walls there was originally much unoccupied space, for with the
single exception of the larger circuit south of Ludgate, up to
where the river Fleet ran, made in 1276 for the benefit of the
Black Friars, the line of the walls, planned by the later Romans,
remained complete until the Great Fire (1666). The Thames
formed the natural barrier on the south, but the Romans do not
appear to have been content with this protection, for they
built a wall here in addition, which remained for several centuries.
Portions of this wall have been discovered at various times.
It is difficult even to guess when the third wall was erected. The emperor Theodosius came to London from Boulogne to mature his plan for the restoration of the tranquillity of the province. As Theodosius is said to have left Britain in a sound and secure condition it has been suggested that to him was due the wall of the later Londinium, but there is little or no evidence for this opinion, and according to an old tradition Constantine the Great walled the city at the request of his mother Helena, presumed to be a native of Britain. There is, however, some evidence in favour of the supposition that the wall was built at a much earlier date. It is not improbable that early in the 2nd century the wall was finished at the west portion and enclosed a cemetery near Newgate. Sir William Tite, in describing a tessellated pavement found in 1854 on the site of the Excise Office (Bishopsgate Street), expresses the opinion that the finished character of the pavement points to a period of security and wealth, and fixes on the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117–138), to which the silver coin found on the floor belongs, as the date of its foundation.
The historians of the Roman Empire have left us some particulars of the visits of emperors and generals to Britain, but little or nothing about what happened in London, and we should be more ignorant than we are of the condition of Londinium if it had not been that a large number of excavations have been made in various parts of the city which have disclosed a considerable amount of its early history. From these remains we may guess that London was a handsome city in the reign of Hadrian, and probably then in as great a position of importance as it ever attained. This being so, there seems to be reason in attributing the completed walls to this period.
The persistence of the relics of the walls of London is one
of the most remarkable facts of history. Pieces of the wall
are to be seen in various parts of the city, and are
frequently found when extensive excavations are
Remains of
Roman Wall.
made for new buildings. In some places where the
Roman wall is not to be seen there still exist pieces
of the old wall that stand upon Roman foundations. In Amen
Court, where the residences of canons of St Paul’s and the
later houses of the minor canons are situated, there stretches
such a piece of wall, dividing the gardens of the Court from
the Old Bailey. Of the few accessible fragments of the Roman
wall still existing special mention may be made of the bastion
in the churchyard of St Giles’s, Cripplegate; a little farther
west is a small fragment in St Martin’s Court, Ludgate Hill
(opposite the Old Bailey), but the best specimen can be seen
near Tower Hill just out of George Street, Trinity Square.
Early in the 20th century a fragment nearly 40 ft. long, together
with the base of a bastion, was brought to light in digging for the
foundation of some large warehouses in Camomile Street, at
a depth of 10 ft. below the level of the present street. A considerable
portion of the old wall was laid bare by the excavations
for the new Post Office in St Martin’s-le-Grand. From a comparison
of these fragments with the descriptions of Woodward,
Maitland and others, who in the early part of the 18th century
examined portions of the wall still standing, we learn that the
wall was from 9 to 12 ft. thick, and formed of a core of rough
rubble cemented together with mortar (containing much coarse
gravel) of extraordinary hardness and tenacity, and a facing
for the most part of stone—Kentish rag, freestone or ironstone—but
occasionally of flints; about 2 ft. apart are double layers
of tiles or bricks which serve as bonding courses. The wall
appears to have been about 20 ft. high, the towers from 40 to
50 ft., but when described only the base was Roman. Upon
that was raised a wall of rough rubble rudely faced with stone
and flint, evidently a medieval work and about 212 ft. thick;
then succeeded a portion wholly of brick, terminating in battlements
topped with copings of stone.
Although the course of the later Roman walls is clear, we do not know with any certainty the position of the Roman gates. They were not the same as the medieval gates which have left the record of their names in modern London Gates and buildings. nomenclature. It follows, therefore, that the main streets also are not in line with the Roman ways, except perhaps in a few instances. Many ineffectual attempts have been made to connect the Watling street in the city with the great Roman road so named in medieval times. The name of the small street is evidently a corruption, and in the valuable Report of the MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of St Paul’s (Ninth Report of the Historical MSS. Commission, Appendix, p. 4) the original name is given as “Atheling Street,” and instances of this spelling are common in the 13th century. The form Watling Street seems to occur first in 1307. Stow spells it Watheling Street (Kingsford’s edition of Stow’s Survey, 1908, vol. ii. p. 352). Sir William Tite gave reasons for believing that Bishopsgate Street was not a Roman thoroughfare, and in the excavations at Leadenhall the basilica to which allusion has already been made was found apparently crossing the present thoroughfare of Gracechurch Street. Tite also agreed with Dr Stukeley’s suggestion that on the site of the Mansion House (formerly Stocks Market) stood the Roman forum, and he states that a line drawn from that spot as a centre would pass by the pavements found on the site of the Excise Office. Besides the forum Stukeley suggested the sites of seven other buildings—the Arx Palatina guarding the south-eastern angle of the city where the Tower now stands, the grove and temple of Diana on the site of St Paul’s, &c. No traces of any of these buildings have been found, and they are therefore purely conjectural. Stukeley’s industrious researches into the history of Roman London cannot be said to have any particular value, although at one time they enjoyed considerable vogue. As to the Temple of Diana, Sir Christopher Wren formed an opinion strongly adverse to the old tradition of its existence (Parentalia, p. 266). Although we know that the Christian church was established in Britain during the later period of the Roman domination, there is little to be learnt respecting it, and the bishop Restitutus, who is said to have attended an Ecclesiastical Council, is a somewhat mythical character. In respect to the discovery of the position of the Roman gates, the true date of the Antonini Itinerarium (q.v.) is of great importance, as it will be seen from it that Londinium was either a starting-point or a terminus in nearly half the routes described in the portion relating to Britain. This would be remarkable if the work dated back to the 2nd century. Probably in the later, as in the earlier time, Londinium had the usual four gates of a Roman city, with the main roads to them. The one on the east was doubtless situated near where Aldgate afterwards stood. On the south the entrance to Londinium must always have been near where London Bridge was subsequently built. On the west the gate could not have been far from the place afterwards occupied by Newgate. As to Ludgate there is reason to believe that if there was an opening there in Roman times it was merely a postern. On the north the gate may have been near Bishopsgate or at Aldersgate. If we take from the Itinerary the last station before Londinium in all the routes we shall be able to obtain some idea of the position of the gate entered from each route by drawing a line on the map of London to the nearest point. Ammianus Marcellinus (about A.D. 390) speaks twice of Londinium as an ancient town to which the honourable title of Augusta had been accorded. Some writers have been under the misapprehension that this name for a time superseded that of Londinium. The anonymous Chorographer of Ravenna calls the place Londinium Augusta, and doubtless this was the form adopted.
The most interesting Roman relic is “London Stone.” It has generally been supposed to be a “milliarium” or central point for measuring distances, but Sir Christopher Wren believed it
