When the persecution of the Lollards, or disciples of Wyclif,
began in England, under Henry IV., the prisons were soon
crowded, and the Archbishop of Canterbury found need of
building an additional tower to his palace at Lambeth for the
custody of them. The Lollards' Tower, as it was named, is
still standing, with the rings in its walls to which the
captives were chained.
LOMBARDS, OR LANGOBARDI.
Early history.
"The Langobardi … are ennobled by the smallness of their
numbers; since, though surrounded by many powerful nations,
they derive security, not from obsequiousness, but from their
martial enterprise."
_Tacitus,
Germany,
Oxford translation,
chapter 40._
"In the reign of Augustus, the Langobardi dwelt on this side
the Elbe, between Luneburg and Magdeburg. When conquered and
driven beyond the Elbe by Tiberius, they occupied that part of
the country where are now Prignitz, Ruppin, and part of the
Middle Marche. They afterward founded the Lombard kingdom in
Italy."
_Tacitus,
Germany,
Oxford translation,
Translator's note._
The etymology which explains the name of the Lombards or
Langobardi by finding in it a reference to the length of their
beards is questioned by some modern writers. Sheppard ("Fall
of Rome") conjectures that the name originally meant
"long-spears" rather than "long-beards." Other writers derive
the name "from the district they inhabited on the banks of the
Elbe, where Börde (or Bord) still signifies 'a fertile plain
by the side of a river,' and a district near Magdeburg is
still called the lange Börde. According to this view,
Langobardi would signify 'inhabitants of the long bord of the
river'; and traces of their name are supposed still to occur
in such names as Bardengau and Bardewick, in the neighbourhood
of the Elbe."
_Dr. W. Smith,
Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 42._
From the Elbe the Langobardi moved in time to the Danube.
"Here they encountered the Gepidæ, who, … after having taken
a leading part in the defeat and dispersion of the Huns in the
great battle of Netad [A. D. 453], had settled in the plains
of Upper Hungary and on the Transylvanian hills. For thirty
years these two powerful tribes continued a contest in which
both sides sought the assistance of the Greek emperor, and
both were purposely encouraged in their rivalry with a view to
their common destruction." In 566 the struggle was decided by
a tremendous battle in which the Gepidæ were crushed. The
Lombards, in this last encounter, had secured the aid of the
pretended Avars, then lately arrived on the Danube; but the
prestige of the overwhelming victory attached itself to the
name of the young Lombard king, Alboin. "In the days of
Charlemagne, the songs of the German peasant still told of his
beauty, his heroic qualities, and the resistless vigour of his
sword. His renown crossed the Alps, and fell, with a
foreboding sound, upon the startled ears of the Italians, now
experienced in the varied miseries of invasion."
_J. G. Sheppard,
Fall of Rome,
lecture 6._
LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573.
Conquests and settlement in Italy.
When the Lombards and the Avars crushed the nation of the
Gepidæ (see AVARS), in 566, it was one of the terms of the
bargain between them that the former should surrender to the
Avars, not only the conquered territory—in Wallachia,
Moldavia, Transylvania and part of Hungary—but, also, their
own homes in Pannonia and Noricum. No doubt the ambitious
Lombard king, Alboin, had thoughts of an easy conquest of
Italy in his mind when he assented to so strange an agreement.
Fourteen years before, the Lombard warriors had traversed the
sunny peninsula in the army of Narses, as friends and allies
of the Roman-Greeks.
{2033}
The recollection of its charms, and of its still surviving
wealth, invited them to return. Their old leader, Narses, had
been deposed from the exarchate at Ravenna; it is possible
that he encouraged their coming. "It was not an army, but an
entire nation, which descended the Alps of Friuli in the year
568. The exarch Longinus, who had succeeded Narses, shut
himself up within the walls of Ravenna, and offered no other
resistance. Pavia, which had been well fortified by the kings
of the Ostrogoths, closed its gates, and sustained a siege of
four years. Several other towns, Padua, Monzelice, and Mantua,
opposed their isolated forces, but with less perseverance. The
Lombards advanced slowly into the country, but still they
advanced; at their approach, the inhabitants fled to the
fortified towns upon the sea coast in the hope of being
relieved by the Greek fleet, or at least of finding a refuge
in the ships, if it became necessary to surrender the place.
… The islands of Venice received the numerous fugitives from
Venetia, and at their head the patriarch of Aquileia, who took
up his abode at Grado; Ravenna opened its gates to the
fugitives from the two banks of the Po; Genoa to those from
Liguria; the inhabitants of La Romagna, between Rimini and
Ancona, retired to the cities of the Pentapolis; Pisa, Rome,
Gaeta, Naples, Amalfi, and all the maritime towns of the south
of Italy were peopled at the same time by crowds of
fugitives."
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 11 (volume 1)._
"From the Trentine hills to the gates of Ravenna and Rome, the
inland regions of Italy became, without a battle or a siege,
the lasting patrimony of the Lombards. … One city, which had
been diligently fortified by the Goths, resisted the arms of a
new invader; and, while Italy was subdued by the flying
detachments of the Lombards, the royal camp was fixed above
three years before the western gate of Ticinum, or Pavia. …
The impatient besieger had bound himself by a tremendous oath
that age, and sex, and dignity should be confounded in a
general massacre. The aid of famine at length enabled him to
execute his bloody vow; but as Alboin entered the gate his
horse stumbled, fell, and could not be raised from the ground.
One of his attendants was prompted by compassion, or piety, to
interpret this miraculous sign of the wrath of Heaven: the
conqueror paused and relented. … Delighted with the
situation of a city which was endeared to his pride by the
difficulty of the purchase, the prince of the Lombards
disdained the ancient glories of Milan; and Pavia during some
ages was respected as the capital of the kingdom of Italy."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 45._
LOMBARDS: A. D. 573-754.
Their kingdom.
Alboin survived but a short time the conquest of his Italian
kingdom. He was murdered in June, 573, at the instigation of
his wife, the Gepid princess Rosamond, whose alliance with him
had been forced and hateful. His successor, Clef, or Clepho, a
chief elected by the assembly of the nation at Pavia, reigned
but eighteen months, when he, too, was murdered. After a
distracted period of ten years, in which there was no king,
the young son of Clepho, named Autharis, came to manhood and
was raised to the throne. "Under the standard of their new
king, the conquerors of Italy withstood three successive
invasions [of the Franks and the Alemanni], one of which was
led by Childebert himself, the last of the Merovingian race
who descended from the Alps. … During a period of 200 years
Italy was unequally divided between the kingdom of the
Lombards and the exarchate of Ravenna. … From Pavia, the
royal seat, their kingdom [that of the Lombards] was extended
to the east, the north, and the west, as far as the confines
of the Avars, the Bavarians, and the Franks of Austrasia and
Burgundy. In the language of modern geography, it is now
represented by the Terra Firma of the Venetian republic,
Tyrol, the Milanese, Piedmont, the coast of Genoa, Mantua,
Parma, and Modena, the grand duchy of Tuscany, and a large
portion of the ecclesiastical state from Perugia to the
Adriatic. The dukes, and at length the princes, of Beneventum,
survived the monarchy, and propagated the name of the
Lombards. From Capua to Tarentum, they reigned near 500 years
over the greatest part of the present kingdom of Naples."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 45._
LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.
The Fall of their monarchy.
Charlemagne's conquest.
Until 754 the Lombard kings pursued a generally prosperous
career of aggrandizement, in Italy. They had succeeded, at the
last, in expelling the exarchs of the Eastern Empire from
Ravenna and in taking possession of that capital, with much of
the territory and many of the cities in central Italy which
depended on it. These successes inflamed their determination
to acquire Rome, which had practically resumed its
independence, and theoretically reconstituted itself a
republic, with the Pope, in fact, ruling it as an actual
prince. In 753 the Papal chair was filled by Stephen II. and
the Lombard throne by King Aistaulf, or Astolphus. The former,
being newly threatened by the latter, made a journey to the
court of the Frank king, Pippin, to solicit his aid. Pippin
was duly grateful for the sanction which the preceding pope
had given to his seizure of the Merovingian crown, and he
responded to the appeal in a vigorous way. In a short campaign
beyond the Alps, in 754, he extorted from the Lombard king a
promise to make over the cities of the exarchate to the Pope
and to respect his domain. But the promise was broken as soon
as made. The Franks were hardly out of Italy before Aistulf
was ravaging the environs of Rome and assailing its gates. On
this provocation Pippin came back the next year and humbled
the Lombard more effectually, stripping him of additional
territory, for the benefit of the Pope, taking heavy ransom
and tributes from him, and binding him by oaths and hostages
to acknowledge the supremacy of the king of the Franks. This
chastisement sufficed for nearly twenty years; but in 773 the
Pope (now Hadrian) was driven once more to appeal to the Frank
monarch for protection against his northern neighbors. Pippin
was dead and his great son Charles, or Charlemagne, had
quarrels of his own with Lombardy to second the Papal call. He
passed the Alps at the head of a powerful army, reduced Pavia
after a year-long siege and made a complete conquest of the
kingdom, immuring its late king in a cloister for the
remainder of his days. He also confirmed, it is said, the
territorial "donations" of his father to the Holy See and
added some provinces to them. "Thus the kingdom of the
Lombards, after a stormy existence of over two hundred years,
was forever extinguished.
{2034}
Comprising Piedmont, Genoa, the Milanese, Tuscany, and several
smaller states, it constituted the most valuable acquisition,
perhaps, the Franks had lately achieved. Their limits were
advanced by it from the Alps to the Tiber; yet, in the
disposal of his spoil, the magnanimous conqueror regarded the
forms of government which had been previously established. He
introduced no changes that were not deemed indispensable. The
native dukes and counts were confirmed in their dignities; the
national law was preserved, and the distributions of land
maintained, Karl receiving the homage of the Lombard lords as
their feudal sovereign, and reserving to himself only the name
of King of Lombardy."
_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapters 15-16._
ALSO IN:
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 49._
_J. I. Mombert,
Charlemagne,
book 1, chapter 2,
and book 2, chapter 2._
_J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapters 4-5._
See, also,
PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.
----------LOMBARDY: Start--------
LOMBARDY: A. D. 754.
Charlemagne's reconstitution of the kingdom.
See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 961-1039.
The subjection to Germany.
See ITALY: A. D. 961-1039.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1056-1152.
The rise of the Republican cities.
See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1154-1183.
The wars of Frederick Barbarossa against the Communes.
The League of Lombardy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to 1174-1183;
and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
MEDIÆVAL LEAGUE OF LOMBARDY.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1183-1250.
The conflict with Frederick II.
See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1250-1520.
The Age of the Despots.
See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1520.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1277-1447.
Rise and domination of the Visconti of Milan, and the
dissolution of their threatening tyranny.
See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1310-1313.
Visit of the Emperor Henry VII.
His coronation with the Iron Crown.
See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1327-1330.
Visit and coronation of Louis IV. of Bavaria.
See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1360-1391.
The Free Companies and the wars with Florence
and with the Pope.
See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1412-1422.
Reconquest by Filippo Maria Visconti, third duke of Milan.
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1447-1454.
Disputed succession of the Visconti in Milan.
The duchy seized by Francesco Sforza.
War of Venice, Naples, and other States against Milan and
Florence.
See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1492-1544.
The struggle for the Milanese territory, until its acquisition
by the Spanish crown.
See references under MILAN: A. D. 1492-1496, to 1544.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1713.
Cession of the duchy of Milan to Austria.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1745-1746.
Occupied by the Spaniards and French
and recovered by the Austrians.
See ITALY: A. D. 1745; and 1746-1747.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1749-1792.
Under Austrian rule, after the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle.
See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1796-1797.
Conquest by Bonaparte.
Creation of the Cisalpine Republic.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
and 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1799.
French evacuation.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1800.
Recovery by the French.
See FRANCE: A: D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1805.
The Iron Crown bestowed on Napoleon, as King of Italy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1814.
French evacuation.
See ITALY: A. D. 1814.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1814-1815.
Restored to Austria.
Formation of the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF;
ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815;
and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1848-1849.
The struggle for freedom from Austrian misrule
and its failure.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1859.
Emancipation from the Austrians.
Absorption in the kingdom of Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.
----------LOMBARDY: End----------
LOMBARDY, The iron crown of.
The crown of the Lombard kings was lined with an iron band,
believed to have been wrought of the nails used in the
Crucifixion. Hence it was called the Iron Crown.
_J. I. Mombert,
History of Charles the Great,
book 2, chapter 2._
LONATO, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).
LONDINIUM.
The Roman name of the city of London.
See LONDON.
----------LONDON: Start----------
LONDON:
The origin of the city and its name.
"When Plautius [Aulus Plautius, who, in the reign of the
Emperor Claudius, A. D. 43, led the second Roman invasion of
Britain, that of Cæsar having been the first] withdrew his
soldiers from the marshes they had vainly attempted to cross,
he, no doubt, encamped them somewhere in the neighbourhood. I
believe the place was London. The name of London refers
directly to the marshes, though I cannot here enter into a
philological argument to prove the fact. At London the Roman
general was able both to watch his enemy and to secure the
conquests he had made, while his ships could supply him with
all the necessaries he required. When, in the autumn of the
year 43, he drew the lines of circumvallation round his camp,
I believe he founded the present metropolis of Britain. The
notion entertained by some antiquaries that a British town
preceded the Roman camp has no foundation to rest upon, and is
inconsistent with all we know of the early geography of this
part of Britain."
_E. Guest,
Origines Celticæ,
volume 2, part 2, chapter 13._
"Old as it is, London is far from being one of the oldest of
British cities; till the coming of the Romans, indeed, the
loneliness of its site seems to have been unbroken by any
settlement whatever. The 'dun' was, in fact, the centre of a
vast wilderness. … We know nothing of the settlement of the
town; but its advantages as the first landing-place along the
Thames secured for it at once the command of all trading
intercourse with Gaul, and through Gaul with the empire at
large. So rapid was its growth that only a few years after the
landing of Claudius [who joined Aulus Plautius in the autumn of
43] London had risen into a flourishing port."
_J. R. Green,
The Making of England,
chapter 3._
{2035}
"The derivation of 'Londinium' from 'Llyn-din,' the lake fort,
seems to agree best with the situation and the history. The
Roman could not frame to pronounce the British word 'Llyn,' a
word which must have sounded to his ears very much like
'Clun,' or 'Lun,' and the fact, if it is a fact, that Llyn was
turned into Lon, goes to increase the probability that this is
the correct derivation of the name. The first founder called
his fastness the 'Fort of the Lake,' and this is all that
remains of him or it. … London was in those days
emphatically a Llyndin, the river itself being more like a
broad lake than a stream, and behind the fortress lying the
great northern lake,' as a writer so late as Fitzstephen calls
it, where is now Moorfields. I take it, it was something very
like an island, if not quite—a piece of high ground rising
out of lake, and swamp, and estuary."
_W. J. Loftie,
History of London,
chapter 1, and foot-note._
LONDON: A. D. 61.
Destruction by the Iceni.
Londinium was one of the Roman towns in Britain destroyed by
the Iceni, at the time of the furious insurrection to which
they were incited by their outraged queen Boadicea, A. D. 61.
It "was crowded with Roman residents, crowded still more at
this moment with fugitives from the country towns and villas:
but it was undefended by walls, its population of traders was
of little account in military eyes, and Suetonius sternly
determined to leave it, with all the wealth it harboured, to
the barbarians, rather than sacrifice his soldiers in the
attempt to save it. … Amidst the overthrow of the great
cities of southern Britain, not less than 70,000 Roman
colonists … perished. The work of twenty years was in a
moment undone. Far and wide every vestige of Roman
civilization was trodden into the soil. At this day the
workmen who dig through the foundations of the Norman and the
Saxon London, strike beneath them on the traces of a double
Roman city, between which lies a mass of charred and broken
rubbish, attesting the conflagration of the terrible
Boadicea."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 51._
LONDON: 4th Century.
The Roman Augusta and its walls.
"It is certain that, either under Constantine [the emperor]
himself, or under one of his immediate successors, the outer
wall was built. Though the building of the Roman wall, which
still in a sense defines the city boundaries, is an event in
the history of London not second in importance even to its
foundation, since it made a mere village and fort with a 'tête
du pont' into a great city and the capital of provincial
Britain, yet we have no records by which an exact date can be
assigned to it. All we know is that in 350 London had no wall:
and in 369 the wall existed. The new wall must have taken in
an immense tract of what was until then open country,
especially along the Watling Street, towards Cheap and
Newgate. It transformed London into Augusta; and though the
new name hardly appears on the page of history, and never
without a reference to the older one, its existence proves the
increase in estimation which was then accorded to the place.
The object of this extensive circumvallation is not very
clear. The population to be protected might very well have
been crowded into a much smaller space. … The wall enclosed
a space of 380 acres, being 5,485 yards in length, or 3 miles
and 205 yards. The portion along the river extended from
Blackfriars to the Tower."
_W. J. Loftie,
History of London,
chapter 2 (volume 1)._
"The historian Ammianus Marcellinus, who wrote about A. D.
380, in the reign of Gratian, states that Londinium (he calls
it Lundinium) was in his days called Augusta. From him we
learn that Lupicinus, who was sent by Julian to repress the
inroads of the Scots and Picts, made Londinium his head
quarters, and there concerted the plan of the campaign. In the
reign of Valentinian Britain was again disturbed, not only by
the northern barbarians, but also by the Franks and Saxons.
Theodosius, who was appointed commander of the legions and
cohorts selected for this service, came from Boulogne, by way
of Rutupiæ, to Londinium, the same route taken a few years
previously by Lupicinus, and there he also matured his plan
for the restoration of the tranquillity of the province. It is
on this occasion that Marcellinus speaks twice of Londinium as
an ancient town, then called Augusta. By the anonymous
chorographer of Ravenna it is called Londinium Augusta; and it
is in this sense, a cognomen or distinguishing appellation, as
applied to a pre-eminent town or capital, that we must
probably understand the term as used by Marcellinus in
relation to Londinium. … The extent of Londinium, from
Ludgate on the west to the Tower on the east, was about a
mile, and about half a mile from the wall on the north (London
Wall) to the Thames, giving dimensions far greater than those
of any other Roman town in Britain. These were the limits of
the city when the Romans relinquished the dominion of the
island."
_Charles Roach Smith,
Illustrations of Roman London,
pages 11-12._
LONDON: 4th Century.
The growth of the Roman city.
"That London gradually increased in importance beyond the
dignity of a commercial city is plain, from the mention of it
in the Itinera, which show the number of marching roads
beginning and terminating there. … London then [in the times
of Julian and Theodosius] bore the name of 'Augusta,' or
'Londinium Augusta,' and this title is only applied to cities
of pre-eminent importance. The area of Roman London was
considerable, and, from discoveries made at different times,
appears to have extended with the growth of Roman power. The
walls when the Romans left Britain reached from Ludgate, on
the west, to the Tower on the east, about one mile in length,
and from London Wall to the Thames. … It also extended
across the river on the Kentish side."
_H. M. Scarth,
Roman Britain,
chapter 15._
"Roman Loudon was built on the elevated ground on both sides
of a stream, known in after time by the name of Wallbrook,
which ran into the Thames not far from Southwark Bridge. …
Its walls were identical with those which enclosed the
mediæval city of London. … The northern and north-eastern
parts of the town were occupied with extensive and—to judge
by the remains which have been brought to light—magnificent
mansions. … At the period to which our last chapter had
brought us [A. D. 353], the city had extended to the other
side of the Thames, and the borough of Southwark stands upon
ground which covers the floors of Roman houses and the pavings
of Roman streets."
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_C. Roach Smith,
Antiquities of Roman London._
{2036}
LONDON: 6th-9th Centuries.
During the Saxon conquest and settlement.
For nearly half a century after its conquest by the
East-Saxons (which took place probably about the middle of the
6th century) London "wholly disappears from our view." "We
know nothing of the circumstances of its conquest, of the fate
of its citizens, or of the settlement of the conquerors within
its walls. That some such settlement had taken place, at least
as early as the close of the seventh century, is plain from
the story of Mellitus, when placed as bishop within its walls
[see ENGLAND: A. D. 597-685]; but it is equally plain that the
settlement was an English one, that the provincials had here
as elsewhere disappeared, and that the ruin of the city had
been complete. Had London merely surrendered to the
East-Saxons and retained its older population and municipal
life, it is hard to imagine how, within less than half a
century, its burghers could have so wholly lost all trace of
Christianity that not even a ruined church, as at Canterbury,
remained for the use of the Christian bishop, and that the
first care of Mellitus was to set up a mission church in the
midst of a heathen population. It is even harder to imagine
how all trace of the municipal institutions to which the Roman
towns clung so obstinately should have so utterly disappeared.
But more direct proofs of the wreck of the town meet us in the
stray glimpses which we are able to get of its earlier
topographical history. The story of early London is not that
of a settled community slowly putting off the forms of Roman
for those of English life, but of a number of little groups
scattered here and there over the area within the walls, each
growing up with its own life and institutions, gilds, sokes,
religious houses, and the like, and only slowly drawing
together into a municipal union which remained weak and
imperfect even at the Norman Conquest. … Its position indeed
was such that traffic could not fail to recreate the town; for
whether a bridge or a ferry existed at this time, it was here
that the traveller from Kent or Gaul would still cross the
Thames, and it was from London that the roads still diverged
which, silent and desolate as they had become, furnished the
means of communication to any part of Britain."
_J. R. Green,
The Conquest of England,
pages 149 and 452-459._
"London may be said after this time [early in the 9th century]
to be no longer the capital of one Saxon kingdom, but to be
the special property of whichever king of whichever kingdom
was then paramount in all England. When the supremacy of
Mercia declined, and that of Wessex arose, London went to the
conqueror. In 823, Egbert receives the submission of Essex,
and in 827 he is in London, and in 833 a Witan is held there,
at which he presides. Such are the scanty notes from which the
history of London during the so-called Heptarchy must be
compiled. … London had to bear the brunt of the attack [of
the Danes] at first. Her walls wholly failed to protect her.
Time after time the freebooters broke in. If the Saxons had
spared anything of Roman London, it must have disappeared now.
Massacre, slavery, and fire became familiar in her streets. At
last the Danes seemed to have looked on her as their
headquarters, and when, in 872, Alfred was forced to make
truce with them, they actually retired to London as to their
own city, to recruit. To Alfred, with his military experience
and political sagacity, the possession of London was a
necessity; but he had to wait long before he obtained it. His
preparations were complete in 884. The story of the conflict
is the story of his life. His first great success was the
capture of London after a short siege: to hold it was the task
of all his later years."
_W. J. Loftie,
History of London,
chapter 3 (volume 1)._
See, also,
ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.
LONDON: A. D. 1013-1016.
Resistance to the Danes.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.
LONDON: 12th Century.
Magnitude and importance of the city.
"We find them [the Londoners] active in the civil war of
Stephen and Matilda. The famous bishop of Winchester tells the
Londoners that they are almost accounted as noblemen on
account of the greatness of their city; into the community of
which it appears that some barons had been received. Indeed,
the citizens, themselves, or at least the principal of them,
were called barons. It was certainly by far the greatest city
in England. There have been different estimates of its
population, some of which are extravagant; but I think it
could hardly have contained less than 30,000 or 40,000 souls
within its walls; and the suburbs were very populous."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 8, part 3 (volume 3)._
LONDON: 14th Century.
Guilds.
Livery Companies.
See GUILDS.
LONDON: A. D. 1381.
In the hands of the followers of Wat Tyler and John Ball.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1381.
LONDON: 16th Century.
In Shakespeare's time.
"The London of those days did not present the gigantic
uniformity of the modern metropolis, and had not as yet become
wholly absorbed in the whirl of business life. It was not as
yet a whole province covered with houses, but a city of
moderate size, surveyable from end to end, with walls and
gates, beyond which lay pleasant suburbs. … Compared with
the London of today, it possessed colour and the stamp of
originality; for, as in the southern climes, business and
domestic operations were carried on in the streets—and then
the red houses with their woodwork, high gables, oriel windows
and terraces, and the inhabitants in picturesque and gay
attire. The upper circles of society did not, as yet, live
apart in other districts; the nobility still had their
mansions among the burgher class and the working people. Queen
Elizabeth might be seen driving in an unwieldy gilt coach to
some solemn service in St. Paul's Cathedral, or riding through
the city to the Tower, to her hunting grounds, to a review of
her troops, or might be seen starting for Richmond or
Greenwich, accompanied by a brilliant retinue, on one of her
magnificent barges that were kept in readiness close to where
the theatres stood. Such a scene, with but little stretch of
the imagination, might have led Shakespeare to think of the
brilliant picture of Cleopatra on the Cydnus. The Thames was
crossed by one bridge only, and was still pure and clear as
crystal; swans swam about on it, and gardens and meadows lined
its banks where we now have dusty wharfs and warehouses.
Hundreds of boats would be skimming up and down the stream,
and incessant would be the calls between the boatmen of
'Westward ho!' or 'Eastward ho!' And yet the loungers in the
Temple Gardens and at Queenhithe could amuse themselves by
catching salmon.
{2037}
In the streets crowds would be passing to and fro; above all,
the well-known and dreaded apprentices, whose business it was
to attract customers by calling out in front of the shops:
'What d'ye lack, gentles? what d'ye lack? My ware is best!
Here shall you have your choice!' &c. Foreigners, too, of
every nationality, resident in London, would be met with. Amid
all this life every now and again would be seen the
perambulation of one or other of the guilds, wedding
processions, groups of country folk, gay companies of
train-bands and archers. … The city was rich in springs and
gardens, and the inhabitants still had leisure to enjoy their
existence; time had not yet come to be synonymous with money,
and men enjoyed their gossip at the barbers' and tobacconists'
shops; at the latter, instruction was even given in the art of
smoking, and in 1614 it is said that there were no less than
7,000 such shops in London. St. Paul's was a rendezvous for
promenaders and idle folk; and on certain days, Smithfield and
its Fair would be the centre of attraction; also Bartholomew
Fair, with its puppet-shows and exhibitions of curiosities,
where Bankes and his dancing-horse Morocco created a great
sensation for a long time; Southwark, too, with its Paris
Garden, attracted visitors to see the bear-baiting; it was
here that the famous bear Sackerson put the women in a
pleasant state of flutter; Master Slender had seen the bear
loose twenty times, and taken it by the chain. No less
attractive were the bowling-alleys, the fights at the Cock-pit
and the tent-pegging in the tiltyard; and yet all these
amusements were even surpassed by the newly-risen star of the
theatre. … The population of London during the reign of the
Bloody Mary is estimated by the Venetian ambassador, Giovanni
Micheli, at 150,000, or, according to other MS. reports of
his, at 180,000 souls. The population must have increased at
an almost inconceivable rate, if we are to trust the reports
of a second Venetian ambassador, Marc Antonio Correr, who, in
1610, reckoned the number of inhabitants at 300,000 souls;
however, according to Raumer, another Venetian, Molino,
estimated the population at 300,000 in 1607. The number of
foreigners in London was extremely large, and in 1621 the
colony of foreigners of all nations found settled there
amounted to no less than 10,000 persons. Commerce, trade, and
the industries were in a very flourishing state. The Thames
alone, according to John Norden in his MS. description of
Essex (1594), gave occupation to 40,000 men as boatmen,
sailors, fishermen, and others. Great political and historical
events had put new life into the English nation, and given it
an important impetus, which manifested itself in London more
especially, and exercised a stimulating influence upon
literature and poetry. Indeed, it may be said that Shakespeare
had the good fortune of having his life cast in one of the
greatest historical periods, the gravitating point of which
lay principally in London."
_K. Elze,
William Shakespeare,
chapter 3._
LONDON: A. D. 1647.
Outbreak against the Independents and the Army.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST).
LONDON: A. D. 1665
The Great Plague.
"The water supply, it is now generally acknowledged, is the
first cause of epidemic disease. In London, at the beginning
of the reign of James I., it was threefold. Some water came to
public conduits, like those in Cheap, by underground pipes
from Tyburn. Some was drawn by water-wheels and other similar
means from the Thames, polluted as it was, at London Bridge. A
third source of supply was still more dangerous: in all the
suburbs, and probably also in most houses in the city itself,
people depended on wells. What wells among habitations, and
especially filthy habitations, become, we know now, but in the
17th century, and much later, the idea of their danger had not
been started. Such being the conditions of existence in
London; the plague now and then smouldering for a year or two,
now and then breaking out as in 1603, 1625, and 1636, a long
drouth, which means resort to half dry and stagnant
reservoirs, was sufficient to call it forth in all its
strength. The heat of the summer weather in 1665 was such that
the very birds of the air were imagined to languish in their
flight. The 7th of June, said Pepys, was the hottest day that
ever he felt in his life. The deaths from the plague, which
had begun at the end of the previous year, in the suburb of
St. Giles' in the Fields, at a house in Long Acre, where two
Frenchmen had died of it, rose during June from 112 to 268.
The entries in the diary are for four months almost continuous
as to the progress of the plague. Although it was calculated
that not less than 200,000 people had followed the example of
the king and court, and fled from the doomed city, yet the
deaths increased daily. The lord mayor, Lawrence, held his
ground, as did the brave earl of Craven and General Monk, now
became duke of Albemarle. Craven provided a burial-ground, the
Pest Field, with a kind of cottage-hospital in Soho; but the
only remedy that could be devised by the united wisdom of the
corporation, fortified by the presence of the duke and the
earl, was to order fires in all the streets, as if the weather
was not already hot enough. Medical art seems to have utterly
broken down. Those of the sick who were treated by a
physician, only died a more painful death by cupping,
scarifying and blistering. The city rectors, too, who had come
back with the king, fled from the danger, as might be expected
from their antecedents, and the nonconformist lecturers who
remained had overwhelming congregations wherever they preached
repentence to the terror-stricken people. … The symptoms
were very distressing. Fever and vomiting were among the
first, and every little ailment was thought premonitory, so
that it was said at the time that as many died of fright as of
the disease itself. … The fatal signs were glandular
swellings which ran their course in a few hours, the plague
spots turning to gangrene almost as soon as they appeared. The
patients frequently expired the same day that they were
seized. … The most terrible stories of premature burial were
circulated. All business was suspended. Grass grew in the
streets. No one went about. The rumbling wheels of the cart,
and the cry, 'Bring out your dead!' alone broke the stillness
of the night. … In the first weeks of September the number
of fatal cases rose to 1,500 a day, the bills of mortality
recording 24,000 deaths between the 1st and 21st of that
month. Then at last it began to decline, but rose again at the
beginning of October.
{2038}
A change of weather at length occurred, and the average
declined so rapidly that, by the beginning of November, the
number of deaths was reduced to 1,200, and before Christmas
came it had fallen to the usual number of former years. In
all, the official statements enumerated 97,306 deaths during
the year, and, if we add those unrecorded, a very moderate
estimate of the whole mortality would place it at the
appalling figure of 100,000 at least."
_W. J. Loftie,
History of London,
chapter 11 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN;
_S. Pepys,
Diary, 1665._
LONDON: A. D. 1666.
The Great Fire.
"While the war [with the Dutch] continued without any decisive
success on either side, a calamity happened in London which
threw the people into great consternation. Fire, breaking out
[September 2, 1666] in a baker's house near the bridge, spread
itself on all sides with such rapidity that no efforts could
extinguish it, till it laid in ashes a considerable part of
the city. The inhabitants, without being able to provide
effectually for their relief, were reduced to be spectators of
their own ruin; and were pursued from street to street by the
flames which unexpectedly gathered round them. Three days and
nights did the fire advance; and it was only by the blowing up
of houses that it was at last extinguished. … About 400
streets and 13,000 houses were reduced to ashes. The causes of
the calamity were evident. The narrow streets of London, the
houses built entirely of wood, the dry season, and a violent
east wind which blew; these were so many concurring
circumstances which rendered it easy to assign the reason of
the destruction that ensued. But the people were not satisfied
with this obvious account. Prompted by blind rage, some
ascribed the guilt to the republicans, others to the
Catholics. … The fire of London, though at that time a great
calamity, has proved in the issue beneficial both to the city
and the kingdom. The city was rebuilt in a very little time,
and care was taken to make the streets wider and more regular
than before. … London became much more healthy after the
fire."
_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 64._
"I went this morning [September 7] on foot from Whitehall as
far as London Bridge, thro' the late Fleete-street, Ludgate
hill, by St. Paules, Cheapeside, Exchange, Bishopsgate,
Aldersgate, and out to Moorefields, thence through Cornehill,
&c., with extraordinary difficulty, clambering over heaps of
yet smoking rubbish, and frequently mistaking where I was. The
ground under my feete so hot, that it even burnt the soles of
my shoes. … At my returne I was infinitely concerned to find
that goodly Church St. Paules now a sad ruine. … Thus lay in
ashes that most venerable church, one of the most ancient
pieces of early piety in ye Christian world, besides neere 100
more. … In five or six miles traversing about I did not see
one loade of timber unconsum'd, nor many stones but what were
calcin'd white as snow. … I then went towards Islington and
Highgate, where one might have seen 200,000 people of all
ranks and degrees dispers'd and lying along by their heaps of
what they could save from the fire, deploring their losse, and
tho' ready to perish for hunger and destitution, yet not
asking one penny for reliefe, which to me appear'd a stranger
sight than any I had yet beheld."
_J. Evelyn,
Diary,
September 7, 1666 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_S. Pepys,
Diary, September 2-15, 1666
(volume 4)._
_L. Phillimore,
Sir Christopher Wren,
chapters 6-7._
LONDON: A. D. 1685.
The most populous capital in Europe.
The first lighting of the streets.
"There is reason to believe that, in 1685, London had been,
during about half a century, the most populous capital in
Europe. The inhabitants, who are now [1848] at least
1,900,000, were then probably little more than half a million.
London had in the world only one commercial rival, now long
ago outstripped, the mighty and opulent Amsterdam. … There
is, indeed, no doubt that the trade of the metropolis then
bore a far greater proportion than at present to the whole
trade of the country; yet to our generation the honest
vaunting of our ancestors must appear almost ludicrous. The
shipping which they thought incredibly great appears not to
have exceeded 70,000 tons. This was, indeed, then more than a
third of the whole tonnage of the kingdom. … It ought to be
noticed that, in the last year of the reign of Charles II.
[1685], began a great change in the police of London, a change
which has perhaps added as much to the happiness of the body
of the people as revolutions of much greater fame. An
ingenious projector, named Edward Heming, obtained letters
patent conveying to him, for a term of years, the exclusive
right of lighting up London. He undertook, for a moderate
consideration, to place a light before every tenth door, on
moonless nights, from Michaelmas to Lady Day, and from six to
twelve of the clock."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 3 (volume 1)._
LONDON: A. D. 1688.
The Irish Night.
The ignominious flight of James II. from his capital, on the
morning of December 11, 1688, was followed by a wild outbreak
of riot in London, which no effective authority existed to
promptly repress. To the cry of "No Popery," Roman Catholic
chapels and the residences of ambassadors of Roman Catholic
States, were sacked and burned. "The morning of the 12th of
December rose on a ghastly sight. The capital in many places
presented the aspect of a city taken by storm. The Lords met
at Whitehall, and exerted themselves to restore tranquillity.
… In spite, however, of the well-meant efforts of the
provisional government, the agitation grew hourly more
formidable. … Another day of agitation and terror closed,
and was followed by a night the strangest and most terrible
that England had ever seen." Just before his flight, King
James had sent an order for the disbanding of Ins army, which
had been composed for the most part of troops brought over
from Ireland. A terrifying rumor that this disbanded Irish
soldiery was marching on London, and massacring men, women and
children on the road, now spread through the city. "At one in
the morning the drums of the militia beat to arms. Everywhere
terrified women were weeping and wringing their hands, while
their fathers and husbands were equipping themselves for
fight. Before two the capital wore a face of stern
preparedness which might well have daunted a real enemy, if
such an enemy had been approaching. Candles were blazing at
all the windows. The public places were as bright as at
noonday. All the great avenues were barricaded. More than
20,000 pikes and muskets lined the streets. The late daybreak
of the winter solstice found the whole City still in arms.
During many years the Londoners retained a vivid recollection
of what they called the Irish Night. … The panic had not
been confined to London. The cry that disbanded Irish soldiers
were coming to murder the Protestants had, with malignant
ingenuity, been raised at once in many places widely distant
from each other."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 10._
{2039}
LONDON: A. D. 1780.
The Gordon No-Popery Riots.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.
LONDON: A. D. 1848.
The last Chartist demonstration.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1848.
LONDON: A. D. 1851.
The great Exhibition.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851.
----------LONDON: End----------
LONDON COMPANY FOR VIRGINIA, A. D. 1606-1625.
Charter and undertakings in Virginia.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607, and after.
LONDON COMPANY FOR VIRGINIA. D. 1619.
The unused patent granted to the Pilgrims at Leyden.
See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS: A. D. 1617-1620;
and, also, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620, and 1621.
----------LONDONDERRY: Start--------
LONDONDERRY:
Origin and Name.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1607-1611.
LONDONDERRY: A. D. 1688.
The shutting of the gates by the Prentice Boys.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1685-1688.
LONDONDERRY: A. D. 1689.
The Siege.
James II. fled in December, 1688, to France, from the
Revolution in England which gave his throne to his daughter
Mary, and her husband, William of Orange. He received aid from
the French king and was landed in Ireland the following March,
to attempt the maintenance of his sovereignty in that kingdom,
if no more. Almost immediately upon his arrival he led his
forces against Londonderry, where a great part of the
Protestants of Ulster had taken refuge, and William and Mary
had been proclaimed. "The city in 1689 was contained within
the walls; and it rose by a gentle ascent from the base to the
summit of a hill. The whole city was thus exposed to the fire
of an enemy. There was no moat nor counterscarp. A ferry
crossed the river Foyle from the east gate, and the north gate
opened upon a quay. At the entrance of the Foyle was the
strong fort of Culmore, with a smaller fort on the opposite
bank. About two miles below the city were two forts—Charles
Fort and Grange Fort. The trumpeter sent by the king with a
summons to the obstinate city found the inhabitants 'in very
great disorder, having turned out their governor Lundy, upon
suspicion.' The cause of this unexpected reception was the
presence of 'one Walker, a minister.' He was opposed to Lundy,
who thought the place untenable, and counselled the townsmen
to make conditions; 'but the fierce minister of the Gospel,
being of the true Cromwellian or Cameronian stamp, inspired
them with bolder resolutions.' The reverend George Walker and
Major Baker were appointed governors during the siege. They
mustered 7,020 soldiers, dividing them into regiments under
eight colonels. In the town there were about 30,000 souls; but
they were reduced to a less burdensome number, by 10,000
accepting an offer of the besieging commander to restore them
to their dwellings. There were, according to Lundy's
estimation, only provisions for ten days. The number of cannon
possessed by the besieged was only twenty. On the 20th of
April the city was invested, and the bombardment was begun.
… No impression was made during nine days upon the
determination to hold out; and on the 29th King James retraced
his steps to Dublin, in considerable ill humour. The siege
went on for six weeks with little change. Hamilton was now the
commander of James's forces. The garrison of Londonderry and
the inhabitants were gradually perishing from fatigue and
insufficient food. But they bravely repelled an assault, in
which 400 of the assailants fell. … Across the narrow part
of the river, from Charles Fort to Grange Fort, the enemy
stretched a great boom of fir-timber, joined by iron chains,
and fastened on either shore by cables of a foot thick. On the
15th of June an English fleet of thirty sail was descried in
the Lough. Signals were given and answered; but the ships lay
at anchor for weeks. At the end of June, Baker, one of the
heroic governors, died. Hamilton had been superseded in his
command by Rosen, who issued a savage proclamation, declaring
that unless the place were surrendered by the 1st of July, he
would collect all the Protestants from the neighbouring
districts, and drive them under the walls of the city to
starve with those within the walls. A famished troop came thus
beneath the walls of Londonderry, where they lay starving for
three days. The besieged immediately threatened to hang all
the prisoners within the city. This threat had its effect, and
the famished crowd wended back their way to their solitary
villages. It is but justice to James to say that he expressed
his displeasure at this proceeding."
_C. Knight,
Crown History of England,
chapter 34._
"The state of the city was, hour by hour, becoming more
frightful. The number of the inhabitants had been thinned more
by famine and disease than by the fire of the enemy. Yet that
fire was sharper and more constant than ever. … Every attack
was still repelled. But the fighting men of the garrison were
so much exhausted that they could scarcely keep their legs.
Several of them, in the act of striking at the enemy, fell
down from mere weakness. A very small quantity of grain
remained, and was doled out by mouthfuls. The stock of salted
hides was considerable, and by gnawing them the garrison
appeased the rage of hunger. Dogs, fattened on the blood of
the slain who lay unburied round the town, were luxuries which
few could afford to purchase. The price of a whelp's paw was
five shillings and sixpence. Nine horses were still alive, and
but barely alive. They were so lean that little meat was
likely to be found upon them. It was, however, determined to
slaughter them for food. … The whole city was poisoned by
the stench exhaled from the bodies of the dead and of the half
dead. … It was no slight aggravation of the sufferings of
the garrison that all this time the English ships were seen
far off in Lough Foyle." At length, positive orders from
England compelled Kirke, the commander of the relieving
expedition "to make an attempt which, as far as appears, he
might have made, with at least an equally fair prospect of
success, six weeks earlier." Two merchant ships, the Mountjoy
and the Phœnix, loaded with provisions, and the Dartmouth, a
frigate of thirty-six guns, made a bold dash up the river,
broke the great boom, ran the gauntlet of forts and batteries,
and reached the city at ten o'clock in the evening of the 28th
of July.
{2040}
The captain of the Mountjoy was killed in the heroic
undertaking, but Londonderry, his native town, was saved. The
enemy continued their bombardment for three days more. "But,
on the third night, flames were seen arising from the camp;
and, when the first of August dawned, a line of smoking ruins
marked the site lately occupied by the huts of the besiegers.
… So ended this great siege, the most memorable in the
annals of the British isles. It had lasted 105 days. The
garrison had been reduced from about 7,000 effective men to
about 3,000. The loss of the besiegers cannot be precisely
ascertained. Walker estimated it at 8,000 men."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 12._
ALSO in:
_W. H. Torriano,
William the Third,
chapter 21._
See, also, IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.
----------LONDONDERRY: End--------
LONE JACK, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).
LONE STAR, Order of the.
See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.
LONE STAR FLAG.
LONE STAR STATE.
On assuming independence, in 1836, the republic of Texas
adopted a flag bearing a single star, which was known as 'the
flag of the lone Star.' With reference to this emblem, Texas
is often called the Lone Star State.
----------LONG ISLAND: Start--------
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1614.
Explored by the Dutch.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1624.
Settlement of Brooklyn.
See BROOKLYN.
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1634.
Embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.
See NEW ALBION.
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1650.
Division between the Dutch of New Netherland and the English
of Connecticut.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1664.
Title acquired for the Duke of York.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1673.
The Dutch reconquest.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1674.
Annexed to New York.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1675.
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1776.
The defeat of the American army by Lord Howe.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).
----------LONG ISLAND: End--------
LONG KNIVES, The.
See YANKEE.