the old Norwegian through the consequent battle; for although he gives
us no more scenery of London Bridge, yet he furnishes us with a minute
account of its destruction, and of a conflict upon it, concerning
which all our own historians are, in general, remarkably silent. I say
too, with Falstaff, ‘play out the play;’ for I have yet much to say
on the behalf of that King Olaf, who, we shall find, is the patron
protector of yonder Church at the South-East corner of London Bridge,
since he died a Saint and a Martyr. Snorro Sturleson then, having
cleared the way for the forcing of London Bridge on the behalf of
King Ethelred, thus begins his account of the action, entitling it,
in the Scandinavian tongue, Orrosta, or the fight. ‘King Olaf, having
determined on the construction of an immense scaffold, to be formed of
wooden poles and osier twigs, set about pulling down the old houses in
the neighbourhood for the use of the materials. With these _Vinea_,
therefore,’--as such defences were anciently termed--‘he so enveloped
his ships, that the scaffolds extended beyond their sides; and they
were so well supported, as to afford not only a sufficient space for
engaging sword in hand, but also a base firm enough for the play of his
engines, in case they should be pressed upon from above. The Fleet, as
well as the forces, being now ready, they rowed towards the Bridge, the
tide being adverse; but no sooner had they reached it, than they were
violently assailed from above with a shower of missiles and stones,
of such immensity that their helmets and shields were shattered, and
the ships themselves very seriously injured. Many of them, therefore,
retired. But Olaf the King and his Norsemen having rowed their ships
close up to the Bridge, made them fast to the piles with ropes and
cables, with which they strained them, and the tide seconding their
united efforts, the piles gradually gave way, and were withdrawn from
under the Bridge. At this time, there was an immense pressure of stones
and other weapons, so that the piles being removed, the whole Bridge
brake down, and involved in it’s fall the ruin of many. Numbers,
however, were left to seek refuge by flight: some into the City, others
into Southwark. And now it was determined to attack Southwark: but the
Citizens seeing their River Thames occupied by the enemy’s navies, so
as to cut off all intercourse that way with their interior provinces,
were seized with fear, and having surrendered the City, received
Ethelred as King. In remembrance of this expedition thus sang Ottar
Suarti.’
“And now, Sir, as this is, without any doubt, the first song which was
ever made about London Bridge, I shall give you the Norse Bard’s verses
in Macpherson’s Ossianic measure, as that into which they most readily
translate themselves; premising that the ensuing are of immeasurably
greater authenticity.
‘And thou hast overthrown their Bridges, Oh thou Storm of the
Sons of Odin! skilful and foremost in the Battle! For thee was it
happily reserved to possess the land of London’s winding City.
Many were the shields which were grasped sword in hand to the
mighty increase of the conflict; but by thee were the iron-banded
coats of mail broken and destroyed.’
And ‘besides this,’ continues Snorro, ‘he also sang:’
‘Thou, thou hast come, Defender of the Earth, and hast restored
into his Kingdom the exiled Ethelred. By thine aid is he
advantaged, and made strong by thy valour and prowess: Bitterest
was that Battle in which thou didst engage. Now, in the presence
of thy kindred the adjacent lands are at rest, where Edmund, the
relation of the country and the people, formerly governed.’
‘Besides this, these things are thus remembered by Sigvatus.’
‘That was truly the sixth fight which the mighty King fought with
the men of England: wherein King Olaf,--the Chief himself a Son
of Odin, valiantly attacked the Bridge at London. Bravely did the
swords of the Völscs defend it, but through the trench which the
Sea-Kings, the men of Vikes-land, guarded, they were enabled to
come, and the plain of Southwark was full of his tents.’
“Such were the martial feats of King Olafus, upon the water; and now
let us turn to his more pious and peaceful actions upon the land,
that caused the men of Southwark to found to his honour yonder fane,
which still bears his name and consecrates his memory. And in so
doing, I pray you to observe that I am not wandering from the subject
before us; for that Church is one of the Southern boundaries of London
Bridge, and, as such, possesses some interest in its history. The
other, on the same side, is the Monastery of St. Mary Overies, of the
which I shall hereafter discourse; whilst the two Northern ones are
St. Magnus’ Church, and that abode of festivity which rises above us,
Fishmongers’ Hall, of which the story will be best noticed when we
shall have arrived at the time of the Great Fire. There are within
the City walls and Diocese of London, three Churches dedicated to
the Norwegian King and Martyr, St. Olaf; and in consequence, Richard
Newcourt, in his ‘_Repertorium Ecclesiasticum Parochiale Londinense_,’
which I shall hereafter notice, volume i. page 509, takes occasion to
speak somewhat of his history; collected, most probably, from Adam
of Bremen’s ‘_Historia Ecclesiarum Hamburgensis et Bremensis_.’ He
was the Son of Herald Grenscius, Prince of Westfold, in Norway, and
was celebrated for having expelled the Swedes from that country,
and recovering Gothland. It was after these exploits that he came
to England, and remained here as an ally of King Ethelred for three
years, expelling the Danes from the Cities, Towns, and Fortresses, and
ultimately returning home with great spoil. He was recalled to England
by Emma of Normandy, the surviving Queen of his friend, to assist her
against Knute; but as he found a paction concluded between that King
and the English, he soon withdrew, and was then created King of Norway
by the voice of the nation. To strengthen his throne, he married the
daughter of the King of Swedeland; but now his strict adherence to
the Christian faith, and his active zeal for the spread of it, caused
him to be molested by domestic wars, as well as by the Danes abroad:
though these he regarded not, since he piously and valiantly professed,
that he had rather lose his life and Kingdom than his faith in Christ.
Upon this, the men of Norway complained to Knute, King of Denmark,
and afterwards of England, charging Olaf with altering their laws and
customs, and entreating his assistance; but the Norwegian hero was
supported by a young soldier named Amandus, King of Swethland, who had
been bred up under Olaf, and taught to fight by him. He, at first,
overthrew the Dane in an engagement; but Knute, having bribed the
adverse fleet, procured three hundred of his ships to revolt, and then
attacking Olaf, forced him to retreat into his own country, where his
subjects received him as an enemy. He fled from the disloyal Pagans to
Jerislaus, King of Russia, who was his brother-in-law, and remained
with him till the better part of his subjects, in the commotions of
the Kingdom, calling him to resume his crown, he went at the head of
an army; when, whilst one party hailed his return with joy, the other,
urged by Knute, opposed him by force, and in a disloyal battle at
Stichstadt, to the North of Drontheim, says Newcourt, page 510, with
considerable pathos, they ‘murthered this holy friend of Christ, this
most innocent King, in Anno 1028,’ but he should have said 1030. His
feast is commemorated on the fourth of the Kalends of August, that is
to say on the 29th of July; for Grimkele, Bishop of Drontheim, his
capital City, a pious priest whom he had brought from England to assist
him in establishing Christianity in Norway, commanded that he should be
honoured as a Saint, with the title of Martyr. His body was buried in
Drontheim, and was not only found undecayed in 1098, but even in 1541,
when the Lutherans plundered his shrine of its gold and jewels; for it
was esteemed the greatest treasure in the North. Such was St. Olave,
to whose memory no less than four Churches in London are dedicated;
for, says Newcourt, he ‘had well deserved, and was well beloved of our
English Nation, as well for his friendship for assisting them against
the Danes, as for his holy and Christian life, by the erection of many
Churches which to his honourable memory they built and dedicated to
him.’ I notice only one of these, because it is contiguous to London
Bridge, which is called St. Olave, Southwark. It stands, as you very
well know, on the Northern side of Tooley Street; and although many
people would think St. Tooley to be somewhat of a questionable patron
for a Church, yet I would remind you that it was only the more usual
ancient English name of King Olave, as we are told on good authority,
by the Rev. Alban Butler in his ‘_Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and
other principal Saints_,’ London, 1812, 8vo. volume vii. where also,
on pages 378-380, you have many further particulars of the life of
this heroic Prince. You may also meet with him under a variety of
other names, as Anlaf, Unlaf, Olaf Haraldson, Olaus, and Olaf Helge,
or Olave the Holy. Of his Church in Southwark I will tell you nothing
as to its foundation, but remark only that its antiquity is proved by
William Thorn’s ‘_Chronicle of the Acts of the Abbots of St. Austin’s
Canterbury_;’ which is printed in Roger Twysden’s ‘_Historiæ Anglicanæ
Scriptores Decem_;’ London, 1652, folio. Thorn, you may remember, was a
Monk of St. Augustine’s, in 1380; and on column 1932 of the volume now
referred to, he gives the copy of a grant from John, Earl of Warren,
to Nicholas, the Abbot of St. Augustine’s, giving to his Monastery all
the estate which it held in ‘Southwark standing upon the River Thames,
between the Breggehouse and the Church of Saint Olave.’ By this we know
it to be ancient, for that grant was made in the year 1281. And now I
will say no more of St. Olave, but that a very full and interesting
memoir of him, and his miracles, is to be found in that gigantic work
entitled the ‘_Acta Sanctorum_,’ Antwerp, 1643-1786, 50 volumes, folio,
and yet incomplete, for the year descends to October only:--see the
seventh volume of July, pages 87-120.
“And now let me chaunt you his Requiem, by giving you, from the same
authority, a free translation of the concluding stanza of that Latin
Hymn to his memory, which Johannes Bosch tells us was inserted in the
Swedish Missal, and sung on his festival; it is in the same measure as
the original.
‘Martyr’d King! in triumph shining,
Guardian Saint, whom bliss is ’shrining;
To thy spirit’s sons inclining
From a sinful world’s confining
By thy might, Oh set them free!
Carnal bonds are round them ’twining,
Fiendish arts are undermining,
All with deadly plagues are pining,
But thy power and prayers combining,
Safely shall we rise to thee!--AMEN.’
“One of the last notices of London Bridge which occurs in the days of
King Ethelred, and I place it here because it is without date, is in
his Laws, as they are given in the ‘_Chronicon_’ of John Brompton,
Abbot of Jorvaulx, in the City of York, who lived about the year 1328.
His work was printed in Twysden’s Scriptores, which I last quoted; and
at column 897, in the xxiii. Chapter of the Statutes there given, is
the following passage.
“‘_Concerning the Tolls given at Bylyngesgate._
‘If a small ship come up to Bilynggesgate, it shall give one halfpenny
of toll: if a greater one which hath sails, one penny: if a small ship,
or the hulk of a ship come thereto, and shall lie there, it shall give
four pence for the toll. For ships which are filled with wood, one log
of wood shall be given as toll. In a week of bread’--perhaps a festival
time, ‘toll shall be paid for three days; the Lord’s day, Tuesday, and
Thursday. Whoever shall come to the Bridge, in a boat in which there
are fish, he himself being a dealer, shall pay one halfpenny for toll;
and if it be a larger vessel, one penny.’
“Concerning Brompton’s translation of these laws, Bishop Nicolson, in
his ‘_English, Scotch, and Irish Historical Libraries_,’ London, 1736,
folio, page 65, says that they are pretty honestly done, and given at
large: but they may be seen with several variations and additions very
fairly written in the collections of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, preserved with
the Harleian Manuscripts in the British Museum, No. 596. John Brompton,
however, at column 891 of his Chronicle, tells us one circumstance more
concerning London Bridge before the Invasion of Knute; for he says,
under the year 1013, ‘After this, many people were overthrown in the
Thames, at London, not caring to go by the Bridge;’ that is to say,
because it had been broken in the two recent battles as I have already
told you, and there were also erected several fortifications about the
City.’
“Perhaps it was the error of Sweyn in getting his Fleet foul of London
Bridge, which made Knute the Dane, his Son, go so laboriously to work
with the Thames, upon his Invasion in 1016; and I shall give you this
very wonderful story in the words of the Saxon Chronicle, page 197.
‘Then came the ships to Greenwich, and, within a short interval, to
London; where they sank a deep ditch on the South side, and dragged
their ships to the West side of the Bridge. Afterwards they trenched
the City without, so that no man could go in or out, and often fought
against it; but the Citizens bravely withstood them.’ There are some
who doubt this story, but honest William Maitland, who loved to get
to the bottom of every thing, as he went sounding about the river for
Cæsar’s Ford, also set himself to discover proofs of Knute’s Trench:
and you may remember that he tells us, in his work which I have already
cited, volume i. page 35, that this artificial water-course began at
the great wet-dock below Rotherhithe, and passing through the Kent
Road, continued in a crescent form to Vauxhall, and fell again into the
Thames at the lower end of Chelsea Reach. The proofs of this hypothesis
were great quantities of fascines of hazels, willows, and brushwood,
pointing northward, and fastened down by rows of stakes, which were
found at the digging of Rotherhithe Dock in 1694; as well as numbers of
large oaken planks and piles, also found in other parts.
“Florence of Worcester, who, you will recollect, wrote in 1101, and
died in 1119, in his ‘_Chronicon ex Chronicis_,’ best edition, London,
1592, small 4to. page 413; and the famous old Saxon Chronicle, page
237; also both mention the easy passage of the rapacious Earl Godwin,
as he passed Southwark in the year 1052. The tale is much the same in
each, but perhaps the latter is the best authority, and it runs thus.
‘And Godwin stationed himself continually before London, with his
Fleet, until he came to Southwark; where he abode some time, until the
flood came up. When he had arranged his whole expedition, then came the
flood, and they soon weighed anchor and steered through the Bridge by
the South side.’ This relation is also supported by Roger Hoveden, in
his Annals, Part I. in ‘_Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores post Bedam_,’ by
Sir H. Savile, folio 253^b, line 41.
“And now, worthy Mr. Barbican, before we enter upon the conjectures
and disputes relating to the real age and founders of the first
Wooden Bridge over the Thames at London, let me give you a toast,
closely connected with it, in this last living relique of old Sir John
Falstaff. You must know, my good Sir, that when the Church-Wardens
and vestry of St. Mary Overies, on the Bankside yonder, meet for
conviviality, one of their earliest potations is to the memory of their
Church’s Saint and the patroness who feeds them, under the familiar
name of ‘_Old Moll!_’ and therefore, as we are now about to speak of
them and their pious foundation most particularly, you will, I doubt
not, pledge me heartily to the Immortal Memory of Old Moll!”
“I very much question,” returned I, “if either the good foundress of
the Church, or she to whom it was dedicated,--if Mary the Saint, or
Mary the Sinner,--were ever addressed by so unceremonious an epithet in
their lives; but, however, as it’s a parochial custom, and your wish,
here’s Prosperity to St. Saviour’s Church, and the Immortal Memory of
Old Moll!” Mr. Postern having made a low bow of acknowledgment for my
compliance, thus continued.
“I have made it evident then, and, indeed, it is agreed to on all
sides, that there _was_ a Wooden Bridge over the Thames, at London,
at least as early as the year 1052; and Maitland, at page 44 of his
History, is inclined to believe that it was erected between the years
993 and 1016, at the public cost, to prevent the Danish incursions
up the River. John Stow, however, in volume i., page 57, of his
‘_Survey_,’ attributes the building of the first Wooden Bridge over
the Thames, at London, to the pious Brothers of St. Mary’s Monastery,
on the Bankside. He gives you this account on the authority of Master
Bartholomew Fowle, _alias_ Fowler, _alias_ Linsted, the last Prior of
St. Mary Overies; who, surrendering his Convent on the 14th of October,
1540,--in the 30th year of Henry VIII.,--had a pension assigned him of
£100 per Annum, which it is well known, that he enjoyed until 1553.
This honest gentleman you find spoken of in John Stevens’s ‘_Supplement
to Sir William Dugdale’s Monasticon Anglicanum_,’ London, 1723, folio,
volume ii., page 98; and from him old Stow states, that, ‘a Ferry being
kept in the place where now the Bridge is built, the Ferryman and his
wife deceasing, left the said Ferry to their only daughter, a maiden
named Mary; which, with the goods left her by her parents, as also
with the profits rising of the said Ferry, built a house of Sisters in
the place where now standeth the East part of St. Mary Overies Church,
above the choir, where she was buried. Unto the which house she gave
the oversight and profits of the Ferry. But afterwards, the said house
of Sisters being converted into a College of Priests, the Priests built
the Bridge of Timber, as all the other great Bridges of this land
were, and, from time to time, kept the same in good reparations. Till
at length, considering the great charges of repairing the same, there
was, by aid of the Citizens of London, and others, a Bridge built with
arches of stone, as shall be shewed.’
“The first who attacks this story is William Lambarde, the Perambulator
of Kent, in his ‘_Dictionarium Angliæ Topographicum et Historicum_,’
London, 1730, quarto, page 176; wherein he scruples not to call Prior
Fowler ‘an obscure man,’ whom he charges with telling this narrative,
‘without date of time, or warrant of writing,’ and then sums up his
remarks in these words. ‘As for the first buildinge, I leave it to
eche man’s libertye what to beleve of it; but as for the name Auderie,
I think Mr. Fowler mistoke it, for I finde bothe in the Recordes of
the Queene’s Courtes and otherwise, it signifieth over the water, as
Southrey, on the South side of the water: the ignorance whereof, might
easily dryve Fowler--a man belyke unlearned in the Saxon tongue,--to
some other invention.’
“Maitland and Entick, at page 44 of their History, are not much more
believing than Lambarde, the Lawyer; for they assert that the Convent
of Bermondsey, founded by Alwin Child, a Citizen of London, in the year
1082, was the first religious house on the South side of the River,
within the Bills of Mortality. The second, say they, speaking after
Sir William Dugdale in his ‘_Monasticon Anglicanum_,’ London, 1661,
folio, pages 84, 940, was the Priory of St. Mary Overies, founded by
William Giffard, Bishop of Winchester, in the reign of King Henry I.
Now Bishop Tanner, in his ‘_Notitia Monastica_,’ best edition by James
Nasmith, Cambridge, 1787, folio, XX. Surrey,--for you know the book is
unpaged and arranged alphabetically under Counties, of which Pennant
heavily complains,--is inclined to think that Stow was in the right,
although he had not discovered any thing either in print or manuscript
to support his narrative. He is also willing to believe, that Bishop
Giffard did not do more for St. Mary Overies, than rebuild the body of
the Church: and, certainly, that he did not, in 1106, place Regular
Canons there, since he refers to Matthew of Westminster to prove that
they were then but newly come into England, and placed in that Church;
whilst Bishop Giffard was himself in exile until the year 1107. The
‘_Domesday Book_,’ also, the most veritable and invaluable record of
our land, thus hints at a Religious House in Southwark; which, as that
Survey was made about the year 1083, was, of course, long anterior to
the times of which I spake last. You will find the passage in Nichols’
edition of the register, London, 1783, folio, volume i. _Sudrie_, folio
32 a, column 1; and the words are as follow. ‘The same Bishop,’--that
is to say, Odo, Bishop of Baieux,--‘has in Southwark one Monastery, and
one Harbour. King Edward held it on the day he died.’--January the 5th,
1066--‘Whoever had the Church, held it of the King. From the profits
of the Harbour, where ships were moored, the King had two parts.’
‘Now,’ concludes the worthy Dr. Tanner, ‘if _Monasterium_ here denote
any thing more than an ordinary Church, it may be thought to mean this
Religious House, there being no pretence for any other in this Borough
to claim to be as old as the Confessor’s time, or, indeed, as the
making of the Domesday Book, A. D. 1083.’ _Vide_ Sign. U u 2; _Notes_
r, and s.