Appendix
On Materials for the Construction of Maps of Early London
In bringing this topographical essay to a conclusion, it may be desirable to note a few observations on the materials we possess for making a map of early London, the reconstruction of which, with considerable fulness and accuracy, is possible. We have in the Survey of Leeke, made directly after the great fire, and engraved on two sheets by Vertue from a parchment original, now in the MS. room of the British Museum (5415. E.I.), an admirable starting-point. Even the widths of the streets are figured on this plan, and the forms of St. Paul’s and the other old churches are given with fair precision. It is entitled “An Exact Survey of the Streets, Lanes, and Churches, comprehended within the Ruins of the City of London; first described in six platts in December, Anno Domini, 1666. By John Leeke.... And here reduced into one entire platt by John Leeke.” This parchment was engraved by Hollar to a smaller scale, with the unburnt portions of the city added in isometrical projection. On this plan the ward boundaries are carefully laid down. As to the ground-plan of the portions left uninjured by the fire, we can supplement Leeke’s Survey by the plan Wren made for reconstructing the city, now at Oxford, which shows the streets and churches of the uninjured areas; and from Ogilvie’s large map, made only a few years later, details, such as the block-plans of the churches in the unburnt part, can be filled in with greater accuracy. From Faithorne’s map, 1658, some additional facts, especially as to Southwark and the suburbs, can be obtained, as it is of large extent.221 Putting all these together, we have an exact map of London as it existed at the moment of the fire. Afterwards a few modifications were made in the streets, but the plan of old London remained practically unchanged till Southwark Bridge was built and Queen Street made to lead to it.
We can now check our plan and add to the names of the streets from Stow’s perambulation of every street and alley, and his account of ward boundaries and parishes. Further than this, however, we have in the remarkably clear plot of the city given in Braun and Hogenburghe’s Civitates Orbis Terrarum (1572), a survey of the city as it existed about 1570. It is often said that this view must date back to 1561 at least, as St. Paul’s spire, which was burnt in that year, is shown in it. But as it was known to be the intention to rebuild this famous spire at once, it seems probable that a view even in the interim would not leave it out. It is not quite certain who drew this admirable map. In the preface to a copy of the book which I have examined, George Braun of Cologne, January 1, 1575, speaks of the admirable industry of the painter Hogenburghe, and the living portraitures he had so carefully painted, so that the cities may be seen at a glance more easily than in reality. On comparing the prospects of other cities, it looks almost certain that London was drawn by the same hand which drew Paris, Brussels, etc. Hofnagle, who it is thought may have made this prospect, is known to have been in England in or before 1571. It is to be remarked in this connection that the plan of London is not numbered with the rest of the plates; it is marked A, and put in at the beginning of the series as if it came to hand late.
This valuable map, whoever it may have been drawn by, and whatever may be its exact date, is delineated according to a method which is still made use of at times—the buildings, trees, and other details being figured in perspective. This has resulted in giving the whole such a pictorial character, that the correctly planned basis is not at first apparent. I have not seen it pointed out that it is properly a map and not a view, and this method of projection may be what Braun refers to in the preface cited above. About this same time William Smith, the herald, made some drawings of cities; and on one of Bristol, which is drawn according to the same method as the London map we are now considering, he writes:—“Bristow, measured and laid in Platforme by me, W. Smith, at my being in Bristow the 30 and 31 July Ano Dni 1568” (Sloane MSS. 2596). Pictorial views of cities had been known for centuries; this “laying in platform” is, however, new. We may suppose that Smith, the Rouge Dragon, was not the first to make use of this method in his Survey of Bristol, and that there must even at this time have existed such a plan of London; it may also be pointed out that Smith’s MS. view of London, which may, however, have been made later than the one of Bristol, is plainly founded on Braun’s plan, or on some original used in common. Bagford speaks of having seen a single sheet on copper, from Temple Bar to St. Katharine’s and the Bank-side Southwark, which seemed to him the best of old London and perhaps the most ancient.
It is necessary to notice the large woodcut prospect usually called Aggas’ plan, if only to criticise this ascription, which is accepted in the Dictionary of National Biography. It is plain on comparing it with Braun’s plan that one of them is copied from the other, or a common original source, and this relation is made more certain when we notice that the large woodcut, which I shall call the Anonymous plan, has been cut down at the margins, and that it must originally have included Westminster and St. Katharine’s exactly like Braun’s. As the Anonymous woodcut plan is far inferior in workmanship to the other, and as it was still being printed from in the seventeenth century, there seems to be some likelihood that it is the copy, and yet, as we shall see, a “Large Mappe” existed before 1580. Although so little is known in regard to the Anonymous plan, there seems to be sufficient evidence to negative the idea propounded by Vertue that it was the work of Aggas. This idea he gained because a view of Oxford, drawn by Aggas in 1578, and published in 1588, speaks of his having had a desire to publish a plan of London, but (in 30 Queen Elizabeth, 1588) “meantime the measure, form, and sight I bring of ancient Oxford.” A trained surveyor like Aggas would hardly have brought out an enlarged copy of Braun’s map twenty years after the original. It is probable indeed, considering the spelling of the names, that Bagford’s observation on the Anonymous plan, that it seemed to have been “done in Holland,” is true. Mr. Thomas Dodd, in a MS. letter in the Crace Collection, points out a passage in Hakluyt where it is advised that the Pit and Jackman Expedition of 1580 should take with them the map of England and the “large Mappe of London.” Mr. Dodd goes on to point out that Hakluyt also refers to Clement Adams as an engraver on wood, and he might have been the author of such a large map, which may be the Anonymous woodcut plan. Mr. Overall, in his inconclusive preface to the reproduction of the Anonymous plan, shows that Giles Godhed had submitted “the Carde of London,” in 1562, to the Stationers’ Company. We might conclude that this was a large plan on the same projection as Braun and Hogenburghe’s plan, but this is uncertain, as just at this time there was published an engraved view of St. Paul’s and the neighbourhood, of which there is a unique copy at the Society of Antiquaries. The most beautiful plan known to me, executed after the manner of Braun’s cities, is a large plan of Bruges, signed by Marcus Gerard, pictor, 1562. Altogether I am inclined to think that there was such a plan of London existing before Braun’s, and that the Anonymous plan is a coarse copy of one of those made in Holland for popular sale some time before 1580. Braun’s plan, in any case, carries us back on firm ground to the end of the mediæval period, and by its aid we can check over our former results for an accurate plan of mediæval London.
Beyond this point we have an overwhelming mass of documentary evidence, by which the names of the streets, churches, and other landmarks, can be carried backwards by references in deeds, wills, patents, close-rolls, and Parliament-rolls, etc. etc. I have little doubt that almost every street and lane in London which existed in Stow’s day could be carried back by this means to the thirteenth century, and a good many can be shown to have borne the same names in the century after the Conquest.
Then we have the complete list of city churches in the time of Edward I. given in the Liber Custumarum. The parish boundaries probably remain much as at that time, and the wards in their present form go back as far. It may be noted that a study of the boundaries shows that the parishes are in the main subdivisions of wards, and not that wards are aggregations of parishes. Such general documentary evidence can be further supplemented by the data which we have in regard to particular buildings which are still in part existing, or of which we have plans and other evidence.
We can accurately reinstate the City wall with its bastions and gates, the Bridge and the Tower of London. We have ample particulars as to the Cathedral and precinct of St. Paul’s, with the line of the Close wall, the position of its gates, and the site of the Campanile in the north-east corner. The boundaries of the Conventual Establishments can be plotted, and the buildings within them can, in many cases, be laid down in detail. The plan of the Guildhall buildings may be reconstructed, and Hollar and Leeke’s map gives the position of the Halls of the several Companies. An attempt has been made in the body of this work to sift out what can be learned of a still more remote London.
The End
WORKS ON ARCHÆOLOGY AND ANTIQUITIES.
CHALFONT ST. GILES, PAST AND PRESENT. The Parish Church, Milton’s Cottage, Jordans, the Quakers’ Burial Ground, etc. By Pownoll W. Phipps, M.A. 8vo. Paper wrapper. 1s.
SAMOS AND SAMIAN COINS: An Essay. By Percy Gardner, Litt.D. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Notes
1 Mr. Green, from the long sections dealing with London in The Making of England and The Conquest of England, must be reckoned among the specialists on London. I shall often have to criticise Mr. Loftie’s conclusions, but I do so merely because those are the views in possession at the present time. His books have the distinction of having revived an interest in London topography.
2 E.g. Mr. Loftie’s most recent book, London Afternoons.
3 Origines Celticæ.
4 Loftie, vol. i. ch. ii.
5 Hearne actually says it is Long-town.
6 Canon Isaac Taylor, Dict. of Place-Names.
7 Social England, vol. i.
8 Rhys, Celtic Britain.
9 Ramsay, vol. i. p. 32.
10 See Ludgate below.
11 Now represented by Edgware Road.
12 See Dict. Nat. Biog., and De la Moyne Borderie.
13 Thorpe’s Ancient Laws.
14 Joceline de Brakelonde, p. 56, cited by Wright.
15 Cal. St. Paul’s MSS., Ninth Report Historic MSS. Com., p. 65.
16 Rhys, Celtic Britain; Elton’s Origins.
17 Thomas Wright says the Billings, a Saxon people, settled at Billingsgate, and Mr. W. H. Stevenson derives the name from Billing, a Saxon name.
18 There is probably some fact at the bottom of this story: perhaps the sword of St. Paul was carved on the Bishop’s Gate. According to Geoffrey, the older Belinus had been placed in a golden urn on Billingsgate.
19 Robert of Gloucester.
20 See the story of Lludd in the Mabinogion.
21 English Hist. Rev. vol. ii.
22 Episcopal Succession.
23 Celtic Britain, p. 124.
24 C. F. Keary, Vikings.
25 Asser.
26 Asser.
27 See Ramsay, Foundations of England, vol. i. p. 126.
28 Compare Tame, Tamar, Teme, Tean, Teign. See Surrey Collections, vol. v.
29 Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles, Camden Society.
30 See Green, Making of England, vol. i. p. 105; Surrey Collections, vol. iii.; and Athenæum, 1901, No. 3838.
31 Polyolbion.
32 Bailey.
33 Calendar of St. Paul’s MSS.
34 Dugdale’s Monasticon, art. “Temple”; and Round’s Geoffrey de Mandeville.
35 Transactions of London and Middlesex Archæological Society, vol. iv.
36 Hardy and Page, London and Middlesex Fines, vol. i. p. 3; see also Dugdale.
37 London and Middlesex Fines.
38 Kempe translates the same passage, “From the north angle of the City wall, where a rivulet of Springs near thereto flowing marks it out (i.e. the moor) from the wall as far as the running water which entereth the City” (Sanctuary of St. Martin).
39 Eng. Hist. Rev., 1896.
40 A.S. dictionaries give Wylle-burn = Wellbrook.
41 Other cases of churches called by personal names are St. Benet Fink, St. Martin Orgar, St. Martin Outwich, etc.
42 St. Stephen’s Walbrook is mentioned in a charter of c. 1100. See “Churches,” below.
43 Dr. Sharpe, Letter Book A.
44 Archæological Journal, vol. i. p. 111.
45 Roman Antiquities on Site of Safe Deposit, and Roman Pavement in Bucklersbury; see also Archæological Review, vol. iv.
46 Letter Book A.
47 Price, Safe Deposit, p. 30.
48 Origines Celticæ, vol. ii.
49 Sir J. H. Ramsay.
50 Maitland sounded the river, and thought that there had been a ford at Chelsea; and the large number of Celtic and Roman antiquities found from time to time at Battersea and Wandsworth incline me to the view that there was a passage here.
51 Horsley’s account of the Roman roads is still the best general authority; but see the Antiquary for 1901-2. The subject is being carefully re-examined in the new Victorian County Histories.
52 Thorpe.
53 The last, like all names compounded of “street,” is a significant name wherever found.
54 Clark, Military Architecture, vol. i. p. 31.
55 Hardy and Page, Fines; and see Stow.
56 London and Middlesex Archæological Society Trans., vol. iii. p. 563.
57 London and Middlesex Fines.
58 Ackerman’s Westminster, vol. i. p. 74.
59 For Old Ford see London and Middlesex Archæological Society Trans., vol. iii. p. 206.
60 Crawford Charters.
61 Bentley’s Cartulary of Westminster Abbey, p. 4.
62 See Archæologia, vol. xxvi., and, on the Tyburn, the London and Middlesex Archæological Society Trans., vol. vi.
63 Surrey Collections, vol. i.
64 See Faulkner’s Chelsea.
65 Kemble, No. 872. See also Arnold’s Streatham.
66 Eng. Hist. Rev. 1898.
67 See Rhys, Celtic Britain. The compiler of the pseudo-itinerary of R. of Cirencester writes Guethlin Street.
68 It has been argued that if the Britons had chariots they must also have had roads; and it is generally held that the Icknield and other “Ridgeways” are of British origin. Mr. Boyd Dawkins has recently shown, from objects found in a camp with which the Pilgrim Way from Canterbury is associated, that this ridge-road is early Celtic at latest. It seems reasonable to suggest that it joined the Icknield Way, and that they formed an early road-system crossing the river at Wallingford.
69 A paved way, thought to be the Watling Street, has just been found in Edgware Road. It was 20 feet wide, 3.6 below surface, and pitched with “boulders.” A fragment was also found in Oxford Street.
70 Kemble, Codex Dip. 591.
71 Powell and Vigfusson’s Corpus.
72 I do not share this view as to Claudius and the bridge. Sir J. H. Ramsay even suggests that it may have been the work of Cunobeline.
73 Roach Smith, Archæological Journal, vol. i. p. 112.
74 Bruce, Handbook to the Roman Wall.
75 See Price’s Bucklersbury.
76 Making of England, pp. 21, 105.
77 Hermann, De Mirac. S. Edmund, p. 43; see Eng. Hist. Rev. vol. xii. p. 49.
78 Home Counties Mag. vol. i.
79 Leland.
80 Earle, Land Charters; and Codex Dip. No. 280.
81 Cal. p. 25.
82 Archæologia, lii.
83 In the A.S. dictionaries Crepel stands for an underground passage: there is said to be a Cripplegate on the Wansdyke.
84 Archæologia, lii.
85 Loftie’s London, and London in “Historic Towns” series; maps in Green’s Short History, and in Miss Norgate’s Angevin Kings.
86 It seems necessary to notice these points in such excellent books, as they are repeated in Sir W. Besant’s London, p. 19, and more recent works, as if they were settled. Mr. Loftie, in a still later book, London City (1891), writes: “We know that Aldgate was opened about sixty years before FitzStephen’s time. Aldersgate must have been made soon after the Conquest, and Cripplegate, with its covered way to the Barbican, cannot have been much later.” In “Historic Towns” volume he says: “The foundations of the North Gate were lately found in Camomile Street. The massive masonry of the West Gate was also lately uncovered in Giltspur Street.” In his London Afternoons Ludgate appears as probably the latest of the gates. All this is conjecture and, as I have shown, contrary to the evidence.
87 London and Middlesex Archæological Society Trans. vol. iii.
88 Illustrations of Roman London.
89 Thorpe’s Ancient Laws.
90 Earle, Land Charter.
91 W. de G. Birch, London Charters.
92 Kemble, Codex Dip. No. 1074.
93 Leland, Coll. vol. i.
94 J. H. Round, Calendar of French Documents.
95 J. H. Round, Feudal England, p. 320.
96 London and the Kingdom.
97 Pauli, Pictures of Old London.
98 Price, Hist. Guildhall. In a deed, temp. Henry III., the Gildhall of the Cologne Merchants is said to be near Hay Wharf, for which see Stow.
99 J. H. Round, Calendar of French Documents. See also Soc de Waremanshaker and St. Peter Ghent in Dugdale, vol. ii. p. 384.
100 Calendar of St. Paul’s Documents.
101 Dugdale, vol. vi. p. 623.
102 Codex Dip. ii. p. 3.
103 Heimskringla.
104 C. F. Keary, Vikings, p. 125.
105 J. Earle, Saxon Chronicles.
106 It is true it has been shown by Mr. Round that about two centuries later than this time Arx was a technical word for a military tower, and it is used by FitzStephen for the Tower of London itself: on the other hand, passages cited in Domesday and Beyond, p. 187, show that earlier it was convertible with castrum or burh, and it is beginning to be believed that burh means a castrum rather than a mound. Grants of property run, “within Burh and without Burh, on Street and off Street.” Alfred himself writes of “Romeburh” and “Babylonburh.”
107 It is usually said that the members of the gild entered Holy Trinity Monastery, but this Mr. Round has shown is a misconception.
108 Alfred Memorial volume.
109 Journal British Archæological Association, 1900.
110 Domesday and Beyond, p. 192.
111 “I have been in White Hill in the Court of Cynvelyn” (Taliessin). According to a Triad it was Arthur who disinterred the head of Bran, disdaining to be so protected.
112 Dr. Maitland, Domesday and Beyond.
113 The Anglo-Saxon chronicler under 878 tells how Alfred made a geweorc at Athelney.
114 As to the Danes holding the burh with London, see above, p. 68. I find London “and the Boro” mentioned together early in the thirteenth century.
115 See G. R. Corner, Archæologia, vol. xxv.
116 Saxon Chronicle.
117 On the boundary of Paris Gardens was an embankment called the Old Broad Wall.
118 See “House of Lewes Priory,” Archæologia, vol. xxxviii.
119 So well informed a guide as Baedeker says the Abbey was so named with reference to Eastminster by the Tower, which was only founded in the fourteenth century.
120 See Sir J. H. Ramsay, vol. i. p. 422.
121 See, for example, Hardy and Page, London and Middlesex Fines, p. 3. This volume also shows that Norton Folgate was formerly called Norton Folyot from a well-known family.
122 Calendar of St. Paul’s Documents, p. 25.
123 A sixteenth-century London document has “stoop or post.”
124 Athenæum, 8th July 1899.
125 Compare “portmeadows” and lands belonging to citizens elsewhere. At Colchester in 1086 there was a strip eight perches wide surrounding the town wall. As late as 1833 the borough of Bedford included “a broad belt of land.” For a full account of the commonable fields of Cambridge and a discussion of the subject generally, see Maitland’s Township and Borough. The London boundary was called the Line of Separation.
126 The common pasturage of Westminster is mentioned in a charter.
127 London and Middlesex Archæological Society Trans., vol. v. See also for these documents Dr. Sharpe’s Letter Book C.
128 See also Stow’s account of the alienation of common lands. Mile-End, according to Froissart, was “a fair plain place where the people of the city did sport them in summer.”
129 Fenchurch also seems to have been connected with this land, or at least the eastern suburb.
130 The Friday fair of horses still lasted when Froissart wrote his account of Wat Tyler.
131 Township and Borough and Village Community.
132 Hudson Turner.
133 Making of England.
134 See Green’s Conquest of England.
135 In the summary of reigns at the end of Florence’s Chronicle he speaks more than once of “London and the adjacent country” as going together.
136 See L. Gomme, Village Community, p. 212.
137 Munday. Loftie says there was another Romeland at Dowgate.
138 Calendar of Ancient Deeds.
139 See J. H. Round, Commune of London, p. 99.
140 Riley, Sharpe, Loftie’s two books, French Chronicle of London, notes.
141 Or Langbourne and Fenny-about, as the east and west halves of this ward seem to have been sometimes called.
142 Sharpe’s Calendar of Wills, vol. i.
143 Calendar of Ancient Deeds, vol. iii.
144 Riley’s Memorials.
145 The Liber Trinitatis states that the precinct of Holy Trinity Aldgate was “of old” (pre-Conquest) one parish of Holy Rood. Two adjoining parishes are mentioned in a twelfth century charter (Commune of Lond. p. 253)—St. Laurence de Judaismo and St. Marie de Aldermanebury.
146 Judicia civitatis Londoniæ.
147 Liber Albus, p. 80.
148 A document of about 1120-30 at St. Paul’s gives us the name of “Salidus, Bedellus Warde.”
149 Liber Albus, p. 32.
150 Archæological Journal, vol. iv. p. 278.
151 Kemble, Codex Dip. 685.
152 See Dugdale, who is wrong, however, in saying it was called a “Palatine tower.” Stow applies this grant to Bridewell by mistake.
153 See the genealogy as given by Mr. Round. It is interesting to find that the arms of Fitzwalter, the banner-bearer of London, a fess between two cheverons, is but a difference from the three cheverons of Clare.
154 The arms of the Munfichets were similar to the arms of Clare, with the difference only of a label of five points. From this fact we may suppose that the families were allied. Munfichet Castle afterwards fell into the hands of the Fitzwalters.
155 Howell’s Londinopolis, 1657.
156 Dr. H. J. Nicholson, History of the Abbey of St. Albans, Newcourt, and Maitland’s London, vol. ii. p. 1051.
157 Dr. Sharpe considers that the Royal was the name of a street near Dowgate, so called from La Reole, near Bordeaux.
158 T. E. Price, Safe Deposit, p. 29.
159 Archæol. xxix.
160 J. Kempe, Archæologia, vol. xxiv.
161 A large open Cheap is put in various parts by different writers. Mr. Joseph Jacobs, in an interesting inquiry as to the Jewry, makes the ground south of the Guildhall an open market.
162 Codex Dip. i. p. 133. The Wilton Domesday gives a Magnus Vicus at Winchester.
163 Parentalia.
164 London and Middlesex Transactions, vol. ii.
165 See J. E. Price, Safe Deposit. Price claims that the crypt found by Wren at Bow Church and described as Roman by him is not the now existing crypt. But the text and index of Parentalia plainly prove that the present church was built on it, and therefore it was the existing Norman structure.
Price says that remains of a bridge were found in Bucklersbury, and that a Roman road, possibly a continuation of that by Bow Church, passed here.
166 Hudson Turner’s Domestic Archr., vol. i. App.; Calendar of St. Paul’s Documents, Sharpe’s Calendar of Wills, Calendar of Ancient Deeds, etc. In the last it is called Aphelingestrate in 1232.
167 Dr. Sharpe’s Calendar of Wills.
168 Sharon Turner, History of the Anglo-Saxons.
169 Alfred Memorial volume, 1899.
170 Riley’s Memorials.
171 Issac.
172 Godefroi’s Dictionary.
173 It is designed on the pattern of the famous monogram of Justinian, having for basis the letter N.
174 Still more recent finds at St. Albans seem to show that here also the forum was an important building in the centre of the city.
175 See account of Saxon Winchester in Hudson Turner’s Domestic Archr., vol. i., and of Canterbury before the Conquest, by Geoff. Faussett.
176 Winton Domesday mentions Fishmongers’ Street, Tanner Street, and Gold Street.
177 The Golden Legend.
178 Right through the Middle Ages the close of St. Paul’s is called Atrium S. Pauli.
179 Parentalia.
180 Thorpes’ Analecta.
181 Cotton Charters, 11 Aug. 85.
182 Richard of Cirencester, also Stow.
183 See W. Maitland’s London, and Green’s Conquest of England.
184 London and Middlesex Archæological Society’s Trans. vol. ii.
185 Sir H. Ellis, Introduction to Domesday.
186 See Eng. Hist. Rev. vol. xvi.
187 For the last see Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville.
188 For many other churches mentioned in the twelfth century see Calendar of St. Paul’s Documents, Historical MSS. Reports, which I have not drawn upon in this place. Several other churches may be presumed to be ancient from their dedication, such as St. Pancras (destroyed at the great fire). Green (Conquest of England) attributes St. Augustine, St. Gregory, St. Benet, and St. Faith, to Bishop Erkenwald.
189 For Strand churches see Sanders in Archæologia, vol. xxvi. Gibbs found work which he thought was Roman under St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields. For an early foundation at Smithfield see Malcolm.
190 Dugdale, under Bermondsey.
191 The “Pedlar of Swaffham” and some Welsh stories refer to the bridge in the same way. See Rhys, Celtic Folklore.
192 Hist. MSS. Report of St. Paul’s Documents, p. 49.
193 See T. H. Round, Commune of London.
194 Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 436.
195 Thorpe, pp. 97-103.
196 London and the Kingdom. In Winton Domesday is written Chenictes tenebat la chenictehalla ubi potabant gildam suam.
197 Does this mean the lost charter constituting the mayor?
198 Camden Society.
199 Lick up the penny—Howell writes, “Some call London a Lickpenny, as Paris is called a Pick-purse, because of feastings and other occasions of expense.”
200 Book now disappeared. See for this and Stone generally, Price’s Roman Pavement in Bucklersbury. It is not necessary that the note should be as old as the book.
201 London and Middlesex Archæological Society, vol. v.
202 Parentalia.
203 This must be just the meaning of Berefridam—Burhfrid—Town-peace.
204 Domesday and Beyond, p. 192.
205 Ibid. p. 184.
206 Lincoln also had a gerefa in the seventh century (Bede, ii. 6).
207 Geoffrey de Mandeville.
208 Maitland’s London speaks of a list amongst the British Museum MSS.
209 See Round in Dict. Nat. Biog. and Commune of London.
210 F. Palgrave, Rotuli Curiæ Regis, vol. i. p. 12.
211 Skeat says the weight was called from Troyes, but gives no conclusive reasons. See also Notes and Queries, 1871. Cripp’s English Plate seems to prove this point.
212 In Rolls Series.
213 Illus. Rom. Lond. and valuable article, Archæol. xxix.
214 There may have been a tower on the Bush Lane site: I am speaking of a large walled castrum.
215 Like the one which has left us its bath in Essex Street, Strand. The 1681 Catalogue of objects in the Museum of the Royal Society describes a mosaic pavement found in Holborn near St. Andrew’s.
216 At Bucklersbury, described by Price.
217 As many discoveries of walls and pavements have shown; as, for instance, at the south end of Bishopsgate Street, in Threadneedle Street, Lombard Street, at the Bank, the Royal Exchange, Bucklersbury, Cannon Street, and the north side of Thames Street.
218 Roach Smith in London and Middlesex Archæological Trans. vol i.
219 I may say here that the drawing of the Roman pavement (Fig. 35) was originally made for Roach Smith by Fairholt.
220 The mark P. LON. is first found on a coin of Diocletian.
221 Other plans by A. Ryther, Norden, and Porter are small, and of little use except for giving the extent of suburban building at the moment of the execution of each.