But to leave these fabulous tales. Camden supposes that this city derived the name of London from the British words _Llhwn_ a wood, and _Dinas_ a town; by which etymology of the word, London signifies _a town in a wood_: this exactly agrees with the manner in which the Britons formed their towns, by building them in the midst of woods, and fencing them with trees cut down: but lest this derivation should not please, the same learned writer gives another, from the British word _Lhong_, a ship, and _Dinas_ a city, and then the word London will signify a city or harbour for ships: and indeed it has been supposed by many learned authors, that before Cæsar’s time London was the ancient emporium or mart of the British trade with the Phœnicians, Greeks and Gauls. London had however no buildings either of brick or stone, till it was inhabited by the Romans; for the dwellings of the Britons were only huts formed of twigs wattled together; however, Tacitus observes, that in the year 26, Londinum was very famous for the multitude of its merchants, and the greatness of its traffic; but soon after Suetonius abandoned the city to the fury of Boadicea, because it was too large to be defended by his little army of 10,000 Romans, which is certainly a proof of its being even then of a considerable extent. That British Princess however burnt this great city, and put all the inhabitants to the sword. London soon recovered from this dreadful catastrophe, and in a few years increased so much in the number of its inhabitants, its trade and buildings, that _Herodian_, in the life of the Emperor Severus, calls it a great and wealthy city, and about this time it changed the name of _Londinum_, for that of _Augusta_; probably from its being the capital of the British dominions, and was made a prefecture by the Romans, in imitation of Rome itself: but it soon after changed the name of Augusta for that of _Caer-Llundain_.