The disputes upon the derivation of the word London have been numerous. In the present day, the question seems to be, whether it originated in Celtic British, that is, in Welsh, and signified "a city on a lake," or in Belgic British (old German), and meant "a city in a grove." The latest author who has handled the subject inclines to the latter opinion.[4] Mr. Pennant being a Celt, was for the "city on a lake," the Thames in the early periods of British history having formed a considerable expanse of water near the site of the present metropolis. _Llyn-Din_ is Lake-City, and _Lun-Den_ Grove-City. Erasmus, on the strength of those affinities between Greek and Welsh, which can be found between most languages, fetched the word from _Lindus_, a city of Rhodes; Somner, the antiquary, derived it from _Llawn_, full, and _Dyn_, man, implying a great concourse of people; another antiquary, from _Lugdus_, a Celtic prince; Maitland from _Lon_, a plain, and _Dun_ or _Don_, a hill; another, we know not who, referred to by the same author, from a word signifying a ship and a hill[5]; Camden from _Llong-Dinas_, a City of Ships; and Selden, "seeing conjecture is free,"[6] was for deriving it from _Llan-Dien_, or the temple of Diana, for reasons which will appear presently. Pennant thinks that London might have been called Lake-City first, and Ship-City afterwards. The opinion of the editor of the _Picture of London_ seems most plausible--that Lun-Den, or Grove-City was the name, because it is compounded of Belgic British, which, according to Cæsar, must have been the language of the district; and he adds, that the name is still common in Scandinavia.[7] It may be argued, that London might have existed as a fortress on a lake before the arrival of settlers from Belgium; and that Grove-City could not have been so distinguishing a characteristic of the place as Lake-City, because wood was a great deal more abundant than water. On the other hand, all the rivers at that time were probably more or less given to overflowing. Grove-City might have been the final name, though Lake-City was the first; and the propensity to name places from trees, is still evident in our numerous Woot-tons, or Wood-towns, Wood-fords, Woodlands, &c. But of all disputes, those upon etymology appear the most hopeless. Perhaps the word itself was not originally what we take it to be. Who would suspect the word _wig_ to come from _peruke_; _jour_ from _dies_; _uncle_ from _avus_; or that _Kensington_ should have been corrupted by the despairing organs of a foreigner, into _Inhimthorp_?[8] Whether London commenced with a spot cleared out in the woods by settlers from Holland, (Gallic Belgium,) as conjecture might imply from Cæsar, or whether the germ of it arose with the aboriginal inhabitants, we may conclude safely enough with Pennant, that it existed in some shape or other in Cæsar's time.