EVERYMAN’S LIBRARY
EDITED BY ERNEST RHYS
TRAVEL AND
TOPOGRAPHY
STOW’S SURVEY OF LONDON
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
HENRY B. WHEATLEY
THE PUBLISHERS OF _EVERYMAN’S LIBRARY_ WILL BE PLEASED TO SEND FREELY
TO ALL APPLICANTS A LIST OF THE PUBLISHED AND PROJECTED VOLUMES TO BE
COMPRISED UNDER THE FOLLOWING THIRTEEN HEADINGS:
TRAVEL ❦ SCIENCE ❦ FICTION
THEOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY
HISTORY ❦ CLASSICAL
FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
ESSAYS ❦ ORATORY
POETRY & DRAMA
BIOGRAPHY
REFERENCE
ROMANCE
[Illustration]
IN FOUR STYLES OF BINDING: CLOTH, FLAT BACK, COLOURED TOP; LEATHER,
ROUND CORNERS, GILT TOP; LIBRARY BINDING IN CLOTH, & QUARTER PIGSKIN
LONDON: J. M. DENT & SONS, LTD. NEW YORK: E. P. DUTTON & CO.
[Illustration: TO THE WISE MAN ALL THE WORLD’S A SOIL
BEN JONSON]
THE SURVEY
OF LONDON
BY ❦ JOHN
STOW _Citizen
of London_
[Illustration]
LONDON PUBLISHED
by J M DENT & SONS L^{TD}
AND IN NEW YORK
BY E P DUTTON & CO
INTRODUCTION
Stow’s _Survey of London_, from its first publication in 1598, has taken
rank as the first authority on the history of London, but this very fame
has been the cause of some injury to the unity of the work, owing to the
additions of successive editors, whose words have often been quoted as
if they were written by the original author, although often referring to
occurrences long after Stow’s death.
What the reader of to-day wants, is the original work as it left
the hands of the veteran antiquary, or as nearly as the change of
spelling allows, because this gives him a vivid picture of Elizabethan
London--the city in which Shakespeare lived and worked among a multitude
of the men and women of those “spacious days,” respecting whom we are
all eager to learn something more. The _Survey_ is a masterpiece of
topographical literature written by a Londoner of ripe experience, who
was interested in everything that occurred around him.
Stow founded his work upon documents of great value collected by
himself, and also upon the splendid series of manuscripts belonging to
the city of London, to which he had access as “fee’d chronicler” of the
corporation.
The great charm of the book to the general reader is to be found in
the personal touches by which we are informed of changes and incidents
which occurred in Stow’s own experience. Of this special feature several
instances have been singled out, such as the boy fetching milk from
the farm attached to the abbey of the minoresses, for which he paid
one halfpenny for three pints; and the staking out by the tyrannical
Thomas Cromwell of part of the gardens of Stow’s father and others
in Throgmorton Street to be added to his own garden, which after his
execution came into the possession of the Drapers’ Company, and are now
covered by Throgmorton Avenue. Stow, in his description of the monuments
of St. Paul’s, alluding to the burial places of Sir Philip Sidney, Sir
Francis Walsingham and Sir Christopher Hatton, says of the latter
“under a most sumptuous monument where merry poet writ thus--
“Philip and Francis have no tombe,
For great Christopher takes all the roome.”
Henry Holland, in his _Monumenta Sepulchralia Sancti Pauli_, 1614, tells
us that there is “no doubt but the merry poet was the merry old man Stow
himself.”
During the whole of his life Stow was indefatigable in his work, but
he kept the best wine for the last. The first edition of the _Survey
of London_ was published in 1598, when he was past seventy years of
age, but there can be no doubt that the whole of his previous life
was a preparation for his great work. He always lived in London, and
he was interested in every particular connected with his native city.
Nothing of value in its history ever escaped him, and what he did not
personally know, he often obtained information of from older men than
himself. Some of his informants could tell what their fathers saw, so
that their reminiscences often take us back to a long past time. It is
this mixture of the personal remembrances of old men with his own memory
of what he had seen, and his careful examination of places himself, in
corroboration of tradition, which give such special value to his book.
Stow was always in search of information at first hand, and other
authors were glad to avail themselves of his wide experience. Sir George
Buck, when writing the _History of Richard III._, availed himself of
Stow’s information that he had talked to old men who remembered that
maligned king as “a comely prince.” Stow’s arrangement of his materials
is admirable, and many modern topographers might imitate him with
advantage. He himself acknowledged that the model for his _Survey_ was
his friend William Lambarde’s excellent _Perambulation of Kent_, 1576.
Some of his explanations of the names of places, being grounded on
historical evidence, are often of great value, but others are little
better than crude guesses. This is not to the discredit of an author
writing in the sixteenth century, but some modern writers, who ought to
have a better knowledge of the origin of place names, have been unwise
enough to quote these as possible etymologies. Mr. C. L. Kingsford, in
his excellent edition of the _Survey_, has corrected most of these from
trustworthy old documents. Stow improved his book in the second edition,
published in 1603, two years before his death, but he omitted some
passages in the first edition which are of interest to us, and which are
noted in this edition.
Although it is chiefly the _Survey_ which keeps Stow’s memory green in
popular esteem, his other literary productions were highly appreciated
by many distinguished contemporaries. He found a valuable patron in
Archbishop Parker, for whom he edited some old chronicles. Among his
many friends must be named Camden, Lambarde, Savile, Dr. Dee, Robert
Glover, Somerset Herald, and Fleetwood the Recorder, who hung in his
study a portrait of Stow inscribed, “Johannes Stowe, Antiquarius
Angliæ.” The “antiquary” was very proud of this honour, and he told
Massingham, who records the incident in his diary, that he thought
himself “worthy of that title for his pains.”
Stow was born about the year 1525, and came of a good London stock, his
grandfather and father were tallow chandlers, and supplied the church
of St. Michael, Cornhill, with lamp oil and candles. Thomas Stow, the
grandfather, died in 1527, and directed his body “to be buried in the
little green churchyard of St. Michael, Cornhill, nigh the wall as may
be by my father and mother.”
We have no particulars as to John Stow’s schooling, and Mr. Kingsford
points out that his remarks in the “chapter of Schools and other houses
of Learning,” respecting his seeing the scholars of divers grammar
schools repair to the churchyard of St. Bartholomew, Smithfield, to a
scholastic battle of disputation “hardly suggests that he took part in
their exercises.”
The general opinion seems to be that he was self-taught, but it is
strange that the son of a fairly well-to-do citizen should not have
been a scholar at one of these free grammar schools. He did not follow
his father’s business as a tallow chandler, but set up for himself as
a tailor, in a house by the well within Aldgate, over which in later
times a structure was erected widely known as Aldgate pump. Tailors have
very generally had to put up with threadbare jokes on their trade, and
Stow was no exception to the rule. Aubrey reports that Sir Henry Spelman
said to Sir William Dugdale, “We are beholding to Mr. Speed and Stow
for _stitching_ up for us our English history,” and Aubrey adds, “It
seems they were both tailors.” Stow was admitted to the freedom of the
Merchant Taylors’ Company, on 25th November 1547, but was never called
to the livery or any office in the company. At the same time he seems
to have been highly esteemed, and was helpful to the company. He became
a pensioner about 1578, and received four pounds a year until mid-summer
1600; this is sometimes called his “fee” and sometimes his “pension.”
At the latter date, when he had fallen upon evil days, his pension was
increased to ten pounds a year. This information is given by Mr. C. M.
Clode, under the heading of “the loving brother of this mysterie, John
Stowe,” in his _Memorials of the Fraternity_, 1875.
Stow’s first literary work is one that does him great credit, namely,
the 1561 edition of Chaucer’s works, and subsequently he helped his
“loving friend” Speght with notes from “divers records and monuments,”
which that friend used in his edition of Chaucer published in 1597. He
then turned to the publication of the results of his historical studies.
In 1565, he brought out _A Summarie of Englyshe Chronicles_, which was
frequently reprinted, also _The Summarie_ abridged, first in 1566, and
often reprinted. _The Chronicles of England_ were published in 1580 and
not reprinted. _The Annals of England_ appeared first in 1592, other
editions issued by Stow himself in 1601 and 1605. Editions continued by
Edmond Howes were published in 1615 and 1631.
The _Annals_ are much of a compilation, but Stow has made them
interesting by the frequent insertion of his own opinions and remarks.
The bibliography of these works is somewhat complicated, but Mr.
Kingsford has set forth the dates and distinctive characters of the
different books with much clearness.
Stow early fell into a discord with the chronicler Grafton, and the two
belaboured one another in print, sometimes having resort to bad puns.
Grafton sneered at the “Memories of superstitious foundations, fables
foolishly _stowed_ together,” and Stow replied by alluding to “empty
_townes_ and unfruitfull _grafts_ of Momus’ offspring.”
Stow’s life was a stormy one, and he had much to endure, both publicly
and in his own family, but his friends helped him through many of his
difficulties. His younger brother Thomas was ungrateful, and a thorn in
his side for many years.
In the early part of 1569 he was brought before the Lord Mayor for
having in his possession a copy of the manifesto of the Spanish
Ambassador on behalf of the Duke of Alva, but he seems to have been able
to clear himself. The same matter was brought before the master and
wardens of the Merchant Taylors’ Company. Mr. Clode remarks respecting
this occurrence: “It is curious to note from the depositions of the
several examinants how very shy of knowing much about the matter they
appear to have been. The knowledge or memory of the nine taylors
examined was too frequently failing them to bring guilt home to any
brother of the craft.”
The trouble about the Alva manifesto drew the attention of the Queen’s
Council to Stow’s library, and the Bishop of London (Grindal) was
directed to have his house searched, and in reply the Bishop enclosed
to Cecil a catalogue of “Stowe the taylour his unlawfull bookes,”
amongst these are “a great store of folishe fabulous bokes of old prynt
as of Sir Degory, Sir Tryamore,” etc., “old fantastical popish books
printed in the old type.” Thomas Stapleton’s translation of Bede’s
_Ecclesiastical History_ is among the objectionable books. Nothing,
however, came of all this pother.
Stow appears to have been fairly well off for some years of his life,
when he spent a considerable amount of money on the extensive collection
of manuscripts which he gathered together. This library was well known
to and much appreciated by his fellow antiquaries. Many of the important
documents are now in the British Museum and other public libraries.
He gave up his business in order to devote himself uninterruptedly to
his antiquarian labours. Although these labours were much appreciated
they were not profitable, and in consequence his means were very limited
in his later years. His poverty was brought under the notice of James
I., who acknowledged his claims, but instead of giving substantial aid
the king granted letters patent, dated 8th March 1604, authorising John
Stow and his deputies to collect money--the “voluntary contribution and
kind gratuities” of the king’s subjects. This authority brought little
money to the chronicler’s wasted coffers, and it was indeed a pitiful
reward for the well-directed labours of a life-time.
Stow did not long survive this remarkable instance of royal favour. He
died on the 6th April 1605, and was buried in the Church of St. Andrew
Undershaft, Leadenhall Street, where his widow erected a terra cotta
monument to his memory, this, which shows the man as he lived, is one of
the most interesting monuments in the city of a past London worthy.
Edmond Howes, his literary executor, and continuator of his _Annals_,
has left a vivid picture of the old chronicler, which completes this
short notice of one of the most distinguished “Lovers of London.”
“He was tall of stature, lean of body and face, his eyes small and
crystalline, of a pleasant and cheerful countenance; his sight and
memory very good; very sober, mild, and courteous to any that required
his instructions; and retained the true use of all his senses unto the
day of his death, being of an excellent memory. He always protested
never to have written anything either for malice, fear, or favour, nor
to seek his own particular gain or vain-glory; and that his only pains
and care was to write _truth_. He could never ride, but travelled on
foot unto divers cathedral churches, and other chief places of the land
to search records. He was very careless of scoffers, back-biters, and
detractors. He lived peacefully, and died of the stone colic, being
four-score years of age.”
Stow is greatly to be commended for printing as an appendix to his
_Survey_, William Fitzstephen’s _Descriptio Londoniæ_, which originally
formed an introduction to the same writer’s _Life of Becket_. It is a
remarkable relic, and unique in its interest as a vivid description
of London in the twelfth century. The author is carried away by his
enthusiasm, and probably exaggerates the beauties of the city. But he
is not blind to evils, for he wisely says, “The city is delightful
indeed, if it has a good governor,” and we know that it did not always
have that. The account of the sports of the citizens is particularly
valuable, especially the early notice of the use of skates on the
Moorfields during the winter time. We may be proud as Englishmen that
no other city in Europe possesses so early a description of a mediæval
town. It should be noted incidentally that “King Henry the Third”
mentioned at the close of Fitzstephen’s account is not the king usually
known by that name; but Henry the second son of Henry II. This prince
was crowned during his father’s life-time; but died in 1182, seven years
before his father. Matthew Paris also speaks of him as Henry III.
An enlarged edition of the _Survey_ was prepared by Anthony Munday after
Stow’s death, and published in 1618. In 1633, four months after Munday’s
death, another edition, in folio, appeared “completely finished by the
study of A. M., H. D., and others.” John Strype took the matter in hand
in the next century and made a new book of the _Survey_ in two volumes,
folio, 1720. The sixth edition, enlarged by John Strype, “brought down
to the present time by careful hands,” was published in the same form
in 1754-5. Strype died in 1737. This edition of Stow is an excellent
history of London, but most persons will agree with Thomas Hearne in
his criticism, “Stow should have been simply reprinted as a venerable
original, and the additions given in a different character.”
It was not until 1842 that Stow’s edition of 1603 was reprinted, when
it was edited by Mr. W. J. Thoms, founder and first editor of _Notes
and Queries_. Mr. C. L. Kingsford produced a critical edition of Stow’s
second edition (1603) which is of great value. It was published by the
Clarendon Press, Oxford, in 1908. The editor gives an account of Stow’s
collections and MSS., tracing their present location.
HENRY B. WHEATLEY.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ed. Woorkes of Geffrey Chaucer, 1561; Summarie of Englyshe Chronicles,
1565; other editions, 1566, 1570, 1574, 1575, 1590; The Summary
abridged, 1566, 1567, 1573, 1584, 1587, 1598, 1604, 1607, 1611, 1618;
ed. Matthew of Westminster’s Flores Historiarum, 1567; ed. Matthew
Paris’s Chronicle, 1571; ed. Thos. Walsingham’s Chronicle, 1574; The
Chronicles of England, 1580; re-arranged as The Annales of England,
1592; other editions, 1601, 1605; re-edited by Edmund Howse, 1615, 1631;
The Successions of the History of England, 1638 (Lourdes); ed. second
edition of Holinshed’s Chronicle, 1585-1587; A Survey of London, 1598,
1603; enlarged edition by Anthony Munday, 1618 and 1633; by J. Strype,
1720, 1754; modernised by Wm. J. Thoms, 1842, 1876; by Henry Morley,
1890, 1893 (with index), 1908; by C. L. Kingsford, 1908; Selections from
A Survey of London, ed. by A. Barter, 1910.
BIOGRAPHIES.--By Edmund Howe (in Annales of England), 1615; by J. Strype
(in Survey of London), 1720; by Wm. J. Thoms (in Survey of London),
1876; by C. M. Clode (in The Early History of the Guild of Merchant
Taylors), 1888; by C. L. Kingsford (in Survey of London), 1908.
NORDEN’S
MAP OF LONDON
1593
[Illustration: LONDON
FOR LETTER AND FIGURE REFERENCES, SEE PAGE xviii.]
REFERENCES TO THE MAP
ON PAGES xvi AND xvii
_a_ Bushops gate streete.
_b_ Papie.
_c_ Alhallowes in the wall.
_d_ S. Taphyns.
_e_ Syluer streete.
_f_ Aldermanburye.
_g_ Barbican.
_h_ Aldersgate streete.
_i_ Charterhowse.
_k_ Holborne conduct.
_l_ Chauncery lane
_m_ Temple barr.
_n_ Holbourn.
_o_ Grayes Inn lane.
_p_ S. Androwes.
_q_ Newgate.
_r_ S. Iones.
_s_ S. Nic shambels.
_t_ Cheap syde.
_u_ Bucklers burye.
_w_ Brode streete.
_x_ The Stockes.
_y_ The Exchannge.
_z_ Cornehill.
2. Colman streete.
3. Bassings hall.
4. Honnsditche.
5. Leaden hall.
6. Gratious streete.
7. Heneage house.
8. Fancshurche.
9. Marke lane.
10. Minchyn lane.
11. Paules.
12. Eastcheape.
13. Fleetstreete.
14. Fetter lane.
15. S. Dunshous.
16. Themes streete.
17. Lodon Stone.
18. Olde Baylye.
19. Clerkenwell.
20. Winchester house.
21. Battle bridge.
22. Bermodsoy streete.
CONTENTS
PAGE
The Author to the Reader 1
The Antiquity of London 3
The Wall about the City of London 7
Of the Ancient and Present Rivers, Brooks, Bourns, Pools, Wells,
and Conduits of Fresh Water serving the City 12
The Town Ditch without the Wall of the City 19
Bridges of this City 21
Gates in the Wall of this City 27
Of Towers and Castles 42
Of Schools and other Houses of Learning 66
Houses of Students of the Common Law 70
Of Orders and Customs of the Citizens 73
Of Charitable Alms in Old Times given 82
Sports and Pastimes of Old Time used in this City 84
Watches in London 91
Honour of Citizens, and Worthiness of Men in the same 96
The City of London divided into Parts 107
Portsoken Ward 110
Tower Street Ward 118
Aldgate Ward 125
Lime Street Ward 136
Bishopgate Ward 148
Broad Street Ward 157
Cornehill Ward 168
Langborne Ward and Fennie About 179
Billingsgate Ward 185
Bridge Ward Within 189
Candlewike Street Ward 194
Walbrook Ward 200
Downegate Ward 206
Vintry Ward 213
Cordwainer Street Ward 224
Cheap Ward 231
Coleman Street Ward 248
Bassings hall Ward 255
Cripplegate Ward 260
Aldersgate Ward 271
Faringdon Ward Infra, or Within 277
Bread Street Ward 307
Queen hithe Ward 314
Castle Baynard Ward 325
The Ward of Faringdon Extra, or Without 331
Bridge Ward Without (the 26th in number), consisting of the
Borough of Southwark, in the County of Surrey 358
The Suburbs without the Walls of the City, briefly touched, as
also without the Liberties, more at large described 374
Liberties of the Duchy of Lancaster 393
The City of Westminster, with the Antiquities, Bounds, and
Liberties thereof 398
Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Government 422
Parish Churches 434
Hospitals in this City and Suburbs 438
Of Leprous People and Lazar Houses 440
Temporal Government of this City 442
Aldermen and Sheriffs of London 474
Officers belonging to the Lord Mayor’s House 474
Sheriffs of London; their Officers 475
Mayor and Sheriffs’ Livery 475
Companies of London placed at the Mayor’s Feast 476
Liveries worn by Citizens at Triumphs 479
An Apology, or Defence, against the Opinion of some Men, which
think that the Greatness of that City standeth not with the
Profit and Security of this Realm 482
The Singularities of the City of London 485
An Appendix 498
Fitzstephen’s Description of London 501
INDEX 511
A
SVRVAY OF
LONDON.
Conteyning the Originall, Antiquity,
Increase, Moderne estate, and description of that
City, written in the yeare 1598, by Iohn Stow
Citizen of London.
Since by the same Author increased,
with diuers rare notes of Antiquity, and
_published in the yeare_,
1603.
_Also an Apologie (or defence) against the_
opinion of some men, concerning that Citie,
the greatnesse thereof.
VVith an Appendix, contayning in Latine
_Libellum de situ & nobilitate Londini_: Written by
William Fitzstephen, in the raigne of
Henry the second.
Imprinted by Iohn Windet, Printer to the honorable
Citie of London.
1603.
TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
ROBERT LEE
LORD MAYOR OF THE CITY OF LONDON
TO THE COMMONALTY AND CITIZENS OF THE SAME
JOHN STOW, CITIZEN, WISHETH LONG HEALTH AND FELICITY
Since the first publishing of the perambulation of Kent by that learned
gentleman, William Lambert, Esq., I have heard of sundry other able
persons to have (according to the desire of that author) essayed to do
somewhat for the particular shires and counties where they were born or
dwelt; of which none that I know (saving John Norden, for the counties
of Middlesex and Hertford) have vouchsafed their labour to the common
good in that behalf. And, therefore, concurring with the first, in the
same desire to have drawn together such special descriptions of each
place, as might not only make up a whole body of the English chorography
amongst ourselves, but also might give occasion and courage to M. Camden
to increase and beautify his singular work of the whole, to the view of
the learned that be abroad, I have attempted the discovery of London,
my native soil and country, at the desire and persuasion of some of my
good friends, as well because I have seen sundry antiquities myself
touching that place, as also for that through search of records to other
purposes, divers written helps are come to my hands, which few others
have fortuned to meet withall; it is a service that most agreeth with
my professed travels; it is a duty that I willingly owe to my native
mother and country, and an office that of right I hold myself bound
in love to bestow upon the politic body and members of the same. What
London hath been of ancient time men may here see, as what it is now
every man doth behold. I know that the argument, being of the chief and
principal city of the land, required the pen of some excellent artisan,
but fearing that none would attempt and finish it, as few have essayed
any, I chose rather (amongst other my labours) to handle it after my
plain manner, than to leave it unperformed. Touching the dedication, I
am not doubtful where to seek my patron, since you be a politic estate
of the city, as the walls and buildings be the material parts of the
same. To you, therefore, do I address this my whole labour, as well that
by your authority I may be protected, as warranted by your own skill and
understanding of that which I have written. I confess that I lacked my
desire to the accomplishment of some special parts,[1] which some other
of better ability promised to perform; but as I then professed, have
since out of mine old store-house added to this work many rare notes of
antiquity, as may appear to the reader, which I do afford in all duty,
and recommend to your view, my labours to your consideration, and myself
to your service, during life, in this or any other.
FOOTNOTE:
[1] The Dedication of the first edition is precisely the same, except in
the concluding paragraph, which there stands as follows:--
“I confess that I lacked my desire to the accomplishment of some
speciall partes: but I trust hereafter that shal be supplied, and I
professe (if more touching this worke come unto me) to afforde it, in
all dutie. In the meantime I recommend this to your view, my laboures
to your consideration, and myself to your service (as I have professed
during life) in this or any other.”
THE AUTHOR TO THE READER
Because amongst others mine authors, I have oftentimes alleged
Fitz-Stephens as one more choice than other, namely, for the ancient
estate of this city, more than four hundred years since: and also the
said author being rare, I have in this place thought good by impression
to impart the same to my loving friends, the learned antiquaries, as the
author wrote it in the Latin tongue; and first to note in effect what
Master Bale, in commendation of the said author, writeth:
“William Stephanides, or Fitzstephen, a monk of Canterbury, born of
worshipful parents in the city of London, well brought up at the first
under good masters, did more and more increase in honest conditions and
learning; for ever in his young years there appeared in him a certain
light of a gentleman-like disposition, which promised many good things,
afterwards by him performed. Such time as other spent in brawls and idle
talk, he employed in wholesome exercises for the honour of his country,
following therein the example of Plato, and was very studious both in
humanity and divinity.”
The city of London, his birth-place, the most noble of all other cities
of this land, and the prince’s seat, situated in the south part of this
island, he loved above all the other, so that at length he wrote most
elegantly in Latin of the site and rights of the same. Leland, in divers
of his books, commendeth him for an excellent writer. He lived in the
reign of King Stephen, wrote in the reign of Henry II., and deceased in
the year of Christ 1191, in the reign of Richard I.
THE SURVEY OF LONDON
CONTAINING
THE ORIGINAL, ANTIQUITY, INCREASE, MODERN ESTATE, AND DESCRIPTION OF
THAT CITY
As the Roman writers,[2] to glorify the city of Rome, derive the
original thereof from gods and demi-gods, by the Trojan progeny, so
Geoffrey of Monmouth, the Welsh historian, deduceth the foundation
of this famous city of London, for the greater glory thereof, and
emulation of Rome, from the very same original. For he reporteth that
Brute, lineally descended from the demi-god Æneas, the son of Venus,
daughter of Jupiter, about the year of the world 2855, and 1108 before
the nativity of Christ, built this city near unto the river now called
Thames, and named it Troynovant, or Trenovant. But herein, as Livy,
the most famous historiographer of the Romans, writeth, antiquity is
pardonable, and hath an especial privilege, by interlacing divine
matters with human, to make the first foundation of cities more
honourable, more sacred, and, as it were, of greater majesty.
King Lud (as the aforesaid Geoffrey of Monmouth noteth) afterwards
not only repaired this city, but also increased the same with fair
buildings, towers, and walls, and after his own name called it
Caire-Lud,[3] as Lud’s town; and the strong gate which he built in the
west part of the city he likewise, for his own honour, named Ludgate.
This Lud had issue two sons, Androgeus and Theomantius, who being not
of age to govern at the death of their father, their uncle Cassibelan
took upon him the crown; about the eighth year of whose reign, Julius
Cæsar arrived in this land with a great power of Romans to conquer it;
the manner of which conquest I will summarily set down out of his own
Commentaries, which are of far better credit than the relations of
Geoffrey Monmouth.
The chief government of the Britons, and ordering of the wars, was then
by common advice committed to Cassibelan, whose seigniory was separated
from the cities towards the sea-coast by the river called Thames, about
fourscore miles from the sea. This Cassibelan, in times past, had made
continual war upon the cities adjoining; but the Britons being moved
with the Roman invasion, had resolved in that necessity to make him
their sovereign, and general of the wars (which continued hot between
the Romans and them); but in the meanwhile the Troynovants, which was
then the strongest city well near of all those countries (and out of
which city a young gentleman, called Mandubrace, upon confidence of
Cæsar’s help, came unto him into the mainland of Gallia, now called
France, and thereby escaped death, which he should have suffered at
Cassibelan’s hand), sent their ambassadors to Cæsar, promising to yield
unto him, and to do what he should command them instantly, desiring him
to protect Mandubrace from the furious tyranny of Cassibelan, and to
send him into their city with authority to take the government thereof
upon him. Cæsar accepted the offer, and appointed them to give unto him
forty hostages, and withal to find him grain for his army; and so sent
he Mandubrace unto them.
When others saw that Cæsar had not only defended the Trinobants against
Cassibelan, but had also saved them harmless from the pillage of his own
soldiers, then did the Conimagues, Segontians, Ancalits, Bibrokes, and
Cassians, likewise submit themselves unto him; and by them he learned
that not far thence was Cassibelan’s town, fortified with woods and
marsh ground, into the which he had gathered a great number both of men
and cattle.
For the Britons call that a town (saith Cæsar), when they have fortified
a cumbersome wood with a ditch and rampart, and thither they resort to
abide the approach of their enemies; to this place therefore marched
Cæsar with his legions; he found it excellently fortified, both of
nature and by man’s advice; nevertheless, he resolved to assault it in
two several places at once, whereupon the Britons, being not able to
endure the force of the Romans, fled out at another part, and left the
town unto him: a great number of cattle he found there, and many of the
Britons he slew, and others he took in the chase.
Whilst these things were doing in these quarters, Cassibelan sent
messengers into Kent, which lieth upon the sea, in which there reigned
then four particular kings, named Cingetorex, Carvill, Taximagull, and
Segonax, whom he commanded to raise all their forces, and suddenly to
set upon and assault the Romans in their trenches by the sea-side; the
which, when the Romans perceived, they sallied out upon them, slew a
great sort of them, and taking Cingetorex their noble captain prisoner,
retired themselves to their camp in good safety.
When Cassibelan heard of this, and had formerly taken many other losses,
and found his country sore wasted, and himself left almost alone by the
defection of the other cities, he sent ambassadors by Comius of Arras
to Cæsar, to intreat with him concerning his own submission; the which
Cæsar did accept, and taking hostages, assessed the realm of Britain to
a yearly tribute, to be paid to the people of Rome, giving strait charge
to Cassibelan that he should not seek any revenge upon Mandubrace or the
Trinobantes, and so withdrew his army to the sea again.
Thus far out of Cæsar’s Commentaries concerning this history, which
happened in the year before Christ’s nativity 54. In all which process
there is for this purpose to be noted, that Cæsar nameth the city of
Trinobantes, which hath a resemblance with Troynova, or Trinobantum,
having no greater difference in the orthography than changing b into
v, and yet maketh an error whereof I will not argue; only this I will
note, that divers learned men do not think “_civitas Trinobantum_” to
be well and truly translated, “the city of the Trinobantes;” but it
should rather be the state, commonalty, or seigniory of the Trinobantes;
for that Cæsar in his Commentaries useth the word _civitas_, only
for a people living under one and the selfsame prince and law; but
certain it is that the cities of the Britons were in those days neither
artificially built with houses, nor strongly walled with stone, but were
only thick and cumbersome woods, plashed within and trenched about. And
the like in effect do other the Roman and Greek authors directly affirm,
as Strabo, Pomponius Mela, and Dion a senator of Rome, which flourished
in the several reigns of the Roman emperors, Tiberius, Claudius,
Domitian, and Severus; to wit, that before the arrival of the Romans the
Britons had no towns, but called that a town which had a thick entangled
wood, defended, as I said, with a ditch and bank, the like whereof,
the Irishmen, our next neighbours, do at this day call Fastness.[4]
But after that these hither parts of Britain were reduced into the
form of a province by the Romans, who sowed the seeds of civility over
all Europe; this city, whatsoever it was before, began to be renowned,
and of fame. For Tacitus, who first of all authors nameth it Londinum,
saith, that in the 62nd year after Christ, it was, albeit no colony
of the Romans, yet most famous for the great multitude of merchants,
provision, and intercourse. At which time, in that notable revolt of the
Britons from Nero, in which 70,000 Romans and their confederates were
slain, this city, with Verulam, near St. Albans, and Maldon in Essex,
then all famous, were ransacked and spoiled. For Suetonius Paulinus,
then lieutenant for the Romans in this isle, abandoned it, as not then
fortified, and left it to the spoil.
Shortly after, Julius Agricola, the Roman lieutenant, in the time
of Domitian, was the first that by adhorting the Britons publicly,
and helping them privately, won them to build houses for themselves,
temples for the gods, and courts for justice, to bring up the noblemen’s
children in good letters and humanity, and to apparel themselves
Roman-like, whereas before (for the most part) they went naked, painting
their bodies, etc., as all the Roman writers have observed.
True it is, I confess, that afterwards many cities and towns in
Britain, under the government of the Romans, were walled with stone
and baked bricks or tiles, as Richborrow or Ryptacester,[5] in
the Isle of Thanet, until the channel altered his course, beside
Sandwich in Kent; Verulamium,[6] beside St. Albans, in Hertfordshire;
Cilcester[7] in Hampshire; Wroxcester[8] in Shropshire; Kencester[9]
in Herefordshire, three miles from Hereford town; Ribcester,[10] seven
miles above Preston, on the water of Rible; Aldburgh,[11] a mile from
Boroughbridge, or Watling Street, on Ure river, and others; and no doubt
but this city of London was also walled with stone, in the time of the
Roman government here, but yet very lately, for it seemeth not to have
been walled in the year of our Lord 296, because in that year, when
Alectus the tyrant was slain in the field, the Franks easily entered
London and had sacked the same, had not God, of his great favour, at the
very instant, brought along the river of Thames, certain bands of Roman
soldiers, who slew those Franks in every street of the city.
FOOTNOTES:
[2] “As Rome, the chiefe citie of the world, to glorifie it selfe, drew
her originall from the gods, goddesses, and demy gods, by the Trojan
progeny, so this famous citie of London for greater glorie, and in
emulation of Rome, deriveth itselfe from the very same originall. For,
as Jeffreye of Monmoth, the Welche historian, reporteth, Brute descended
from the demy god Eneas, the sonne of Venus, daughter of Jupiter, aboute
the yeare of the world 2855, the yeare before Christe’s nativitie, 1108,
builded a citie neare unto a river now called Thames, and named it
Troynovant, or Trenovant.”--_1st edition_, 1598.
[3] _Cair Lundein_, in the list of ancient British cities, preserved in
Nennius.
[4] “The like whereof the Irishmen, our next neighbours, doe at this day
call _paces_.”--_1st edition_, p. 4.
[5] Richborough, about one mile and a half from Sandwich, the _Rutupium_
of the Romans, was a place of great importance until destroyed by the
Danes in 1010.
[6] On the banks of the river Verlam, opposite to St. Alban’s, which is
supposed to have arisen out of its ruin.
[7] Silchester, in Hampshire, seven miles from Basingstoke; the _Caer
Segont_ of the Britons, and _Segontium_ of the Romans, and _Silcester_
of the Saxons. Leland states its walls to have been two miles in compass.
[8] Wroxeter, five miles from Shrewsbury. Its walls are stated to have
been three yards in thickness, and to have extended for a circumference
of three miles.
[9] Kenchester, three miles from Hereford, supposed to be the
_Ariconium_ of the Romans.
[10] Ribchester, six miles from Blackburn, in Lancashire, supposed to be
the _Rego-dunum_ of the Romans.
[11] Aldborough, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, the _Isurium
Brigantium_ of the Romans.
WALL ABOUT THE CITY OF LONDON
In a few years after, as Simeon of Durham, an ancient writer, reporteth,
Helen, the mother of Constantine the Great, was the first that inwalled
this city, about the year of Christ 306; but however those walls of
stone might have been built by Helen, yet the Britons, I know, had no
skill of building with stone, as it may appear by that which followeth,
about the year of Christ 399, when Arcadius and Honorius, the sons of
Theodosius Magnus, governed the empire, the one in the east, the other
in the west; for Honorius having received Britain, the city of Rome was
invaded and destroyed by the Goths, after which time the Romans left
to rule in Britain, as being employed in defence of their territories
nearer home, whereupon the Britons not able to defend themselves against
the invasions of their enemies, were many years together under the
oppression of two most cruel nations, the Scots and Picts, and at the
length were forced to send their ambassadors with letters and lamentable
supplications to Rome, requiring aid and succour from thence, upon
promise of their continual fealty, so that the Romans would rescue
them out of the hands of their enemies. Hereupon the Romans sent unto
them a legion of armed soldiers, which coming into this island, and
encountering with the enemies, overthrew a great number of them, and
drove the rest out of the frontiers of the country; and so setting
the Britons at liberty, counselled them to make a wall, extending all
along between the two seas, which might be of force to keep out their
evil neighbours, and then returned home with great triumph. The Britons
wanting masons built that wall, not of stone as they were advised, but
made it of turf, and that so slender, that it served little or nothing
at all for their defence, and the enemy perceiving that the Roman
legion was returned home, forthwith arrived out of their boats, invaded
the borders, overcame the country, and, as it were, bore down all that
was before them.
Whereupon ambassadors were eftsoon dispatched to Rome, lamentably
beseeching that they would not suffer their miserable country to be
utterly destroyed: then again another legion was sent, which coming upon
a sudden, made a great slaughter of the enemy, and chased him home, even
to his own country. These Romans at their departure, told the Britons
plainly, that it was not for their ease or leisure to take upon them any
more such long and laborious journeys for their defence, and therefore
bade them practice the use of armour and weapons, and learn to withstand
their enemies, whom nothing else did make so strong as their faint heart
and cowardice; and for so much as they thought that it would be no small
help and encouragement unto their tributary friends whom they were now
forced to forsake,[12] they built for them a wall of hard stone from the
west sea to the east sea, right between those two cities, which were
there made to keep out the enemy, in the selfsame place where Severus
before had cast his trench. The Britons also putting to their helping
hands as labourers.
This wall they built eight feet thick in breadth, and twelve feet in
height, right, as it were by a line, from east to west, as the ruins
thereof remaining in many places until this day do make to appear. Which
work, thus perfected, they give the people strait charge to look well to
themselves, they teach them to handle their weapons, and they instruct
them in warlike feats. And lest by the sea-side southwards, where their
ships lay at harbour, the enemy should come on land, they made up
sundry bulwarks, each somewhat distant from the other, and so bid them
farewell, as minding no more to return. This happened in the days of the
Emperor Theodosius the younger, almost 500 years after the first arrival
of the Romans here, about the year after Christ’s incarnation 434.
The Britons after this, continuing a lingering and doubtful war with
the Scots and Picts, made choice of Vortigern to be their king and
leader, which man (as saith Malmesbury[13]) was neither valorous of
courage, nor wise of counsel, but wholly given over to the unlawful
lusts of his flesh; the people likewise, in short time, being grown
to some quietness, gave themselves to gluttony and drunkenness, pride,
contention, envy, and such other vices, casting from them the yoke of
Christ. In the mean season, a bitter plague fell among them, consuming
in short time such a multitude that the quick were not sufficient to
bury the dead; and yet the remnant remained so hardened in sin, that
neither death of their friends, nor fear of their own danger, could cure
the mortality of their souls, whereupon a greater stroke of vengeance
ensued upon the whole sinful nation. For being now again infested with
their old neighbours the Scots and Picts, they consult with their king
Vortigern,[14] and send for the Saxons, who shortly after arrived here
in Britain, where, saith Bede, they were received as friends; but as it
proved, they minded to destroy the country as enemies; for after that
they had driven out the Scots and Picts, they also drove the Britons,
some over the seas, some into the waste mountains of Wales and Cornwall,
and divided the country into divers kingdoms amongst themselves.
These Saxons were likewise ignorant of building with stone until the
year 680; for then it is affirmed that Benet, abbot of Wirrall,[15]
master to the reverend Bede, first brought artificers of stone houses
and glass windows into this island amongst the Saxons, arts before that
time unto them unknown, and therefore used they but wooden buildings.
And to this accordeth Policronicon, who says, “that then had ye wooden
churches, nay wooden chalices and golden priests, but since golden
chalices and wooden priests.” And to knit up this argument, King Edgar
in his charter to the abbey of Malmesbury, dated the year of Christ 974,
hath words to this effect: “All the monasteries in my realm, to the
outward sight, are nothing but worm-eaten and rotten timber and boards,
and that worse is, within they are almost empty, and void of Divine
service.”
Thus much be said for walling, not only in respect of this city, but
generally also of the first within the realm. Now to return to our
Trinobant (as Cæsar hath it), the same is since by Tacitus, Ptolemæus,
and Antoninus, called Londinium, Longidinum; of Ammiamus, Lundinum,
and Augusta, who calleth it an ancient city; of our Britons, Lundayne;
of the old Saxons, Lundenceaster, Lundenbrig, Londennir; of strangers
Londra and Londres; of the inhabitants, London; whereof you may read a
more large and learned discourse, and how it took the name, in that
work of my loving friend, Master Camden, now Clarencieux, which is
called _Britannia_.
This city of London having been destroyed and burnt by the Danes and
other Pagan enemies, about the year of Christ 839, was by Alfred, king
of the West Saxons, in the year 886, repaired, honourably restored, and
made again habitable. Who also committed the custody thereof unto his
son-in-law, Ethelred, Earl of Mercia, unto whom before he had given his
daughter Ethelfled.
And that this city was then strongly walled may appear by divers
accidents, whereof William of Malmsbury hath, that about the year of
Christ 994, the Londoners shut up their gates, and defended their king
Ethelred within their walls against the Danes.
In the year 1016,[16] Edmund Ironsides reigning over the West Saxons,
Canute the Dane bringing his navy into the west part of the bridge, cast
a trench about the city of London, and then attempted to have won it by
assault, but the citizens repulsed him, and drove them from their walls.
Also, in the year 1052, Earl Goodwin, with his navy, sailed up by the
south end of the bridge, and so assailed the walls of this city.
William Fitzstephen, in the reign of King Henry II., writing of the
walls of this city, hath these words: “The wall is high and great, well
towered on the north side, with due distances between the towers. On the
south side also the city was walled and towered, but the fishful river
of Thames, with his ebbing and flowing, hath long since subverted them.”
By the north side, he meaneth from the river of Thames in the east to
the river of Thames in the west, for so stretched the wall in his time,
and the city being far more in length from east to west than in breadth
from south to north, and also narrower at both ends than in the midst,
is therefore compassed with the wall on the land side, in form of a bow,
except denting in betwixt Cripplegate and Aldersgate; but the wall on
the south side, along by the river of Thames, was straight as the string
of a bow, and all furnished with towers or bulwarks (as we now term
them) in due distance every one from other, as witnesseth our author,
and ourselves may behold from the land side. This may suffice for proof
of a wall, and form thereof, about this city, and the same to have been
of great antiquity as any other within this realm.