THE SURVEY
OF LONDON

BY ❦ JOHN
STOW Citizen
of London

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—

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

REFERENCES TO THE MAP
ON PAGES xvi AND xvii

CONTENTS

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.

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.

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.

And now touching the maintenance and reparing the said wall. I read, that in the year 1215, the 16th of King John,[17] the barons, entering the city by Aldgate, first took assurance of the citizens, then brake into the Jews’ houses, searched their coffers to fill their own purses, and after with great diligence repaired the walls and gates of the city with stone taken from the Jews’ broken houses. In the year 1257, Henry III. caused the walls of this city, which were sore decayed and destitute of towers, to be repaired in more seemly wise than before, at the common charges of the city. Also in the year 1282,[18] King Edward I. having granted to Robert Kilwarby, archbishop of Canterbury, license for the enlarging of the Blackfriars’ church, to break and take down a part of the wall of the city, from Ludgate to the river of Thames; he also granted to Henry Wales, mayor, and the citizens of London, the favour to take, toward the making of the wall and enclosure of the city, certain customs or toll, as appeareth by his grant. This wall was then to be made from Ludgate west to Fleet bridge along behind the houses, and along by the water of the Fleet unto the river of Thames. Moreover, in the year 1310, Edward II. commanded the citizens to make up the wall already begun, and the tower at the end of the same wall, within the water of Thames near unto the Blackfriars, etc. 1328, the 2nd of Edward III., the walls of this city were repaired. It was also granted by King Richard II. in the tenth year of his reign, that a toll should be taken of the wares sold by land or by water for ten years, towards the repairing of the walls, and cleansing of the ditch about London. In the 17th of Edward IV. Ralph Joceline, mayor, caused part of the wall about the city of London to be repaired; to wit, betwixt Aldgate and Aldersgate. He also caused Moorfield to be searched for clay, and brick thereof to be made and burnt; he likewise caused chalk to be brought out of Kent, and to be burnt into lime in the same Moorfield, for more furtherance of the work. Then the Skinners to begin in the east made that part of the wall betwixt Aldgate and Bevis Marks, towards Bishopsgate, as may appear by their arms in three places fixed there: the mayor, with his company of the Drapers, made all that part betwixt Bishopsgate and Allhallows church, and from Allhallows towards the postern called Moorgate. A great part of the same wall was repaired by the executors of Sir John Crosby, late alderman, as may appear by his arms in two places there fixed: and other companies repaired the rest of the wall to the postern of Cripplegate. The Goldsmiths repaired from Cripplegate towards Aldersgate, and there the work ceased. The circuit of the wall of London on the land side, to wit, from the Tower of London in the east unto Aldgate, in 82 perches; from Aldgate to Bishopsgate, 86 perches; from Bishopsgate in the north to the postern of Cripplegate, 162 perches; from Cripplegate to Aldersgate, 75 perches; from Aldersgate to Newgate, 66 perches; from Newgate in the west to Ludgate, 42 perches; in all, 513 perches of assize. From Ludgate to the Fleet-dike west, about 60 perches; from Fleetbridge south to the river Thames, about 70 perches; and so the total of these perches amounteth to 643, every perch consisting of five yards and a half, which do yield 3536 yards and a half, containing 10,608 feet, which make up two English miles and more by 608 feet.