LONDON’S NAME

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 53, Issue 3807, 11 September 1936, Page 9

LONDON’S NAME

THE MYSTERY OF ITS ORIGIN. REFERENCES IN THE EARLY CHRONICLES. (By “ Portreeve.”) Much speculation has taken place as to the probable date of the origin of London and as to the meaning of the name of the place. While it is ’held by some that there is no evidence in support of the theory that it existed in pre-Roman times, there is general agreement that the name is of Celtic or Brythonic derivation, which in itself seems to point to the probability of a very early foundation. In the report of the Royal Commission on the ancient and historical monuments of England, dealing with Roman London, Dr R. E. Mortimer Wheeler, who wrote the introduction to the third volume of the report, mentions all the references to London by classical authorities. The first of these is that of the Roman historian Tacitus (c. A.D. 55-120), whose words are so often quoted inasmuch as they are the first written record of the existence of London. He writes to this effect: “ Now Suetonius with remarkable determination marched straight through the midst of the enemy to Londonium, a place not indeed distinguished by the title of * colony ’ but crowded with traders and a great centre of commerce.” Tacitus was contemporary with the events which he describes, and thus we get direct evidence as to the name by which London was known to the Romans. Ptolemy, the geographer (c. A.D. 100-151), makes three passing references to Londonium as one of the principal cities in Kent. Cassius Dio (c. A.D. 150-235), who describes the advance of the Roman army of invasion under Aulus Plautius in the year 43, apparently refers to the London district, although he does not name the town, when he writes: “ Thence the Britons retired to the river Thames at a point near where it empties into the ocean and at flood tide forms a lake.” Othy writers who lived towards the close of the period of the Roman occupation of Britain speak of “ Lundinium, an ancient town, which has since been named Augusta,” and of “ Augusta, which the ancients used to call Lundinium.” From writings after the Roman occupation it would seem that the name Augusta was dropped, for the names given are variously Lindonion, Londonis, and Landini. There remains, of course, no historical record of the Roman period made in this country. Whatever records were made, and doubtless there were many, must have all perished in the troublous period which followed the official departure of the Romans. Whether London continued to exist without any break in its occupation is a matter of conjecture, but eventually it again arose to a position of great importance, and its origin and early history became a matter of tradition.

It is interesting, therefore, to study the early British chronicles. They are mostly written in Latin, and the earliest of them has come down to us as the work of Gildas, sumamed Sapiens, or “ the wise” (c. A.D. 516570). Little is known of him, but he was a Briton, and his writings are full of lamentations over the condition of his fellow countrymen. The historical section of his work is, however, the only part of real interest. He writes: “The island of Britain, • situated on almost the utmost border of the earth, towards the south and 5 west, and poised in the divine balance, as it is said, which supports the whole world, stretches out from the south-west towards the north pole, and is 800 miles long and 200 broad. It is enriched by the mouths of two noble rivers, the Thames and the Severn, as it were two arms, by which foreign luxuries were of old imported and by other streams of less importance. It is famous for eight and twenty cities, and is embellished by certain castles, with walls, towers, well-barred gates, and houses with threatening battlements built on high, and provided with all requisite instruments of defence. Its plains are spacious, its hills are pleasantly situated, adapted for superior tillage, and its mountains are admirably calculated for the alternate pasturage of cattle, where flowers of various colours, trodden by the feet of man, give it the appearance of a lovely . picture. It is decked, like a man’s chosen bride, with divers jewels, with lucid fountains and abundant brooks wandering over the snow-white sands; with transparent rivers, flowing in gentle murmurs and offering a sweet pledge of slumber to those who recline upon their banks, while it is irrigated by abundant lakes, which pour forth cool torrents of refreshing water.” Although Gildas makes another reference to the noble river Thames, he V .does not mention London. The next chronicle is the “ Historia Britonum” (History of Britain) ascribed to Nennius, a native of South Wales, who flourished at the end of the eighth and the beginning of the r inth century. This work is supposed to be a redaction or recension of a compilation by an unknown author of a century or so earlier. Nennius also

writes in Latin, and in his prorogue states that he derives his knowledge “partly from the traditions of our ancestors, partly from writings and monuments of the ancient inhabitants of Britain, partly from the annals of the Romans and the chronicles of the sacred fathers.” He records thus: “ The island of Britain derives its name from Brutus, a Roman consul. Taken from the south-west point it inclines a little towards the west, and to its northern extremity measures 800 miles, and is in breadth 200. It contains thirty-three cities.” He recites their names, among them being “ Cair londein ” (London).

He adds that Britain is “ fertilised by several rivers, which traverse it ir all directions, to the east and west, to teh south and north; but there are two pre-eminently distinguished among the rest, the Thames and the Severn, which formerly, like the two arms of Britain, bore the ships employed in the conveyance of the riches acquired by commerce.” Later he tells of Julius Caesar having defeated the Britons near a place called Trinovantum 47 years before the birth of Christ and 5212 years from the Creation.

Nennius does not explain how the name Trinovantum came to be applied to London. A later chronicle does — the celebrated “ History of the Kings of Britain,” of Geoffrey of Monmouth. Geoffrey was born probably about 1100 and died in 1154. In his history we get full-blown Arthurian romance if not sober history, but how much of truth lies at the basis of the traditions he was drawing upon it is difficult to say. “ Britain, best of islands,” he writes, according to the beautiful translation of Dr Sebastian Evans, “ lieth in the Western Ocean betwixt Gaul and Ireland, and containeth 800 miles in length and 200 in breadth. Whatsoever is fitting for the use of mortal men the island doth afford in unfailing plenty. For she abounaeth in metals of every kind; fields hath she, stretching far and wide, and hillsides meet for tillage of the best, whereon by reason of the fruitfulness of the soil, the divers crops in their season do yield their harvests. Forests also hath she filled with every manner of wild deer, in the glades whereof groweth grass that the cattle may find therein meet change of pasture, and flowers of many colours that do proffer their honey unto the bees that flit ever busily about them. Meadows hath she, set in pleasant places, green at the foot of misty mountains, wherein be sparkling well-springs clear and bright, flowing forth with a gentle whispering ripple in shining streams that sing sweet lullaby unto them that lie upon tehir banks. Watered is she, moreover, by lakes and rivers, wherein is much fish, and, besides the narrow sea of the southern coast whereby men make voyage unto Gaul, by three noble rivers, Thames, to wit, Severn, and Humber, the which she stretcheth forth as it were three arms whereby she taketh in the traffic from overseas brought hither from every land in her fleets. By twice ten cities, moreover, and twice four, was she graced in days of old, whereof some with shattered walls in desolate places be now fallen into decay, whilst some still do contain Churches of the Saints with towers builded wondrous fair on high, wherein companies of religious, both men and women, do their service unto God after the tradition of the Christian faith.”

It is in Geoffrey that we get in detail the old story invented to explain how this country came to be called Britain. After the Trojan War, we are told, Aeneas, fleeing from the desolation of Troy, obtained the kingdom of Italy, and it was from him that Brutus was deseended. Brutus, in accordance with a prophecy made by a goddess that a new Troy should be built by him in a promised land, came in due time to an island called Albion, which was inhabited only by a few giants. “ Then, at last. Brutus called the island Britain and his companions Britons after his own name, for he was minded that his memory should be perpetuated in the derivation of the name.”

Then we come to the explanation of the origin of London. “ After he had seen his kingdom, Brutus was minded to build him a chief city, and following out his intention, he went round the whole circuit of the land in search of a fitting site. When he came to the river Thames he walked along the banks till he found the very spot best fitted to his purpose. He therefore founded his city there and called it New Troy, and by this name was it known for many ages thereafter, until at last, by corruption of the word, it came to be called Trinovantum. But afterwards Lud, the brother of Cassibelaumus, who fought with Julius Caesar, possessed him of the helm of the kingdom, and surrounded the city with right noble walls, as well as with towers builded with marvellous art, commanding that it should be called Kaerlud—-this is the City of Lud—after his own name. Whence afterward a contention arose betwixt him and his brother Nennius who took it ill that he should be minded to do away the name of Troy in his own country. But since Gildas, the historian, hath treated of this contention at sufficient length, I have chosen the rather to pass it over, lest that which so great a writer hath already set forth in so eloquent a style, I should only seem to besmirch in mine own homelier manner of speech.” Later in his work Geoffrey gives

another account of the establishment of London. “ After him succeeded his son Hely (Beli) and ruled the Kingdom for 40 years. Unto him were born three sons, Lud, Cassibelaumus, and Nennius, whereof the eldest born, Lud, to wit, took the Kingdom on his father’s death. Thereafter, for that a right glorious city-builder was he, he renewed the walls of Trinovantum and girdled it around with innumerable towers. He did likewise enjoin the citizens that they should build houses and stately fabrics therein so as that no city in far-off Kingdoms should contain fairer palaces. He himself was a man of war, and bountiful in giving of feasts. And, albeit that he had many cities in his dominion, yet this dd he love above all other, and therein did he sojourn the greater part of the whole year, whence it was afterward named Kaerlud, and after that, by corruption of the name, Kaerlondon. In a later day, by the changing of the tongues, it was called Lindon, and yet later, after the landing of the foreign folk that did subdue the country unto themselves, hath it been called Londres. After the death of Lud his body was buried in the aforesaid city nigh unto that gate which even yet is called Porthlud in British, but in Saxon Ludgate.’ The Chronicle of Henry of Huntington (c. 1080-1150) and that of William of Malmesbury (c. 10951150) may be mentioned. The former so far as it relates to London and to the early history of Britain is merely a repetition of earlier writers such as Gildas, Nennius, and Bede, while the latter only professes to deal with events from the coming of the Angles and Saxons into Britain in the middle of the fifth century. Apart from the Latin Chronicles alluded to, we have writings in the Wlelsh language such as the Red Book of Hergest, which is h fourteenth century manuscript containing a wealth of literature, much of it being considerably older than the manuscript itself. One of the old world tales in it is “ The Story of Llud and Llevelys.’ It begins:— “Beli the Great, the son of Manogan, had three sons, Lludd, and Caswallawn, and Nynyaw; and according to the story he had a fourth son called Llevelys. And after the death of Beli, the Kingdom of the Island of Britain fell into the hands of Lludd, his eldest son; and Lludd ruled prosperously and re-built the walls of Llundein and encompassed it about with numberless towers. And after that he bade the citizens build houses therein, such as no houses in the Kingdom could equal. And moreover he was a mighty warrior and generous and liberal in giving meat and drink to all that sought them. And though he had many castles and cities this one loved he more than any. And he dwelt therein most part of the year, and therefore was it called Kaer lud and at last Cacr lundein. And after the stranger-race came there, it was called Lundein or Lwndrys.” . 'When we read the description of Britain by Gildas, Nennius, and Geoffrey in the various renderings of the different translators it will be seen that they are almost word for word the same. It is obvious that those writers were quoting from the same source, probably the work of some unknown Welsh genius which has been lost, for there is internal evidence to the effect that the original was probably in the Welsh language.

The tradition of Belin still survives in “ Belinsgate ” and of Lud in the name “ Ludgate,” and it is an interesting speculation how Belin and Lud, who were probably old Celtic deities, came to be associated with London. We are still far from ascertaining what was the original name of London, which the Romans Latinised into Londinium. It is evident that when the early British Chronicles were written the town was so many hundreds of years old that its origin was even then lost. —' P.L.A. Monthly.