Of the etymology of the term "Troy-town" some indications have already been given in Chapter XVIII. We might, perhaps, in addition, hazard the guess that the Sanskrit root _dru_ (= run) has some bearing on the origin of the word so widely associated with the idea of a dance or ceremonial, but the connection is too obscure to be very helpful. We might further recall the ancient legend,[6] recorded in Welsh chronicles going back many centuries before the Christian era, to the effect that a great-grandson of Aeneas named Prydain, or Brutus, came over to this country with the Trojan prisoners of war whom he had helped to liberate from Greece, and with their aid built a city on the banks of the Temus (Thames), which he called _Caerdroi-Newydd_ (New City of Troy). This name became corrupted into _Troinovant_--hence the "Trinobantes" of Caesar's time--and was later discarded in favour of _Caerludd_, a name given in honour of Lludd, nephew of the Caswallon who fought against Caesar. The Saxons afterwards corrupted the name into _Lun-dun_. [6] Accepted as a historic fact by Mr. E. O. Gordon in his "Prehistoric London." As Spenser says ("Faerie Queene," iii, 9): "For noble Britons sprang from Trojans bold And Troy-Novant was built of old Troyes ashes cold." If any reliance could be placed on this old story the Corporation of London might do well to embody the Labyrinth, or Troy-town, in their armorial bearings, for what symbol could better typify the complexities of our metropolis? CHAPTER XXI LABYRINTH DESIGN AND SOLUTION OF MAZES There is no limit to the number of patterns which, without any metaphorical extension of terms, we may legitimately describe as coming within the scope of the words "maze" and "labyrinth." In common speech we use either word to describe any artificial design or natural pattern presenting a convoluted appearance, or any path or channel of an intricate nature, but when we come to consider the matter more carefully we feel the need for some definition. As we have seen, the dictionaries do not help us much in this respect. Let us, therefore, decide what limitations we feel compelled to observe in our use of the terms from the point of view of designers or unravellers of mazes and labyrinths. In the first place we must limit ourselves to works of artifice, _i.e._, we must exclude the "labyrinths" of nature, such as forests, caverns, and so forth, and agree that any application of our terms to such objects is to be regarded as strictly metaphorical.