London (England) -- History; London (England) -- Social life and customs
The strength of the town and the power of the citizens is abundantly
proved by the chronicles. In the year 994, Aulaf and Swegen came to
fight against London with ninety-four ships; but "they there sustained
more harm and evil than they ever imagined that any townsmen would be
able to do unto them." Early in the eleventh century the Londoners beat
off the Danes again and again. Nor did the citizens abandon their king
until he abandoned them. Later on, Edmund Etheling had to abandon his
enterprise against Cnut, because the Londoners would not join him. Then
there is the story about the body of the murdered Alphege, Archbishop of
Canterbury. This had been deposited in St. Paul's Cathedral. Agelnoth,
successor to Alphege, begged the body of Cnut for Canterbury. Cnut
granted the request, but was afraid--_timebat civium interruptiones_--to
take away the body except by stealth. He therefore caused his
_huscarles_, or household soldiers, to disperse themselves, and to raise
tumults at the gates and elsewhere. While the citizens were running
everywhere to enjoy a share in the fight, the body was carried to the
river and placed in a boat, which was rowed in all haste down the river.
The townsmen sent out a party in pursuit. And, as everybody knows,
William the Norman found it politic or necessary to confirm the
liberties and laws of London.
The house, either in Saxon and Norman time, presented no kind of
resemblance to the Roman villa. It had no cloisters, no hypocaust, no
suite or sequence of rooms. This unlikeness is another proof, if any
were wanting, that the continuity of tenure had been wholly broken. If
the Saxons went into London, as has been suggested, peaceably, and left
the people to carry on their old life and their trade in their own way,
the Roman and British architecture, no new thing, but a style grown up
in course of years and found fitted to the climate, would certainly have
remained. That, however, was not the case. The Englishman developed his
house from the patriarchal idea. First, there was the common hall; in
this the household lived, fed, transacted business, and made their cheer
in the evenings. It was built of timber, and to keep out the cold
draughts it was afterwards lined with tapestry. At first they used
simple cloths, which in great houses were embroidered and painted;
_perches_ of various kinds were affixed to the walls whereon the
weapons, the musical instruments, the cloaks, etc., were hung up. The
lord and lady sat on a high seat: not, I am inclined to think, on a dais
at the end of the hall, which would have been cold for them, but on a
great chair near the fire, which was burning in the middle of the hall.
This fashion long continued. I have myself seen a college hall warmed by
a fire in a brazier burning under the lantern of the hall. The
furniture consisted of benches; the table was laid on trestles, spread
with a white cloth, and removed after dinner; the hall was open to all
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