London (England) -- History; London (England) -- Social life and customs
To the old Rome it owes nothing, not so much as a tradition. Later, when
another kind of influence began, London learned much and took much from
Rome; but from Augusta--from Roman London--nothing. Roman traditions,
Roman speech, Roman superstitions linger yet among the southern
Spaniards, though the Moor conquered and held the country for six
hundred years. They linger, in spite of many conquests, in France, in
Italy (north and south), in Roumania, in Anatolia. In London alone, of
all the places which Imperial Rome made her own, and kept for hundreds
of years, no trace of ancient Rome remains. When London next hears of
the Eternal City it is Rome of the Christian Church.
Compare the conquest of London by the men of Essex with that of
Jerusalem by Titus. The latter conqueror utterly destroyed the city, and
drove out its people. One might have expected the silence of Silchester
or Pevensey. No, the people crept back by degrees; the old traditions
remained and still remain. Behind the monkish sites are those familiar
to the common people. Here is the old place of execution--the monks knew
nothing of that--here is the valley of Hinnom; here that of Kedron.
These memories have not died. But of the old Augusta nothing at all
remains. Not a single tradition was preserved by the scanty remnant of
slaves which survived the conquest; not a single name survives. All the
streets have been renamed--nay, their very course has been changed. The
literature of the City, which, like Bordeaux, had its poets and its
schools of rhetoric, has disappeared; it has vanished as completely as
that of Carthage. All the memories of four hundred years have gone;
there is nothing left but a few fragments of the old wall, and these
seem to contain but little of the Roman work: an old bath, part of the
course of an ancient street, and the fragment which we call London
Stone. Perhaps some portions of the Roman river-wall have been
unearthed, but this is uncertain.
One fact alone has been considered to suggest that some of the old Roman
buildings remained and were used again for their old purposes.
[Illustration: ROMAN AMPHORÆ]
In the oldest part of the City, that which lies along the river-bank,
the churches are mostly dedicated to the apostles. Those which stand
farther inland are dedicated to local and later saints--St. Dunstan, St.
Botolph, St. Osyth, St. Ethelburga, for instance. But among those along
the river are the churches of St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Mary, St.
Stephen, St. Michael. It is therefore suggested, but with hesitation,
that when the East Saxons took possession they found the Roman basilicas
still standing; that when they became converted they learned the
original purpose of their churches and the meaning of the emblems; that
they proceeded to rebuild them, preserving their dedications, and made
them their own churches. This may be so, but I do not think it at all
likely. It is possible, I say, but not probable.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account