M DCC LXI.
[Click anywhere on map for high resolution image.]
LONDON
AND ITS
ENVIRONS
DESCRIBED, &c.
London, the metropolis of Great Britain, and one of the largest and richest cities upon earth, is of such antiquity that it is impossible to give any certain account of its origin. It probably existed in the time of the ancient Britons, before the art of writing was brought into England, and when there were no other monuments of ancient facts, than what were found in the songs of the bards, which were preserved only by memory.
It would be ridiculous therefore to lay any stress on the fabulous tales of Geffry of Monmouth, who pretends that it was founded by Brutus, the second nephew of the famous Æneas, and called Trinovantum, or New Troy, and that it was at length walled by King Lud, when it obtained the name of Caer Lud, or Lud’s Town. Upon which suppositions some of our later historians have had the weakness to compute, that it had its origin 1107 years before the birth of Christ; 600 years before the fall of the Assyrian empire by the death of Belshazzar, and 350 before the building of Rome.
But to leave these fabulous tales. Camden supposes that this city derived the name of London from the British words Llhwn a wood, and Dinas a town; by which etymology of the word, London signifies a town in a wood: this exactly agrees with the manner in which the Britons formed their towns, by building them in the midst of woods, and fencing them with trees cut down: but lest this derivation should not please, the same learned writer gives another, from the British word Lhong, a ship, and Dinas a city, and then the word London will signify a city or harbour for ships: and indeed it has been supposed by many learned authors, that before Cæsar’s time London was the ancient emporium or mart of the British trade with the Phœnicians, Greeks and Gauls.
London had however no buildings either of brick or stone, till it was inhabited by the Romans; for the dwellings of the Britons were only huts formed of twigs wattled together; however, Tacitus observes, that in the year 26, Londinum was very famous for the multitude of its merchants, and the greatness of its traffic; but soon after Suetonius abandoned the city to the fury of Boadicea, because it was too large to be defended by his little army of 10,000 Romans, which is certainly a proof of its being even then of a considerable extent. That British Princess however burnt this great city, and put all the inhabitants to the sword.
London soon recovered from this dreadful catastrophe, and in a few years increased so much in the number of its inhabitants, its trade and buildings, that Herodian, in the life of the Emperor Severus, calls it a great and wealthy city, and about this time it changed the name of Londinum, for that of Augusta; probably from its being the capital of the British dominions, and was made a prefecture by the Romans, in imitation of Rome itself: but it soon after changed the name of Augusta for that of Caer-Llundain.
It will not be improper here to observe, that a dispute has arisen about the situation of this city in these early times; the Rev. and learned Dr. Gale, Dean of York, and Mr. Salmon, having offered many arguments to prove that it was a Roman station erected in St. George’s Fields, to secure their conquests on that side the river, before they reduced the Trinobantines; particularly from the great quantities of Roman antiquities found in St. George’s Fields; from the name of Cyningston, or Kennington, which Dr. Gale supposes was an ancient town and castle belonging to the Kings of England, and therefore probably a Roman station, because the Saxons generally used to settle in such places; and from the authority of Ptolemy, who has placed London on the south side of the Thames. In answer to these arguments, it has been very justly observed by Mr. Maitland, that the Romans were too wise to make use of so noisome and unhealthful a place for a station, as St. George’s Fields then was, from their being overflowed by every spring tide; as they must have been before the river was confined by artificial banks, and before the building of London bridge, where, upon an ordinary spring tide, the water rises upwards of nineteen inches higher on the east side than on the west: that, if the antiquities discovered are any proof, above twenty times the quantity of Roman antiquities have been found on the north side of the river. With respect to the argument produced from the name of Kennington, the learned Mr. Woodward observes, that the Kings of England were, from our oldest notices of things, intitled to all such lands as were gained from the sea, or from such rivers as ebbed and flowed; and that with respect to the authority of Ptolemy, he had not only misplaced several other towns in Britain, but in countries much nearer to him.