled Plate of Bronze, about half size of
original, found in London. Now in the British Museum. From
Roach Smith's collection 25
FIG. 12.--Cross from Mosaic Pavement found in London. Now in
the British Museum. It forms the centre of a geometrical
pattern 27
FIG. 13.--Saxon Spear found in London, and now in the
British Museum 29
FIG. 14.--Coin of Halfdan, with Monogram of London. From a
unique example in the British Museum. It seems to have been
coined on the taking of London by the Dane leader in 872 35
FIG. 15.--Saxon Swordhilt, of pierced bronze. Now in the
British Museum. Found in London 36
FIG. 16.--Earliest printed view of London, from the _Cronycle
of Englonde_, Pynson, 1510 39
FIG. 17.--London and the Roman Roads: The Watling Street
through Greenwich and Edgware; the Erming Street through
Merton and Edmonton, called also the Stone Street south of
London; the Here Street through Brentford and Stratford 53
FIG. 18.--Roman Wall of London. Restored after the facts
given by Roach Smith; the battlements and ditch added 75
FIG. 19.--Detail of Roman Wall of London. From a drawing of
Roach Smith's 77
FIG. 20.--From the Common Seal. Reverse, enlarged, 1224. See
also Fig. 23; it shows the city wall with battlements and
turrets 78
FIG. 21.--Section of Roman Wall and Ditch. Restored from
excavation near Aldersgate recorded in _Archæologia_ 80
FIG. 22.--From Matthew Paris, 1236. From MS. in the British
Museum, describing the route to Jerusalem. It gives the names
of six gates, the spire of St. Paul's, etc., and refers to
the legend of "Troie la Nuvela" 83
FIG. 23.--The Common Seal of London, 1224. It shows St. Paul
patron of the City, such as he was figured on the City
banner, rising behind one of the gates; right and left the
Tower and Baynard's Castle 85
FIG. 24.--Fragment found in the South Wall, against the
river. From Roach Smith's _Collectanea_. It looks late work,
but is of marble 91
FIG. 25.--Fragment found in South Wall with the last 93
FIG. 26.--Danish Sword from the Thames at London. Recently
shown in the New Gallery. The hilt was inlaid in precious
metal. There are similar swords in the British Museum, called
the Scandinavian type 112
FIG. 27.--Plan showing the relation of the Central Wards and
the principal Streets; also the extent of the extra-mural
liberties. Notice especially how Bridge, Langbourne, and
Bishopsgate Wards lie over the two great streets, and meet at
the Fourways of the great Roman Roads. See Fig. 17 127
FIG. 28.--Saxon Brooch found in Cheapside. Of lead; nearly
full size. In the British Museum 153
FIG. 29.--Coin of Alfred, with Monogram of London. Enlarged.
The name in the field is that of the moneyer. Compare
monogram with Fig. 14, from which it seems to have been
copied 155
FIG. 30.--Tomb of King Ethelred, 1017. In Old St. Paul's.
From Hollar's drawing in Dugdale 162
FIG. 31.--Ninth or Tenth Century Tombstone from St. Paul's
Churchyard. Inscribed in runes. Now in the Guildhall Museum 164
FIG. 32.--Saxon Tomb from St. Benet Fink. Restored from
fragment in the British Museum; compared with one found at
Cambridge, like the entire figure 166
FIG. 33.--Head of Cross from St. John's, Walbrook. Now in the
British Museum 168
FIG. 34.--Saxon Coffin-lid from Westminster Abbey, North
Cemetery, now by entrance to Chapter-House. It had been added
to a Roman sarcophagus 170
FIG. 35.--Roman Pavement found in Threadneedle Street. Drawn
_in situ_ by Fairholt, 1854. From the original in the
author's collection 199
FIG. 36.--Roman Brick, inscribed London, about one-twelfth
full size. From Roach Smith 203
FIG. 37.--Inscriptions from Roman Brick. P·BRI·LON 203
FIG. 38.--Roman Tomb from outside of the East Walls. Restored
from fragments found together, and now in the British Museum 205
FIG. 39.--Inscription from Roman Tomb. Now in the British
Museum 206
FIG. 40.--End of a Roman Tomb found in London. Now in the
British Museum. From a drawing by W. Archer 207
FIG. 41.--Leaden Cist for funereal use, found in London, and
now in the British Museum 207
FIG. 42.--Plate of Figured Glass for Decoration, about
two-thirds full size. Now in the British Museum. Found in
London. Figure restored. From Roach Smith 208
FIG. 43.--Roman Inscription, from Clement Lane, E.C.; now
lost. About two feet high 209
INTRODUCTION
A great burh, Lundunaborg, which is the greatest and most famous of
all burhs in the northern lands.--_Ragnar Lodbrok Saga._
Of the hundreds of books concerning London, there is not one which treats
of its ancient topography as a whole. There are, it is true, a great
number of studies dealing in an accurate way with details, and most of the
general histories incidentally touch on questions of reconstruction. Of
these, the former are, of course, the more valuable from the topographical
point of view, yet even an exhaustive series of such would necessarily be
inadequate for representing to us the ancient city in a comprehensive way.
In an inquiry as to the ancient state of a city, a general survey, besides
bringing isolated details into due relation, may suggest new matter for
consideration in regard to them, and offer fresh points of proof. For
instance, the extra-mural roads were directed to the several gates, the
gates governed the internal streets, while these streets ran through
wards, and gave access to churches and other buildings.
The subject of London topography is such an enormous one, and the
involutions of unfounded conjecture are so manifold, that an approximation
to the facts can only be obtained by a critical resifting of the vast
extant stores of evidence. In the present small essay I have, of course,
not been able to do this in any exhaustive way; but I have for years been
interested in the decipherment of the great palimpsest of London, and, in
trying to realise for myself what the city was like a thousand years ago,
I have in some part reconsidered the evidences. The conclusions thus
reached cannot, I think, be without some general interest, although from
the very nature of my plan they are presented in the form of notes on
particular points, and discussions of opinions commonly held, with little
attempt at unity, and none at a pictorial treatment of the subject.
Of mistaken views still largely or nearly universally accepted which will
be traversed here, I may mention a few salient examples. For instance,
Stow's opinion that London Bridge before the twelfth century was far to
the east of the later bridge, and that the mural ditch was a mediæval
work; Stukeley's opinion that the old approach through Southwark pointed
on Dowgate, that Old Street was the great west-to-east Roman road, and
that Watling Street in the city carries on the name of a street which
formerly lay across its course, running from London Bridge to Newgate.
From more recent writers, I may cite Mr. J. E. Price's idea that the Cheap
was not at an early time a thoroughfare; Mr. J. R. Green's views,[1] as
given in his _Conquest of England_, that Saxon London "grew up on ground
from which the Roman city had practically disappeared"; that the Roman
north gate and the north-to-south street were considerably to the east of
the line of Bishopsgate and Gracechurch Street; and that the Tower of
London was built by the Conqueror on "open ground only recently won from
the foreshore of the river." The plan which accompanies these views is
equally visionary; a large quarter of the city east of St. Paul's is
lettered "The Cheap"; there is no Aldgate Street (now Leadenhall Street),
the Langbourne appears as a stream, and there is a curious selection of
churches, amongst which is St. Denis, for which we are referred to a note
in Thorpe's _Ancient Laws_, regarding a gift of London property to the
monastery of _St. Denis in Francia_. Mr. Loftie holds that Aldgate was
first opened in the time of Henry I., and that no mediæval gate exactly
occupied a Roman site; that the eastern road turned off outside
Bishopsgate; that Ludgate was still more recent than Aldgate, and that it
only opened on the Fleet river; that the Strand was not a route before
mediæval days; that there was a Roman citadel on the high ground from the
Walbrook to Mincing Lane, and that the Langbourne was a ditch to this
stronghold. In the last book on the subject, called _Mediæval London_, we
are again told of the oblique Roman Watling Street; Cheap is described as
"a great square"; and it is assumed that not only the Langbourne, but the
equally mythical Oldbourne, supplied the city with water.
[Illustration: FIG. 1.--GODDESS OF HOPE
(ROMAN BRONZE FOUND IN LONDON).]
I have here only rapidly set down a few of the opinions which are still
current[2]--views which are repeated, embellished, and amplified to
distraction in more popular writings, and set out with much appearance of
exactitude in most misleading maps.
The whole question, indeed, of the early topography of London is
overloaded on a quite insufficient basis of fact, and quakes and gives way
under the least pressure of examination.
CHAPTER I
ORIGINS--THE LEGEND OF LONDON--THE BRITISH CHURCH--THE ENGLISH COME TO
LONDON--ALFRED'S LONDON
Like as the Mother of the gods, they say,
Old Cybele, aray'd with pompous pride,
Wearing a diademe embattild wide
With hundred turrets, like a turribant:
With such an one was Thamis beautifide;
That was to weet the famous _Troynovant_.
_The Faerie Queen._
_Origins._--The earliest historic monument of London is its name. The name
Londinium first appears in Tacitus under the date of A.D. 61 as that of an
_oppidum_ "not dignified with the name of a colony, but celebrated for the
gathering of dealers and commodities."
Dr. Guest propounded the theory that the city was founded by Plautius, the
general of Claudius: "When in 43 he drew the lines round his camp, he
founded the present metropolis.... The name of London refers directly to
the marshes."[3] Dr. Guest is here apparently in agreement with Godfrey
Fausett's view that the name London represents Llyn-din, the Lake-fort.[4]
Many attempts have been made to explain the name, by Camden and others,
from other Welsh roots, but nothing is more uncertain than the origin of
place-names.[5]
[Illustration: FIG. 2.--STONE WEAPONS FROM THE THAMES.]
The tradition given by Geoffrey of Monmouth was that London was called
Caer-Lud after a King Lud. Recent writers compare this name with Lydney,
on the Severn, where a temple has been found dedicated to Nodens (or Lud),
and say that London means Lud's-town,[6] thus coming round to
Geoffrey.[7] This Nodens, who was worshipped at Lydney "as god of the
sea," appears "in Welsh as Nudd and Lludd, better known in English as
Lud."[8] Another Celtic deity, Lug or Lleu, is said to have left his name
in a similar way to Lyons, Leyden, and Laon, "each originally a Lugdunum
or Lugo's Fort."[9]
[Illustration: FIG. 3.--CENTRE OF CELTIC BRONZE SHIELD FROM THE THAMES.]
[Illustration: FIG. 4.--CELTIC BRONZE SWORDS.]
All these derivations seem mere conjectures, but the last from Lud is at
least in harmony with tradition. Yet that very tradition may be founded on
an attempt to provide an origin for the name, according to the principles
which derived Gloucester from Claudius and Leicester from the Welsh
Lyr.[10]
[Illustration: FIG. 5.--COIN OF CUNOBELIN (ENLARGED).]
It is difficult to see why under Dr. Guest's theory of Roman foundation,
which is accepted in Green's _Making of England_, London should have had a
Celtic name at all. Dr. Rhys says that the name was so ancient that the
Roman attempt to change it to Augusta failed. That it was a local
habitation before the Roman occupation seems to be almost proved by the
prehistoric and early objects found on the site, amongst which are four or
five inscribed coins of Cunobelin (Cymbeline) found in the city and
neighbourhood; and it seems unlikely that a mere camp in 43 would have
grown in 61 to the important place celebrated by Tacitus. Green says that
the chief argument against its antiquity is the fact that the great
Watling Street[11] passed wide of the city through Westminster, but surely
there might be settlements below the lowest convenient passage of the
river. The Watling Street, if earlier than the settlement, _did not in any
case_ cause the town to be built on its course, and, if later, it _did
not_ pass through the settlement. The argument, indeed, goes only to prove
that either the Watling Street or London could not be where they are. Or,
at most, it might be contended that the road was more likely to go to the
town than the town was to settle on the road, and as they are not
together, that the road may be earlier than the town; but of actual time
the argument can show nothing. Altogether, nothing can be got out of this
argument, and we are free to conclude that London is at least as old as
our era.
[Illustration: FIG. 6.--BRONZE LAMP, ROMAN, FOUND IN LONDON.]
* * * * *
_The Legend of London._--Geoffrey of Monmouth's history of the Britons,
written about 1130, contains a legend of the founding of London, which
tells how Brutus, migrating from Troy to this western island, formed the
design of building a city. On coming to the Thames he found on its bank a
site most suitable for his purpose, and building the city there, he called
it New Troy--_Troiam Novam_, "a name afterwards corrupted into
Trinovantum." Here King Belinus afterwards built a prodigious tower and a
haven for ships under it, which the citizens call after his
name--Billingsgate--to this day. Still later King Lud surrounded the city
with strong walls and towers, and called it Caer Lud; when he died his
body was buried by the gate which is called in the British tongue
Porthlud, and in the Saxon Ludesgata.
All this was received as firm history, until, with the critical reaction
against "mere legend," it was all cast aside as fiction and forgery. From
this extreme position there is again a reaction, and Geoffrey is allowed
to have founded on earlier writings, now in part lost, and to have
embodied genuine folk-stories and lays of British origin.[12]
The Britons like all peoples must have had a legend of their origin, and
this one falls in too well with the general type of such legends for it to
be anything else than true folk-lore. Indeed, the legend of the derivation
from Brutus, and of his Trojan antecedents, appears centuries before
Geoffrey in Nennius, and the steps of its evolution can be easily
retraced. The Britons required an eponimous founder for their race as much
as the Israelites required an Israel, or the Romans a Romulus. This
founder (a supposititious Brittus) was at some time equated with Brutus,
and Britain, like so many cities in Italy, was said to be founded by a
fugitive from Troy. From Cæsar we learn that a tribe of the Trinobantes
was found by him near the north bank of the Thames. This true name of a
tribe was in the legend made to yield a city, Trinovantum, and this step
had been made before Bede and Nennius, who say that Julius defeated the
Britons near a place called Trinovantum. This name in turn was explained
by Geoffrey as being "a corruption" of Troy-novant. Thus "New Troy" again
quite naturally connects "Brutus" (or Brittus) with "Old Troy," and the
whole scheme may date back to Romano-British days.
This is the natural genesis of the myth of the founding of London, and it
is evident on the face of it that it is not the clever work of a
romance-writer embroidering on Nennius, but genuine folk-lore or imperfect
science.
In the twelfth century the story was accepted as gospel in London. The
(so-called) Laws of the Confessor provide that the Hustings Court should
sit every Monday, for London was founded after the pattern of Great Troy,
"and to the present day contains within itself the laws and ordinances,
dignities, liberties, and royal customs of ancient Great Troy."[13]
FitzStephen refers back to the same origins, and the same were adduced in
a dispute with the Abbot of Bury as to market privileges which the
Londoners claimed dated from the foundation of the city before Rome was
founded.[14] Perhaps there is no absolutely certain proof that the Troy
story was told in London before Geoffrey's time, but it seems likely,
judging from the number of detailed London allusions in Geoffrey's work,
that there was a British and Arthurian tradition current there before he
wrote. Of the latter, at least, one positive scrap of confirmation may be
offered. Amongst the names appended to a deed at St. Paul's dated 1103 is
that of Arturus, a canon. This carries back the use of the name Arthur to
the time of the Conquest, and we may be certain that where the name was
in use, there the story of the "noble King of the Britons" was told.[15]
There was a strong contingent of the Celts of Brittany in the Conqueror's
army, and to them the invasion must have seemed a re-conquest of Britain,
and stories of the time before the Saxons took the "crown of London" must
have been revived and spread abroad.
There is some slight possibility that when Geoffrey tells us that Belinus
made a wonderful structure at the quay called after him Billingsgate, he
was not merely playing on the name of "some Saxon Billings," as has been
said, for Belinus is recognised as the best known of the Celtic gods, and
the name has been found in many inscriptions.[16] Geoffrey again tells us
that Belinus constructed the great Roman roads in Britain, and we cannot
be asked to suppose that the Roman roads were said to be the work of
Belinus because the same Saxon Mr. Billings kept a posting-house.[17] The
weight of evidence seems to allow of the view that there really were some
remarkable Roman structures at the Tower and Billingsgate which tradition
pointed to as the work of the Celtic culture-god Belinus, or of a king who
bore his name. Some remnants of a building seem to have had the myth
attached to them in the Middle Ages. Harrison, giving a version of the
story, says of the Tower, "In times past I find this Belliny held his
abode there, and thereunto extended the site of his palace in such wise
that it extended over the Broken Wharf and came farther into the city, in
so much that it approached near to Billingsgate, and as it is thought,
some of the ruins of his house are yet extant, howbeit patched up and made
warehouses, in that tract of ground in our times" (Holinshed). Belinus
seems at times to have been confused with Cæsar, and so we get the Cæsar's
Tower of Shakespeare and other writers. Stow, writing of the same "ruins,"
says, "The common people affirm Julius Cæsar to be the builder thereof, as
also of the Tower itself."
Nennius uses the name Belinus for Cassibelaunus, which latter, indeed, is
evidently derived from the former; for he speaks of Belinus
(Cassibelaunus) fighting against Cæsar. A parallel passage in Geoffrey
gives Belinus the command of the army of Cassibelaunus, but in the account
of the battle which follows we have no word of Belinus, but "Nennius," a
brother of Cassibelaunus and Lud, takes his place and perishes from a blow
of Cæsar's sword, _Crocea Mors_. "Nennius" was then buried at the North
Gate of "Trinovantum" with the sword that had slain him.[18] All this is
too confused to work out in detail, but it almost looks like a repeated
echo of some legend which made Cassibelaunus fall in a _personal_
encounter with Cæsar. At bottom perhaps it may have been some inscription,
or coin, lettered Cuno-belin, which associated the name of Belinus with a
gate of London. Such coins have been found in London. We can only be
certain that at the beginning of the twelfth century the existing name of
the gate was explained by a Celtic word.
[Illustration: FIG. 7.--COIN OF CLAUDIUS AND ANOTHER OF CONSTANTIUS, THE
LATTER INSCRIBED LONDON (P.LON.). ENLARGED.]
As to Geoffrey's other story, which put a brazen man on a brazen horse
over Ludgate, it would appear to be a variation on the story of the
brazen horse of Vergilius, but I think we may find the origin of its
localisation at Ludgate in the well-known coin of Claudius, which shows an
equestrian image above an arch of triumph lettered DE BRITANN. This coin
is one of those occasionally found in England, and we may suppose ancient
antiquaries reasoned thus about it: "It must represent a city gate in
Britain; the most important is the gate of London--Ludgate." Why was the
brazen horse put there? "For a terror to the Saxons" (so in Geoffrey). Who
put it there? "King Lud himself, or Cadwaladr, the last British king."
When did it disappear? "When the Saxons entered the city"--as in the
Prophecy of Merlin, "The brazen man upon a brazen horse shall for long
guard the gates of London.... After that shall the German Worm (dragon)
be crowned and the Brazen Prince be buried." It was supposed to have been
the palladium of Caer Lud, "and the sygte ther of the Saxons aferde."[19]
For me the old British Solar God lights up the squalor of Billingsgate.
The Sea God, Lud, and the brazen horse give me more pleasure than the
railway bridge at Ludgate. Cæsar's sword at Bishopsgate and the head of
Bran buried on Tower Hill are real city assets. London is rich in romantic
lore. In her cathedral Arthur was crowned and drew the sword from the
stone. Here Iseult attended the council called by King Mark. From the quay
Ursula and her virgins embarked; Launcelot swam his horse over the river
at Westminster, and from it Guinevere went a-maying. Possibly some day we
may be as wise as Henry the Third, and put up statues to Lud and his sons
at the gate which bears his name for a memorial of these things.
The British legend of the foundation of London has left one tangible
legacy to us even to this day in the Guildhall giants, Gog and Magog, who
represent the Gogmagog of Geoffrey, a giant of the primitive people
overcome by the Britons--the Magog of the Bible, who stands for the
Scythian race. Thus the Guildhall Magog really represents the Ivernian
race in Britain.
So much for the legend. My final opinion is that the story of Caer Lud
arose in an attempt to bring together the names of London, Ludgate, and
Lludd, a Welsh god, and this may have been Geoffrey's work. I cannot find
that the form Caer Lud was used in Welsh documents of an earlier date,
although in a recent history of Wales London is so called throughout. If a
single instance of "Caer Lud" could be adduced it would be different, but
till that is done all derivations from Ludd must go by the board. The
association of Belinus with London may in a similar way have been brought
about by false etymology.[20]
_The British Church in London._--It is not proposed to deal with the age
of Roman occupation here, but we may devote a few lines to the British
Church as a link between Roman and Saxon days. Before the imperial forces
were withdrawn from Britain the dwellers in the cities would have been
completely Romanised in manners and speech, and must have shared in some
degree in the general change of aspect towards Christianity.
[Illustration: FIG. 8.--CHRISTIAN MONOGRAM FROM CAKES OF PEWTER FOUND AT
BATTERSEA.]
The subject of British Christianity has lately been re-examined by Mr.
Haverfield[21] and by Dr. Zimmer, the great Celtic scholar. The legend
given by Bede as to the introduction of Christianity by a King Lucius is
thought to have arisen in Rome about the beginning of the seventh century.
It is, however, held that there must have been a gradual infiltration of
the Gospel during the third century at latest, and that in the next
century there was in Britain a fully organised Church in contact with, and
a lively member of, the Church in Gaul. At the beginning of the fifth
century there was an overwhelming majority of Christians, and Dr. Zimmer
shows good reasons for thinking that Ireland had already been evangelised
by the first great wave of monasticism before St. Patrick went there as
its first bishop in 432. Patrick himself was born in 386, some 70 or 80
miles from London along the Watling Street, at Bannaventa. His family had
been Christians for generations; his great-grandfather was a presbyter.
The story of St. Alban, the existence of whom there is little reason for
doubting, carries us back to the end of the third century. Dr. Zimmer
considers that the edict of Leo the Great (454) as to celebrating Easter
reached the Church in Britain and Ireland before it was cut off from
dependence on the Roman see. Latin must have continued in use in the
Church in such places as Exeter and Bodmin, and in Wales, Strathclyde, and
Ireland, from the time when it was current as a Romano-British speech.
According to Geoffrey there were three archbishoprics in Britain: London,
York, and the city of Legions (Caerleon), representing South and North
Britain and Cambria respectively. In the year 314 the names of three
British bishops are given as being present at the Council of Arles:
Eborius of York, Restitutus of London, and Adelfius, "de civitate colonia
Londinensium." Haddan and Stubbs accept the record; so also do Haverfield
and Zimmer, who substitute Lincoln for the last. Many British bishops
were also at the Council of 359. Guitelin, a bishop of London in the fifth
century, is mentioned by Nennius.
[Illustration: FIG. 9.--BRONZE BRACELET.]
According to Geoffrey, again, the Archbishops Theon of London and Thadiock
of York fled from their charges about 586. Now a small scrap of evidence
has been recently brought to light as to the existence of these bishops by
Mr. Round, who shows that a church dedicated to a St. Thadiock remained at
Monmouth in the twelfth century. Again, Jocelyn of Furness (cited by
Stow), a writer of the twelfth century, gives a list of the British
Bishops of London, which Bishop Stubbs is inclined to accept.[22] From
Bede, moreover, we gather that Pope Gregory at first intended to establish
the southern archbishopric, not at Canterbury, but at London. Then finally
we have the curious claim made by St. Peter's, Cornhill, to be the first
church in the kingdom. This legend appears in Jocelyn of Furness. Bishop
Foliot at the same time made the former dignity or London the basis of a
claim against Canterbury.
[Illustration: FIG. 10.--HEAD OF A PIN.]
It is often assumed that British London fell violently, and that the old
institutions were obliterated, but a comparison of evidence gathered from
the British legends with the Saxon Chronicle suggests that it is just
possible that the English may have entered the city on terms, as at
Exeter, where Briton and Saxon long dwelt side by side.
Of the time after the English invasion Bishop Stubbs writes: "There were
still Roman roads leading to the walls and towers of empty cities; camps,
villas, churches were become, before the days of Bede, mere haunted ruins.
It is not to be supposed that this desolation was uniform; in some of the
cities there were probably elements of continuous life: London, the mart
of the merchants; York, the capital of the North; and some others, have a
continuous political existence, although they wisely do not claim an
unbroken succession from the Roman municipality." Freeman held a similar
view: "London is one of the ties ... with Celtic and Roman Britain." Mr.
Coote believed that Roman institutions survived all changes, and Thomas
Wright says: "We have no reason for believing that this city, which was a
powerful commercial port, was taken and ravaged by the Saxon invaders; a
rich trading town, it appears to have experienced no check to its
prosperity."
[Illustration: FIG. 11.--ENAMELLED PLATE.]
On the question of a Roman Church in Britain, however, Thomas Wright took
up a position of extreme scepticism, stating that there were no remains,
that historical references were forgeries, or flourishes of rhetoric, that
Gildas was a pretence, and that it was impossible to say how Christianity
reached Cornwall and Wales. The more recent position would be the opposite
of all this, and considerable material evidence can be produced, which has
been crowned within the last few years by the discovery of the foundations
of a Roman church at Silchester, which may be the cathedral of the city,
for there Geoffrey says Manganius was bishop in 519. The later Irish,
Cornish, and Welsh Churches are only parts of the common British
Christianity, which ultimately got shut up into the corners of the land by
the English invasion, but originally formed part of the one Church which
was an offshoot from the Church of Gaul, the original centre of which was
at Lyons. As Lyons derived from Rome, and London from Lyons, so the
Church in the western and northern provinces of England derived from
London, and the western provinces in turn handed on the faith to Ireland.
Even the Celtic rule as to Easter was the Roman use up to the middle of
the fifth century.
[Illustration: FIG. 12.--CROSS FROM MOSAIC PAVEMENT FOUND IN LONDON.]
The monumental evidences, certain or doubtful, for the British Church
found in London are:--
(1) Eight small cakes of pewter found at Battersea, and stamped with the
[Greek: CHR] monogram. They are now in the British Museum. There are two
varieties of stamps; one has the letters [Greek: A.Ô.] added to the
monogram; in the other the words SPES IN DEO surround it. These most
interesting inscriptions are supposed to be of the fourth century (Fig.
8).
(2) A chain bracelet of bronze with a simple cross attached, now in the
British Museum (Fig. 9).
(3) A disc forming the head of a pin, on it an imperial head and a cross;
probably Constantine's vision, as suggested by Roach Smith (Fig. 10).
(4) An enamelled plate on which two beasts appear drinking from a vase, as
so often found in early Christian art; probably, as suggested by Roach
Smith, of the fifth or sixth century (Fig. 11).
(5) An ornamental cross on a mosaic pavement (Fig. 12). The last three
have been figured by Roach Smith, and are also in the British Museum.
(6) A lead funeral cist found in Warwick Square with the [Maltese Cross X]
monogram, or possibly only a star form, now in the British Museum.
There is every probability that St. Germain of Auxerre, on his way to St.
Albans, preached to the British citizens of London against the heresy of
their countryman Pelagius about 429.
* * * * *
[Illustration: FIG. 13.--SAXON SPEAR.]
_The English come to London._--It is generally held that London was walled
towards the end of the fourth century. Mr. Green suggests, indeed, that
it and the fortresses of the Saxon shore mentioned in the _Notitia_ were
fortified as a provision against the attacks of Picts and Saxons. The need
for such protection was soon made evident, for the only event chronicled
in regard to London during the early period of the English Conquest is
that in 457, after the battle of "Creganford," the Britons fled from Kent
to London. Then comes silence for a century and a half, until 604, when it
is told how Mellitus, a companion of St. Augustine, was sent to preach to
the East Saxons, whose king, Sebert, a nephew of Ethelbert, gave Mellitus
a bishop's stool in London. Although there is no definite statement as to
when the English entered the wonderful walled city that was to become
their capital, yet by following converging lines of evidence we may
determine the point of time with almost certain accuracy. We have for this
purpose (1) the chronicle of the conquests of the several branches of the
Angle and Saxon peoples; (2) the British accounts and legends; (3) the
traditional history, as given by such writers as Henry of Huntingdon and
William of Malmesbury, of the succession of kings in the "Heptarchy."
(1) Up to _c._ 500 we have the conquests of Kent, Sussex, and Wessex, the
first two confined to the present county limits, and the last with its
centre at Winchester, only reaching Sarum in 552, and striking north-east
to Aylesbury and Bedford in 571. According to Dr. Guest and Mr. Green, the
great fortress of London and its bridge up to this time barred the natural
approach of the invaders up the Thames valley. Another horde, who became
the East Saxons, had, in the meantime, effected a settlement in the county
yet called after them. These reached Verulam about 560, for Gildas (_c._
516 to 570) deplores the loss of that city, but says nothing of London. It
was by the Wessex advance of 571 that the frontier between itself and
Essex was defined; and as London, which is so near the boundary line,
belonged (at a later time at least) to the latter, we may suppose that it
had already before 571 been taken possession of by the East Saxons. Again,
the men of Kent, in 568, attempted to press on over Surrey, but were
beaten back by the men of Wessex. Mr. Green well suggests that this
attempted advance was an immediate consequence of the reduction of London,
which had hitherto held Kent back.
(2) The British legends given by Geoffrey of Monmouth refer to several
incidents in London during the sixth century, culminating in the flight of
Theon, its archbishop, in the second half of the century--Hovenden says in
586.
(3) Bede says that London was the metropolis of the East Saxons. Henry of
Huntingdon tells us that Ella _founded_ Sussex; Wessex was _founded_ by
Cerdic in the year 519; and the kingdom of Essex--that is, of the East
Saxons--was _founded_ by Erchinwin, whose son Slede married the sister of
Ethelbert, king of Kent. This Slede's son was Sebert, the first king of
Essex converted to the Christian faith. Now we know that when Augustine's
mission came in 597 Ethelbert was still reigning in Kent, and his nephew
ruled in London when Mellitus brought the Gospel there in 604. If, then,
we put the "foundation" of the kingdom of Essex by Sebert's grandfather
some thirty or forty years before this time, we again reach the date of
the probable occupation of London, which we may put provisionally about
570.
It was probably early in the sixth century that the Saxons began to get a
footing in what became Essex, as in 527, according to Huntingdon, large
bodies of men came from Germany and took possession of East Anglia,
various chiefs of whom "contended for the occupation of different
districts." We may suppose that Colchester first fell, then Verulam, and
that London was entered only after its complete isolation, and as the
culmination of the English Conquest of South Britain, just as was the case
in the Norman Conquest exactly five hundred years later. All Celtic
tradition looks back to London as the British capital. Dr. Rhys quotes a
story from the Welsh Laws to the effect that "the nation of the Kymry,
after losing the crown and sceptre of London and being driven out of
England, assembled to decide who should be chief king."[23] In the story
of Bran in the Mabinogion, which Celtic scholars say is untouched by any
influence so late as Geoffrey's, it is told that the seven men journeying
with the head of the Blessed Bran were told that Caswallawn the son of
Beli "has conquered the Island of the Mighty and is crowned king in
London."
_Alfred's London._--In endeavouring to trace the topographical vestiges of
London, as far as any sufficiently clear indications will allow, it will
be found that we can easily carry back a great number of wards, streets,
and churches to the century which followed the Conquest. More patient
research allows of pushing still further a large number of "origins" to a
time anterior to the Conquest, but subsequent to the Roman evacuation of
the city. As the greatest of all London events in this space of time was
the resettlement of the city by Alfred, less than two centuries before
Duke William entered within its walls, and as London may readily be
supposed to have altered very little in that time, we may well take the
reign of the great king, who died exactly a thousand years ago, as the
centre of gravity of the whole period, and the pages which follow might
very well be called an account of London in the time of Alfred.
The strife with the Danes in the Thames valley raged from before the time
of Alfred's birth. Stow and others have supposed that London was wrecked
in 839, and lay waste until Alfred restored it; but it has been shown that
the first attack on the city must have been in 842.[24] In 851 a great
host of the pagans came with 350 ships to the mouth of the river Thames,
and sacked Canterbury "and also the city of London, which lies on the
confines of Essex and Middlesex, but the city belongs of right to
Essex."[25] Before this time London had become subject to the overlordship
of Mercia, and Behrtwulf the Mercian was killed in its defence.
There is a charter of Burgred, king of Mercia, relating to London, 857; in
872-74 the city was taken by Halfdan the Dane, and Burgred, king of
Mercia, was ejected from his kingdom. In the coin room of the British
Museum there is a remarkable coin which bears the legend ALFDENE
RX[Maltese Cross], and on the reverse the monogram of London which was
later used by Alfred on his coins (Fig. 14). The obverse bears the same
type as that used on the coins of Ceolwulf, whom Halfdan set up as his
creature in Mercia: it cannot be doubted that Halfdan's coin was struck as
a memorial of his wintering in London in 872-73, as described in the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. All now was confusion, "down and up, and up and
down, and dreadful," till at the peace of Wedmore, in 878, Alfred made a
division of the country with the Danish leader Guthrum, by a boundary
defined in the agreement as "upon the Thames along the Lea to its source,
then right to Bedford and upon the Ouse to Watling Street." London thus
fell to Alfred, who repaired it in 886 and made it again habitable, and
gave it into the hands of his son-in-law Ethered.[26] Ethered was
Ealdorman of Mercia, so London was still practically the Mercian capital,
and remained so till the death of Ethered. London all the time was the
chief city in the kingdom, but it then had to enter into competition with
Winchester, the local capital of the dominating kingdom.
[Illustration: FIG. 14.--COIN OF HALFDAN WITH MONOGRAM OF LONDON.]
In 893 there was a fresh attack by the Danes, but they were defeated
outside the city by the men of London, led by Ethered. In the account of
this raid from the south coast through Farnham and northwards across the
Thames, as given in Ethelweard's Chronicle, the Danes are said to have
been besieged on Thorney Isle (_Thornige Insula_), the site of the abbey
of Westminster. The Danes then passed eastward and took up positions at
Mersea, Shoebury, and probably Welbury, near the Lea, in all of which
places there are traces of earthworks.[27]
[Illustration: FIG. 15.--SAXON SWORDHILT.]
Since the resettlement of London in 886 there has been no interruption of
the continuity of city life and customs, and it is very probable that
some of the institutions shaped by the great organiser, whom William
Morris called the one man of genius who has ever ruled in England, remain
to this day.