London Before the Conquest. W. R. Lethaby

tion>

       W. R. Lethaby

      London Before the Conquest

      Published by Good Press, 2021

       [email protected]

      EAN 4057664608444

Table of Contents

       INTRODUCTION

       CHAPTER I

       CHAPTER II

       CHAPTER III

       CHAPTER IV

       CHAPTER V

       CHAPTER VI

       CHAPTER VII

       CHAPTER VIII

       CHAPTER IX

       CHAPTER X

       APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION

       Table of Contents

      A great burh, Lundunaborg, which is the greatest and most famous of all burhs in the northern lands.—Ragnar Lodbrok Saga.

      Of the hundreds of books concerning London, there is not one which treats of its ancient topography as a whole. There are, it is true, a great number of studies dealing in an accurate way with details, and most of the general histories incidentally touch on questions of reconstruction. Of these, the former are, of course, the more valuable from the topographical point of view, yet even an exhaustive series of such would necessarily be inadequate for representing to us the ancient city in a comprehensive way.

      In an inquiry as to the ancient state of a city, a general survey, besides bringing isolated details into due relation, may suggest new matter for consideration in regard to them, and offer fresh points of proof. For instance, the extra-mural roads were directed to the several gates, the gates governed the internal streets, while these streets ran through wards, and gave access to churches and other buildings.

      The subject of London topography is such an enormous one, and the involutions of unfounded conjecture are so manifold, that an approximation to the facts can only be obtained by a critical resifting of the vast extant stores of evidence. In the present small essay I have, of course, not been able to do this in any exhaustive way; but I have for years been interested in the decipherment of the great palimpsest of London, and, in trying to realise for myself what the city was like a thousand years ago, I have in some part reconsidered the evidences. The conclusions thus reached cannot, I think, be without some general interest, although from the very nature of my plan they are presented in the form of notes on particular points, and discussions of opinions commonly held, with little attempt at unity, and none at a pictorial treatment of the subject.

      Of mistaken views still largely or nearly universally accepted which will be traversed here, I may mention a few salient examples. For instance, Stow’s opinion that London Bridge before the twelfth century was far to the east of the later bridge, and that the mural ditch was a mediæval work; Stukeley’s opinion that the old approach through Southwark pointed on Dowgate, that Old Street was the great west-to-east Roman road, and that Watling Street in the city carries on the name of a street which formerly lay across its course, running from London Bridge to Newgate. From more recent writers, I may cite Mr. J. E. Price’s idea that the Cheap was not at an early time a thoroughfare; Mr. J. R. Green’s views,[1] as given in his Conquest of England, that Saxon London “grew up on ground from which the Roman city had practically disappeared”; that the Roman north gate and the north-to-south street were considerably to the east of the line of Bishopsgate and Gracechurch Street; and that the Tower of London was built by the Conqueror on “open ground only recently won from the foreshore of the river.” The plan which accompanies these views is equally visionary; a large quarter of the city east of St. Paul’s is lettered “The Cheap”; there is no Aldgate Street (now Leadenhall Street), the Langbourne appears as a stream, and there is a curious selection of churches, amongst which is St. Denis, for which we are referred to a note in Thorpe’s Ancient Laws, regarding a gift of London property to the monastery of St. Denis in Francia. Mr. Loftie holds that Aldgate was first opened in the time of Henry I., and that no mediæval gate exactly occupied a Roman site; that the eastern road turned off outside Bishopsgate; that Ludgate was still more recent than Aldgate, and that it only opened on the Fleet river; that the Strand was not a route before mediæval days; that there was a Roman citadel on the high ground from the Walbrook to Mincing Lane, and that the Langbourne was a ditch to this stronghold. In the last book on the subject, called Mediæval London, we are again told of the oblique Roman Watling Street; Cheap is described as “a great square”; and it is assumed that not only the Langbourne, but the equally mythical Oldbourne, supplied the city with water.

      Fig. 1.—Goddess of Hope

       (Roman Bronze found in London).

      I have here only rapidly set down a few of the opinions which are still current[2]—views which are repeated, embellished, and amplified to distraction in more popular writings, and set out with much appearance of exactitude in most misleading maps.

      The whole question, indeed, of the early topography of London is overloaded on a quite insufficient basis of fact, and quakes and gives way under the least pressure of examination.

CHAPTER I

       Table of Contents

      ORIGINS—THE LEGEND OF LONDON—THE BRITISH CHURCH—THE

       ENGLISH COME TO LONDON—ALFRED’S LONDON

Like as the Mother of the gods, they say, Old Cybele, aray’d with pompous pride, Wearing a diademe embattild wide With hundred turrets, like a turribant: With such an one was Thamis beautifide; That was to weet the famous Troynovant. The Faerie Queen.

      Origins.—The earliest historic monument of London is its name. The name Londinium first appears in Tacitus under the date of A.D. 61 as that of an oppidum “not dignified with the name of a colony, but celebrated for the gathering of dealers and commodities.”

      Dr. Guest propounded the theory that the city was founded by Plautius, the general of Claudius: “When in 43 he drew the lines round his camp, he founded the present metropolis.... The name of London refers directly to the marshes.”[3] Dr. Guest is here apparently in agreement with Godfrey Fausett’s view that the name London represents Llyn-din, the Lake-fort.[4] Many