What is now called Lynn, Lynn Regis, or the Borough of King’s Lynn, is generally considered as a place of no very high antiquity. It arose probably during the Heptarchy, out of the ruins of the old town, though not built on the same spot, and must soon have become a place of no small consideration in the kingdom of the East Angles, as may very reasonably be concluded, from the convenience of its situation for trade and commerce. We hear not much of it, however till after the conquest, when it presently appears as a place of growing importance, under the direction and management of its new French masters, the enterprising companions and agents of the successful Norman adventurer, the Bonaparte of the eleventh century.
But though no traces can be discovered of the existence of a town on the eastern side of the river, prior to the time of the Heptarchy, it is more than probable, that there was a town on the opposite, or western side, long anterior to that period. That town has not yet entirely disappeared. It may still be recognized in the little village called Old Lynn; a name which plainly indicates, that the original town must have stood there. It is well known that the town on the eastern side was formerly called New Lynn, or rather New Len, and that the other was then distinguished from it by the name of Old Len. No good reason can be assigned for this, but that the latter was the original town, known by the name of Len long before the other had any existence. The attempt made by Spelman, Parkin, and others to elude this conclusion is weak and frivolous. It does not appear that there ever has been any period, since the eastern, or modern town existed, when the inhabitants did not apply the name of Old Len, or Old Lynn to the other. There can therefore be no manner of doubt, but that it is to this same old Lynn we are to look for the site of the ancient and original town. It is probable, indeed, that that town might extend much nigher to the spot now occupied by the present town, than what the village of Old Lynn now does, as the bed of the river was formerly very narrow, compared with what it is at present; and the waters are allowed to have made considerable encroachments on the western shore. When, and by whom the original town was founded, as well as, what may be the true etymology, or real meaning of its name, are points that are involved in no small obscurity, and cannot, therefore, be very easily and clearly settled, or ascertained. It seems, however, highly probable, if not certain, as shall be shewn by and by, that it took its name from its marshy situation, and was founded by the Romans, at the time when they undertook to drain the fen-country, and rescue Marshland, by strong embankments, from the power and ravages of the ocean. It may also pretty safely be concluded, that this must have taken place within the first century of the christian era, and probably in the reign of Nero, if not in that of Claudius. [215] The foundation of Lynn may therefore be considered as coeval with the first introduction of Christianity into this island; which was nearly if not quite 1750 years ago: and though this fixes the origin of Lynn at a pretty remote period, and much beyond what has hitherto been supposed, yet it seems to be supported by no small degree of probability.
Section II.
A short digression relating to the first Introduction of Christianity into Britain—Bardism.
Having, at the close of the preceding section, suggested an opinion that the origin of Lynn was coeval with the first Introduction of Christianity into this country, it will not, it is presumed, be any way improper, or unacceptable to the reader to offer here a few observations toward ascertaining the time when the last mentioned event took place, especially as all our English writers and antiquaries have left the matter very much in the dark.
Gildas, a writer of the sixth century, and the most ancient of all our British historians, states that “the Gospel began to be published here about the time of the memorable revolt and overthrow of the Britons under Boadicea,” which happened in the year 60 or 61, and was followed by a long interval of peace, which could not fail of proving favourable to the introduction of the new religion and the general success of its publishers. Speaking of the said revolt, together with its disastrous termination and consequences, Gildas adds, “In the mean time, Christ, the true Sun, afforded his rays, that is, the knowledge of his precepts, to this Island, benumbed with extreme cold, having been at a great distance from the sun; not the sun in the firmament, but the eternal sun in heaven.”
This account, given by Gildas, is remarkably corroborated by the Triads of the Isle of Britain, which are ancient British documents of undoubted credit, though but little known. [217a] From them we learn that the famous Caradoc, or Caractacus, having been overthrown in the war, and afterwards basely betrayed and delivered up to the Romans, by Aregwedd Voeddig (the Cartismandua of Roman authors) was, together with his father Brân, (or Brennus) and whole family, carried captive to Rome, about the year 52, where they were detained seven years, or more. At that time Rome enjoyed the preaching of the gospel, and Brân with others of the family became converts to the christian religion. After the expiration of their captivity, they returned home, and were the means of introducing the knowledge of Christ among their countrymen: on which account, Brân is called, one of the three holy sovereigns, and his family, one of the three holy lineages of Britain. The Triads also have preserved the names of three of the primitive christians who accompanied Brân on his return to this country, and who were probably the very first christian ministers that ever set foot on this island: one was an Israelite of the name of Ilid; of the other two, one was called Cyndav, and the other Arwystli Hên, or Arwystli the aged. [217b] This account is very curious, and, in all probability, authentic. [217c]
When Brân returned to his native country, it has been understood that some of his family stayed behind and settled at Rome. Of them Claudia, mentioned, along with Pudens and Linus, in the second Epistle to Timothy, is supposed to be one, and the very same with Claudia the wife Pudens, mentioned by the poet Martial, who lived in those times, and who celebrates her, in his Epigrams, as a Briton of extraordinary beauty, wit, and virtue. To this it has indeed been objected, that Martial, living in the reign of Trajan, cannot be supposed to speak of Paul’s Claudia, who flourished in the reigns of Claudius and Nero. But it might be urged in reply, that though he lived in Trajan’s reign, he lived also, and resided at Rome, in the reign of Vespasian, if not in that of Nero; and the Epigrams in which he mentions Claudia might be written in his younger years, when she was in the prime and bloom of life. Some have made her to be the daughter of Caractacus, which seems not at all unlikely. Pomponia Græcina, the wife of Aulus Plautius, Claudius’ Lieutenant, and the first Roman Governor here, has also been, thought a Briton and a christian, and one of the earliest British Christians. Tacitus speaks of her as an illustrious lady, but accused for having embraced a strange and foreign superstition; [218] and though he says she was acquitted, as to any thing immoral, yet he represents her as leading ever after a gloomy and melancholy kind of life: all which will strictly coincide with the idea of her being a christian. Tacitus could conceive or express himself no otherwise of a person dissenting from his own pagan tenets, or of a religion disallowed by the Roman law, which was with him the standard of truth, rectitude, and orthodoxy. The above accusation and trial of Pomponia Græcina took place, it seems, while Nero and Calphurnus Piso were Consuls, and after Paul had come to Rome the first time, and therefore she may not unreasonably be supposed one of his converts.
Other authorities render it highly probable, that some of those captives had embraced Christianity during their residence at Rome; but the Triads, above-mentioned, may be said to settle the point, and reduce the matter to a certainty. They were documents formed on purpose to preserve and perpetuate the memory of remarkable and interesting events; of which sort may justly be considered, the conversion of Brân and family, and their introducing Christianity into this island. There is every reason to conclude, that the religion of the first British Christians was venerably simple, pure, and perfect, like what appears in the New Testament, and very widely different from that of the men of the present generation. But this subject we will now drop, and resume the thread of the narrative. [219]