v
The Central Middle Ages:
Christopher Brooke
LO.':DO;-': in 800 was a place to reckon with, especially if we
accept the recent reconstruction of Lundenwic on the Strand,
but the city \vithin the walls \vas clearh' not a populous
town.' By J 270 it \vas a flourishing city, one of the major
commercial capitals of north-western Europe, the 'scat' of the
English kingdom, the chief town of an empire which
stretched to the Pyrenees, of a d\'nasty which laid claim
(however absurdly) to the Empire and the Kingdom of Sicily.
Of London as a town in J 270 our chief evidence lies in
topography: in the pattern of streets, wards, churches, and
parishes, filled in and supported by copious documents and
archaeological survi\"als. But the wards appear to be a
creation of the eleventh century, and none of the streets or
churches, save only St Paul's, can be traced with certaint\,
back to 800. B\' 1270 \\'estminster and Southwark, though
independent jurisdictions, were vital adjuncts of London: in
800 \X'estminster \';as an island with a small church and
perhaps a minor monastery upon it, and Southwark a bridge
head of modest proportions; and Lundenll'ic, though still
flourishing, \\as to be destroyed in the ninth century by the
Vikings. 2
The grO\\th of London between the ninth and thirteenth
centuries was the product of two mo\'ements: the creati\'e
activity in urban revival associated particularly with Alfred
and his children and the larger revi\'al, obscure in its origins
but immense in its results, to which recent historians
grasping for a title at once ambitious and imprecise, as the
case demands- ha \'e called the urban renaissance.' In social
terms, the reyi\'al was made possible by a yen marked rise in
population in every parr of \\'estern Europe where it can in
any degree be measured or observed; and also by an increas
* Thi, chapter is based on the ioint w()rK ()f C. :\. I.. Brooke and (;. I-(eir
Incorporated in their London 121(,: Th,\;'apin.~ ol a Cil) (197\) (BK). The\'
regard the book, hO\\T\'cr. as the heginmng and not the end of the studIO of
London', topography in this period; and two dc\'elopments in particular ha\'e
greath' ad\anced knowledge ,ince the book was \Hltten and thlS chapter hrst
drafted: the worK of the Department of l'rhan :\rchaeolog\ of the .\lllSeum of
London directed b\ ,\1 r Bflan Iloble\'- scc e.g. (~. and c:. '\[ilne, ,\frdifl'a/
Iralerfronl: Dne/opmenl al Trig Lane. LOlldOll, L'\L\S Special Paper \ (I 98 3), and
n. I below-and of the Social and Economic StudIO of \fedie\'al London directed
by Derek I-(eenc and jointly sponsored b\ the '\[useum of London and the
Institute of lli,rorical Research (now part of the Imtitute's Centre for '\[etropol
itan Histon) 1 am particularh' grateful to I-(eene and Caroline Barron for helping
me to bring this chapter into the t 980s. The "'ork of I-(eene's ,urIC\" i, described
in his Summan' Report 1979 8.. and in D. I-(ecnc, Crban Hi.elllr), )-earbl!(;k ':198 ..),
11-21, and will be more fulll' descnbed in D. I-(eene and Y. Harding, Cheapslde and
Ihe Dere/lipmOlt of London be/ore Ihe Creal Fire (forthcoming). Since mI' work for
this \'olume was completcd 1 hale also had the opportunm' to see Dr .\farc Fitch's
unpublished studies of various aspects of Lond()n topograplw ..-\lthough most of
the material rclates to periods later than mmc, there are a number of llHercqing
pomts and suggestions reln'ant to nw period, and I am lerl grateful to Dr Fitch
for allowing me to sec them.
800- 12 70 *
ing specialization of function, ;\lfred referred to the folk of
his kingdom as those who fight, those who pray, and those
\\ho work, no doubt a heroic simplification even in his day,
but still intelligible, 1 The variet\ of occupation and \-ocation
open to men (and in a much lesser degree, to women) greatly
increased in these centuries, and non-agricultural communit
ies small and large multiplied and flourished as never before
since the fall of the Roman empire in the west. In northern
Europe this meant the re\-i\-al of town life on sites old and
new, In southern Europe, and especially in Italy, town life
had never died or declined as it had in the north; although
e\'en the greatest towns, such as Rome and Pa\"ia, were
shadows of their former glory, with houses of men of
substance scattered about the old cin' in a fashion which often
paid little attention to the Roman street plan,' J\ione the less,
one can walk toda\' in ~Iilan or Verona and know one is in a
Roman city-or in Volterra and San Gimignano and recog
nize the physiognomy of an Etruscan hill town-in a \vay
which is very rareh- possible north of the Alps. Thus the
urban renaissance saw spontaneous growth and rn-ival all
oyer \\'estern Europe, in part inspired and influenced by the
reyiyal of independent city life which came in the eleyenth
and twelfth centuries to be most marked, most sophisticated
in Iraly, where the concentration of folk rich and poor in the
cities was as much the result of deliberate policy as of
spontaneous attractIon. . (, I taI
\. saw l k
t le most remar a bl e
growth in economic prosperity; but in due proportion and
measure this economic reviyal must also account for the rise
of the northern cities, At its height in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries it doubtless owed something to the more
peaceful conditions which seem to have followed, first the
.\[artin BIddle, 'London on the Strand', Poplliar "lrd!., G: I (.July lc)84), 23-7;
;Ian \'ince, 'The :\lcl\n(h: \lid-Saxon London dlsc()\Tred)', Cllrrmt Arch., x,
~o. 10 (.;ugust 1984), 310-12; and see abo\-e, Chap. IV, where our new kno\\,
ledge of the ninth centun' is fulll explained. Both papers give references to the
rich recent literature on the archaeolog\' of London. The seat of the English
Klngdom in the next sentence cchoe, \\'illiam FitzStcphcn's description of London
(,ee n. 93), ,\fH, iii. 2. For the background and literature on early medieval London
see ilK, j 8 el sqq.
, Sec BI-(, chap. 7; below, p. ,4 (wards and streets); BK, 2\-(" 294 et sqq.; D. J
Johnson, SOlllhu'ark and the Cil)' (1969) (\X'estminster and Southwark). For
Lllndl'llU'i( and the earliest churches, see aboyc, chap. IV.
, e.g, BI-(, chap. ,.
,;lfred's Hot/hillS, c. I~; see D. \XhitL']()ck (cd.), l:fID, i. "OF (1955),
84(J; cf. ibid. 85l (2nd edn. 19 79, 9I9, 92~).
Sec on Payia, D. ,;. Bullough, PaperJ of" Ihe HritiJh .\dJoo/ elf Rome, 34 (19G6),
82-1l0, esp. 10\ t! sqq.; on Rome, P. Llewellm, Rome in Ihe Dark Ages (197I); and
the rclenlnt yols. of the Sloria di Roma (I,tituto di Studi Romani), esp. the
topographical \ oJ. xxii, cd. I. Castagnoli d al. (1958).
See in ,l';encral D. \Xaicl, Ita/ian (II)' Rt p"/;/ics (l 9691, esp. 34 (/ HI'!, ': 2nd edn.,
1978, 1701 Iqq.); J. 1-(. Hyde, Sociel), and Po/itid in .\fediera/ 1Ia/), (1973); BK, Ge, el
sqq.

 THE CE'-:TRAL ~fIDDLE AGES: 800- 1270
exodus of many of the most unruly western Europeans on
Crusade, second the rapid development of peaceful ayoca
tions in the twelfth century. But in origin, strangely enough,
the urban renaissance in the north was the product of war and
pirac\. The heyday of Carolingian rule on the continent and
of ~1crcian supremacy in Britain was also the age which saw
the reyi\'al of silver currency, the ultimate base oflater money
econorTI\ and commercial growth.- But it was in the ninth
and tenth centuries, especially in the era of the Viking raids,
and in the lands to which the Vikings came, that the northern
towns first reviyed in any substantial number.M
The Economic Foundations
Between 800 and 1270 London grew; the city, especially
within the walls, became relativeh thickh peopled for the
fIrst time since it was abandoned IA the Romans. The
indications are clear, and we shall impect the most important
when we study the streets and parish churches. Evidently this
growth of population was based on increasing wealth and
political importance; but to state the matter more precisely is
very difficult. E\'idence of more intensi\'e settlement does not
tell us anything of the absolute population figures, which are
as much a matter for conjecture in 1270 as in 800. 9
Apart from topography the chief indicator of growing
wealth and population is coinage: the evidence of hoards
discovered in London and the history of the London mint.
For population this is yery rough indeed; for wealth only
slightly less so, but at least the growth of the mint gi\'es some
basis for comparison with other to\\m. The survi\'ing
hoards, studied in detail, tend to re\'eal onh' the periods when
London was subjected to attack and sudden crisis: during
Viking im'asions c.890 and c. [0 I), for example, and the
largest of all c. 1066. 111 But in bulk the hoards reyeal the great
concentration of wealth in London compared with other
cities. The development of coins and mints is in general terms
our chief evidence for the commercial revival of these late
Saxon centuries. There are various signs that London was a
place of real importance under Offa, whose reign saw the
revival of a silver currency in this countrv. 1I The spread of
the penny under the i\Iercian supremaC\' was only a begin
ning, for it is not until the brief supremaC\' of Egbert of
\X'essex in 829-30 that we have unambiguous evidence that
London was a mint centre, and a much more effective growth
of m('11e\ economy came in the temh and eln'enth centuries.
From the late ninth century, through the period of Viking
occupation and of the re\'i nl of English control under "\ I fred
and his children, evidence for the London mint is continuous;
and already in the second quarter of the tenth centun' it was
the largest mint in the country. By the time of Ethelred 11
(978-1016) and Cnut (1016-3)) the quantit\, of SurvlVlng
coins is enormous, and e\'idence of London's dominant
B"-. ()2 d "'qq .. e,p. 92 n. 2 and refs.; C. I .. Blunt. In 1'!:!,!Ii,.I'aX(;1I Co ill.\' (19(11).
chap, 3.
< p, Sawyer .c(gr oJlhe r 'ikingr (2nd edn. 1971); P. G. Foote and D . .\I. \\'il,on.
r'ikin,~ ,-lriJiel'emen! (19-'0). chap, (,; HK. '(,1 e! sqq.; for a re\'iew of the discussion
t() "F \. ,ce (;. r. Jcmcn In "lfzglf),.I'a,\w! rll~!rUld. 4 ("r I), 181 We); of the
e"tensi,e IlteLlturc stimulated bl' the \'Iking '\hillltlon ot' 1980-1. a \'aluable
example is TlJe r 'ikirzgJ. ed. R. T. Farrell (")~2).
U, B"-. I
"ot
I.
BI"':',-(, -. h."cd on Dolin in FL.II. 1\ 2D (H)I() (>1'. , - 10. all hoards.
()f cnur<';l', C:ITl he related to specitic crises; but it \\-;1" C()1111111J!liy a sudden threat or
di"':lsrcr \lhlCh led men to hick monc\' and n()t rechim It. \\hat fo\l(l\\'S is based on
In.... ')2 ('.,-'- Xc. which dra\\', hea\i" ()n rill' \\'ork "f B. flo l. H, Stcwart.
R. H . .\1. Dolle\', C. L. Bluilt. and other numisn1atists.
position among the English mint-towns abundantly clear. In
the Royal Swedish Cabinet of Medals at Stockholm over a
thousand silyer pennies of London manufacture of each of
these two kings is preserved, more than the combined total of
Lincoln and York, its next competitors. The names of the
mone\ers are also recorded on the coins, and these suggest
not onh that London had the largest number (which is
confirmed by other evidence) but that, unlike York, where
Scandinavian names predominate, thn remained mostly
English. The numismatic evidence also seems to show that
from Ethelred's later years London was one of the chief
centres for die-cutting and came to be the predominant
centre, and so also the heart of the elaborate English mint
organization, from the mid-eleventh century on. 12
The coins came to Sweden by various routes: from the
tributes paid by English kings to their Viking attackers, or b\'
Cnut to his troops, by piracy and loot and trade, by gift and as
\\'ages; and their presence there is a reminder that England
and the English Channel la\' in the mainstream of Viking
adventure in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, when
the Vikings dominated north-western Europe and travelled
as pirates and traders from Russia and Byzantium to the east
to Greenland and 0:orth America in the west, and south to all
parts of Britain and the northern littoral of France and the
Lo\\' Countries. As a rough generalization it has been said
'that from the se\'enth to the ninth century England and
London lay in the Frisian sphere of trade, from the ninth to
the eleventh in the Viking commercial world, in the eleventh
and twelfth in the German, Flemish and French'Y Doubtless
the Frisian merchants who were based in Quentovic (near
ttaples) and Duurstede (near l'trecht) were among London's
\'isitors in Bede's day. More substantially, we may be sure
that the Vikings played a crucial part in the formation of
London in the ninth and tenth centuries. Few Vikings seem
to ha\e settled permanently in London, if we may judge by
the moneyers' names; and they affected the street names very
slightly, if at all. But the main city court of this period, and
for many centuries to come, bears the Viking name 'Husting',
and in the eleventh century and later Viking piety contributed
the dedications of the churches of St Olaf, six of them, and
probabh' also of St Bride and St Clement. 14 Thus obscurely
the records reveal London's place in the Viking world; but of
the characteristic Viking commodities, of slaves from the
Slav lands and Ireland, or of furs from the far north and
Russia, they tell us little, until an austere papal legate came to
\\ estminster in I 138, and promulgated canons forbidding
English nuns to wear Yair, gris, sable, marten, ermine, and
beaver, which suggests that scarce and luxurious furs, as well
as the common bea\'er's coats, were known in and around
London in the twelfth century.
From lOOO, and increasingly in the eleventh and early
twelfth centuries, the documents speak of merchants from
(~errna11\, and especially from the Rhineland and Cologne,
B"-. ;-s; C:, F, Blunt in .-lfzglr".la,yofi (oifiJ. cd. R. H,~!. Dolley (1961),
chap. ;,
" HK. 3'9, citing B, L Hildebrand, Afl.~/o-Saxofi CoinJ III tbf RO)fll .l/ndiJh
Ca/Jilld ... (ne\\ cdn. I HHI); \'. J. Smart, ''\[onewrs of the late .\nglo-Saxon
c()jtn~)l" 'J~; "')1(", (()}I/JlJtlllallO!Je.r de II!III!!!!!; J(]fot!(;rJilJJ T.,( }..:J in SlIeeia reper!is. ii
i ]()('~" ') I 2-(J. esp. 2\0 'I. 2\8-9; sec also Smarr in 'llz~/()-Sa,yon !;,zglalld, 4
I'; Lt. 10K. ;") 80,
Bk. 2() I.
See ilK. 141-' and below. n, '4; tm 'I lusting', sec Bh, 249-\ I; P.
"Ightlllg)lic III J:II.~/i.r/J iJis!orieal Rfl'ieu 1,)2 (1987.'. \1()-,8. For what follows. Bh.
"') ct. I" \. \'e"le, The EIZgli.rh 1M Fradc III t/)I' Lalcr .\fiddle "I.geJ (1966).
 CIIKISTOPHFK BROOKE
who fixed their headquarters in the Guildhall of the men of
Cologne near Dowgate (first recorded in Henry U's reign);
they brought wine and cups, and reliquaries perhaps, of gold
and silver; luxury cloth and linen from further east, and coats
of mail; they also brought spices, pepper and cumin, wax and
fustian; and sometimes corn.!S From France, and especially
from Normandy, throughout the ele\'enth and twelfth cen
turies, came wine and fish; and after the marriage of Henry II
and Eleanor of Aquitaine in the mid-twelfth century, still
more after the loss of l\iormandy early in the thirteenth, there
rapidly developed the close links of the English wine trade
with the region of Bordeaux and the world of claret.
Thus far, we have considered trade mainly in luxuries; but
the markets of every great town dealt in much else besides;
and much of the \Xi estcheap was taken up with food markets,
and food, wool, and cloth must often ha\e appeared in
massive quantities on the wharfs along the Thames. [n wool
and cloth the closest links lay with Flanders, and in the course
of the eleventh and twelfth centuries there grew up the special
relation with the Low Countries which was to dominate
English trade, and particularly London's trade, many times in
the future. The Flemish cloth industry de\'eloped far beyond
the producti\T capacity of the Flemish sheep, and so became a
rich market for English wool. But the condition of this was to
be a large return in Flemish cloth, especialh' the cheaper
cloths, which competed with the cloth industn in London
and elsewhere in the thirteenth century. . Howe\er that ma\'.
be, London on the whole prospered with Flanders, and
'perhaps the most substantial compliment the Flemings paid
to London was to call an important trading association of the
Flemish towns the" !-lanse of London" '.16
B\ I 270 the econonw of London was rich and varied; the
leading citizens were rich merchants, pepperers, mercers, and
so forth; and the trade guilds were gro\\'ing up to govern
man\' of the crafts and trades of the city, though still far from
the dominant role in cin' government they were later to
1-
assume. But hO\\-ever obscure, the wealth of London must
have been a visible and crucial factor in its growth during the
pre\-ious three centuries; and the markets and wharfs came to
full development at this time, symbols on the map of
London's prosperity, just as the walls were symbols of its
continuous need for protection and defence.
Walls and Street Plan
The Romans had built the city by the shore of the Thames,
with the Holborn and its mouth, called the Fleet, to its west
and the \X'albrook in its midst; \\-ith a bridge running near
where London Bridge now stands, and a wall on e\'ery side,
including -as the spade has in recent \'ears re\'ealed -on the
south, beside the ri,er. This system of walls and water .-\lfred
and his daughter ,-Ethelfhd inherited. \X'e know that the
northern shore of the Thames lay. substantialh-. further north
than now, that the Fleet was the mouth of a sizeable ri\'er, and
that the \'\"albrook had long since begun to silt up, so that the
marsh or 'Moor' co,ered much of the ground to the north of
BI"':' 2(,(, 8. Ill-":' z(,8 'G. L'P. 27G.
1- See .\rfd/era! London, esp. chaps.", \ (,. .\f8, iii. ,.
1'1 See ga7., S.\-. Blackfriars, Tower.
'" S'ior/a di .\[i/,mo, iii, i\.Tondazlone Trceeana de"i i .\111CII, I ~ 14::: .\.
Friedll1ann, Pari.!-: rllfJ, StJ /'Ji.:rrI/JJfS till )JJ(!),!'1l {~~f a fa R(:!(),i,,/ion (I()~<;r', F. L.
Ganshof, Etude iIlr If dh'r/opp'!llI?lt drs ril!es (!lirf [.oire ff RM!I ii/I !!IO)f/I ,i.~e ',I ';I.ll),
esp. 702, plates 28, 34.
the wall between Cripplegate and Bishopsgate. We do not
know in what condition Alfred found the wall and the bridge;
though it is reasonably certain that the wall had been often
used, and so presumably in some measure kept in repair, over
the centuries; and it is possible (though far from certain) that
the bridge also had a continuous history. l\io doubt he and his
colleagues repaired the wall. But the south \vall was not
consistently repaired in the centuries which followed, for it
gradually crumbled and fell or was lapped by the river and
broken through by new lanes-lea\-ing substantial traces
long enough for William FitzStephen to recall them in the
II70S. 18
Down to the thirteenth centun- the line of the Roman wall,
except along thc Thames, was not altered; and then only by
comparatively minor rn'ision at each end. I') It is indeed a
striking fact that the Roman enceinte was ne,er substantially
enlarged. Other large cities like Milan and Paris grew in
concentric circles; where the Roman enceinte had been
excessively largc for the medieval city, as at Rome herself or
in Trier, a part of the area was occupied and the rest slowly
reclaimed in later centuries. bl Even in London the correspon
dence between the Roman and the medieval city was neyer
exact, for the present boundaries of the City, which take in
considerable suburbs to the west and north-west of the old
line of the wall, and lesser suburbs outside Bishopsgate and
Aldgate, are approximately those of the eleventh and t\velfth
centuries;21 and \X'estminster and Southwark, though remain
ing independent jurisdictions, became essential parts of Lon
don in the cle"enth and twelfth centuries too. But the basic
structure of the Roman wall remained unimpaired, enclosing
an area of about 330 acres, which contained the large majority
of the population of medie,al London, \,hatever that may
ha\'c been. The wall reminds us that there was sufficient
continuity in I.ondon's history for its Roman name and basic
shape to survive; and also that, although the population
probably grew in course of time \'ery considerably within the
area of the walls, the area of the physical expansion of
medieval London lav along and across the river, somewhat in
Bermondse\-, Southwark, and Lambeth, far more towards
Westminster. This could not be determined or defined by any
extension of the walls.
[\ brief reflection on the histon' of London's defences
rn'eals the contrast with her Roman past and her continental
contemporaries. The Romans had built a wall all round the
city, defending it against seafarers and pirates. Alfredian and
~()rman London was readily accessible from the Thames
estuary, more so as time elapsed and the southern wall fell
into decay . .l\ledieyal London was defended by walls of stone,
and the '\\-ooden walls' of ships; but no medieval king can
have felt entireh' sure that the walls of the city would be
defended for and not against him. The characteristic pre
Conquest walled town had a single main line of defence
sometimes supplemented by outer lines and ditches; the
Norman tcw.:n which succeeded it commonly contained an
additional defence in the shape of a castle. 22 In London after
the l\:orman conquest there were three castles: lVlontflchet
and Baynard's Castle to th~ west, the Tower to the eastY The
Sec e'I'. IH..... 1("), ;1'): \IBII in LI1{ 19 (1941\.,_ 1(' 17.
See I liJ!oric FOIIJl' _I!!aJ, cd. \lan D. Lohe\, nJls. i, ii, p".. .i/!!/; ii, Camhridge,
19, by \1. D. Lobel IS a good c:-campk. For the .\lfredian plan and range of !l/IrhJ,
\1. Biddie and D. lIill in Iii/if(. j. \ 1(1,)-1\ 70 8\; \:. P. Brooks in .\fed..~lrth. R
'. 1')64), 74 xx.
BI--.:, 1'0 I, II; q and refs., rC, I, 21j 1-': on the Tower, esp. l\.ill"'J [I'"orks, ii.
70(, z') (R. :\. Blllwn and H. \1. (oh-in).
 THE CENTRAL MIDDLE AGES: 800-1270
Conqueror's White Tower was and is a very impressive
symbol of Norman power, built at a time when major keeps
of stone were still rare. It looked down upon the city from the
east, as St Paul's looked from the west, both constant
reminders of the Norman presence. :\'0 doubt the Tower
looked formidable from the ri\'er too, and was intended to
secure the defences at their weakest point, where the wall and
river met. But it always looked two wan. Past it the ships
came up to the port of London and the bridge, and to one of
the numerous wharfs: for larger ships, before the bridge, at
Billingsgate (the water-gate, doubtless so named before the
southern wall disappeared), and Botolph's wharf, or gate, not
recorded before the Conquest; or for smaller craft, beyond
the bridge, to Dowgate, from the Confessor's time the
l\:orman wharf par excellence, to Garlickhythe, iEthelredshithe
(later Queenhithe), and Paul's \,\'harf; or further still to the
Fleet and \Vestminster. 24
The ambiguity of London's relation to the Crown and
\\estminster and the relative peacefulness of England in the
later twelfth and thirteenth centuries, made am' large exten
sion of the city's fortifications to compass \X'estminster, or
even the nearer suburbs, seem unnecessary or undesirable.
Bars were set where the main roads crossed the frontiers of
the city jurisdiction; the city ditch was widened under John
(1199-12 I G); and in Henry Ill's reign (12 I () -72) the defences
of the Tower were extended and sophisticated. 2 ) In 1215
London adhered to the barons and forced John to grant
:\Iagna Carta; the lesson was not lost on his son and
grandson, and the final shape of the Tower made it a grand
Edwardian castle. It has been observed, especially in Switzer
land, that communities of friars were sometimes deliberately
settled by the city walls to ensure effecti\'e civic control over
the approaches to the wall. Perhaps parth' for this reason the
authorities of London of the 1220S seem to have encouraged
the Grey Friars to occupy the angle of the wall next to
.'\ewgate, and Edward I may have allowed, or suggested to,
the Black Friars that they move to the site which still bears
their name. 26
Thus the walls, the waterways, and the bridge remained,
however much altered, as legacies of Rome. Not so the
streets. As in many cities in Northern Europe, the Roman
gates sur\'ived to define where the main roads should enter
the city, and the main pattern of roads outside the walls was
Roman still. But within almost all was changed. There is
s( )me approximate correspondence (perhaps no more than
;lccidental) between the \X'estcheap and Fastcheap and the
Roman streets; a few secondary streets show some relation to
their Roman predecessors; notably \X'ood Street, Silver
Street, and Addle Street, once the principal roads of the
original Roman Cripplegate fort. r But even the main north
south route from the north and east, through Bishopsgate to
the Bridge and across to South\\'ark, is not on the Roman
BK, 1\8; F. M. Stenton. ,\'ormtlll LOlldoll (edn, ()f 1934), P (note, b\' L
ktlric, l),\\'ies and ~!BH); E, ,0; H, q ' . Billing,g.He '-1-2), Botolpb\ \X'harf
')4 \). II', tirst reference for Botolph', \\'harf is ,\ \\cstminster charter dated
: =(,~, forged in the mid 12th cent. HK, 156,265, 318 and n,; II, S.", Dowgate,
(;.lrlickhithe, Paul's \\'harf, (~ueenhithe etc. (esp, 250, 404, 492 ,). Il\; tirst
rderence for Garlickhithe IS of 1281, for Paul's \X'harf 127G.
er BK, I (,9 (for the Hars); H, ,0" \"0 (1I()lhorn and Temple Bar; .\Idcrsgate
I'.if " not recorded until much later, ihll!. ~;. For the Tower, see gaz.
For the practice in the Swiss towns. sec B. L .1. StLidcli, .\Iilloritl'llnifderiassllll
,": :md mi!!eiailerliehe Stadl (1969), esp. (,R "9; on I.d\\ard I and defence, see
"Ldles I,, :\ .. 1, Taylor, esp, in Killls Jl'Ori2J, ii, chap. (,; ibid, i, 228 el sqq, (R, .\.
hr,)\\'n and Il. M. Colvin); on Hlackfnars, \\, A. Hinnebusch, The Earl) LlI,gliJ/J
, ';,ir, I'reariJers (1951), chap. 2; Knowles ,1f1<llladc()ck, 217. On the Grey Friars.
'ce C. L h.ingsford, Grey Friars of Lundon (H) 15), esp. map facing p, \ 2; Knowles
.i"d Hadcock, 22G,
33
line, still less the main road from east to west, from Aldgate
to Newgate, save for a stretch of Newgate Street itself. 28 A
length within Cripplegate shows the Roman alignment, and
the road within and without Aldersgate may be older than the
Romans and the city. But in the main the structure of the
street plan, in the present state of knowledge, seems to owe
far more to Alfred and his successors than to any earlier
epoch; it is the principal monument of the late Old English
period, as the ward and parish boundaries are of the changing
pattern of the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
Recent studies of the town plans of some Alfredian burhs
have made us familiar with the notion of a rough grid, a
discernible pattern, which is thought by some scholars to be
characteristic of ninth- and tenth-century town planning in
Fngland. Certainly the ruthless geometric pattern of the
Milesian and Roman town planners \\'as never attempted. 2()
At first sight the city of London does not present so tidy a
pattern. But it has long been realized that it grew in Saxon
times in two halves, separated by the \\albrook, and a closer
look at the street plan reveals two grids, gathering round the
two great markets, the Westcheap (Cheapside), and East
cheap.30 To simplify a complicated story, only partly known,
the \X'estcheap was a long market running down from St
Paul's to Poultry, defined in the early and central Middle
,\ges by food markets representing produce brought in from
the country or cooked in the city; this was the food market
par excellence, and was sited close to the main country gates,
Newgate and Aldersgate. Between Newgate and Westcheap
came first the Shambles of the meat market with the church of
St Nicholas in its midst; then the fish market with Old Fish
Street and Friday Street leading to it; then the area of the
bakers and dairymen, Bread Street and Milk Street; next
Honey lane, the Coney (rabbit) i\Luket (,Coneyhope') and the
Poultn-all of which can be traced back to the twelfth
century. To the south of \Xestcheap lay Cordwainer Street
and on Cheapside itself the Mercery; south of them again, by
the river, were the Vintry and the Garlickhnhe. 31 The
\XTestcheap was thus linked both to the gates and the roads
and to the riYer, and in later times at least the trade from up
river brought it a wider variety of goods, so that it soon
ceased to be primarily a food market, and its wares came to
comprise textiles, iron, leather, and luxun' goods, spices and
goldsmiths' ware. By the middle of the thirteenth century the
fish had departed from it.
The Eastcheap lay close to the Thames and the bridge, and
came to be the market for goods coming by sea as well as
from the east by land; here, as in the \X'estcheap, were
important markets for fish and meat. The origin of Eastcheap
is more obscure than that of its western sister, and we await
the full results of recent excavations, and of the studies of Dr
Derek Keene. '2 In the present state of knowledge it may be
that the \X'estcheap goes back to the ninth century and the
,\h()yc, chap. iii, Roman Lond()n; C;rimes, 42, tig, 7; FLP, 21, "I deseril'lil'i
!JIal' ill/d~/(ldi to Roman London (2nd cein. ()S, 1983)'
" .\boyc, see gaz., and map Cin of I.()nd()n 1,12-'0 (;rimes, 42, tig. 7.
- Biddle and Hill, art, cit. n, 22 aboye.
", Ibid., 84 and n,; i'Ll', 21; R. E. \1. \X'heeler, London and tbl' Saxon!' (1935),
98-113, cf. 91 7. For what follo,,"s, Bk, 111-12, 172-7.
Sec RK, esp, 171-2, 177 and n, The idcntiiicati()n of one of the Old Frida\'
Strect, \\ith Old Change i, far from ceruin (sec gaz'J' The Coney ,\{arket was
C\'ldcnrl, linked to the Poultry '\!arkct nearl)\', and not, as has been thought, 'the
king's marker'. \\'hat follows owes much ) the ,\ch'ice of Derek keene.
See D. keene and \'. }larding, lind ibl' rlf/'e1opmellt 0/ Londoll be/or!' til(
emit Fire (forthcoming); BK, 171 2,
 CHRISTOPHER BROOKE
Eastcheap to a later epoch, perhaps not earlier than the late
tenth century.
In the rest of the city, especially in the north-east and the
centre, north of Lothbun', no such grid patterns can be seen,
and there are other grounds for believing these the least
inhabited areas of the walled town in earh'. times. I t rna \ well
be that the central part was marsh, as was the :\[{)or, lying to
the north, immediateh outside the wall, and that this explains
why so long a stretch of wall was content to ha\e no more
than a postern gate until the fifteenth centun'. It may even be
that Corn hill means the hill where corn grows, in which case
it would present a dramatic witness of the empty condition of
the north-eastern area in earh' times."
In the cluster of streets round the \X'estcheap the oldest
stratum of names are the !i(~~a names, Staining Lane and
Basinghall Street, \\'here once, so it seems, stood large
enclosures, or !i(~,!aJ, perhaps representing the cit\' holdings of
the lords or folk of Staines and Basing; ,\ddle Street, \\here
lived or walked the ,\thcling, the Saxon prince; and the
m\'sterious .\ldermanbun', site of the ,\lderman's fortified
h;ll,'~ The Alderman is p~rhaps more likeh to have been an
ra/dorlJl(]ll, lord of a shire, or of :\Iercia, than head man of a
\\'ard or alderman in the later (that is, eln'enth-century) sense;
and there may be some link bet\\cen him and a St Albans'
tradition not Yen'. secureh'. founded which claimed that the
:\Iercian King Offa built St Alban \X'ood Street, not \'ery far
away, near his royal palace,lS This ma\' prm'ide a hint to one
of the substantial unans\\'ered questions of early London
topography: \\'here dwelt the king before the royal palace
mc)\'ed to \,\'estminster? It is in am' event clear enough that
the complex of streets around the great \\'estcheap and the
cathedral formed the most substantial part of earh' London.
Between the Eastcheap and the ri\'er ran the roads which
linked it to the cluai and the peat bridge. \\'here the Roman
and early Saxon bridge 1;1\ is still contrmersial.'(l \\hat seems
reasonably assured is that the early bridge, or bridges, \,'ere of
wood, In the I 170S a pious cin' priest, Peter of Colechurch,
started the movement which raised funds for the stone
bridge, completed about 129, which-with many repairs
and alterations-dominated the city's profi.le for se\'en cen
tunes.
, the wall within the cin' boundaries. The frontier here
The Wards, the City Boundary, and the
Parish Boundaries
Perhaps the most mysterious elements in the early topo
graplw of the city are the boundaries of the wards. Of the
three great networks which define the city's shape, and are
I'm the \1 (lor. BI-'::. 160: for COrr1hilL F. q. I XI). t! Jqq. fa\'ours this
inrcrpreLltJ(J!1. Lut others seem possible. such a, the hill \Ihere corn was sold.
:\()ne the lc" there i'L';ood e\'idcncc of 'mall tields used 1m ,lgriculturc \\'ithin the
\\'all, (If large cities "n the C(J!1tlncnr In rhe carh' \!iddlc .\ges 10.\. Ilull(Jul'h, In
\"tllimdllt di Studio del' ( i 1//"1) //,',,/;.,'1;0 di Jilldi .wll'tl/to !Iltdif)t'/,fj, 2 I (S~l()1ctr), ll)- ~\
"r 99. at,X2 ".
Sec gcl/.: Bl--.. I q '. 1'1. SllllIl:trh earh mal well he Lor I,hufl. the 11/1";, lit"
I.orhcl' f,dk g,I/.: Ill--.. I q). Then: \\"Cre t\\() .\ddlc Street'. but onh' that now
called \\atll!\l' Street commemorates the .\thell!1g.
Hl--.. I I I and n . with reference to .\htt:le\\ ParI', (','Ia ,Ib/JlltlllJl S. ,-l/blilli;
fl.!>. 20 1. The rel.\tI!)!1 hel\\eCn .\I(ic-rmanLufl ,md the ro\,l! i',dace h,I' hll'n
carefulh im'eqi,l'ated :md "rhn ('\'Ille-nce deplm"Cd in an unpllhl"hed paper
T{)m D\,()n, \lhlch hl ,u, klndh ,hll\l'n me. ,ummarI/ed in T. D\" III ,well.
Sch(}t1eld, . Saxon 1.( JIHi( Ill' in I }LhLlfl1 (cd.,< 1'~2/()-Sd.Y{)n I (i!}'!? \' iii '"(Jllt!itO:
f:,(~/{/lId (19H-+), ZXIll ,. ,11 ;c(, K.
for the nloQ recent dhCll~~i()!1, perhaps ~h()\\'ing the \\'ay t();t :--njuti()!l nf the
problem. see C;. \lilne I!1 nu/,llillia. I, It)R2). 2~1 6; for the earlier IlteLltUre, Ill--..
109 10 and 10,) n. esp. \IBH In ,\. L J.
Ilollacnder and \\. l--.ellawa\ (cds.),
I//ldi!"..- ill I >M{kll ili.,-Ion preJf//led 10 P. E 1om..- (t{)(,')',. 1"')/ G. Da\l'son and R.
our chief documents for its early history, the map of the
wards is the most difficult to comprehend. The earliest
detailed map, that of c. 1676, seems to reflect a pattern going
back far into the '.fiddle Ages. 3S Precision is difficult, and
progress can onh be made as the detailed study of late
,
medieval evidence progresses; meanwhile, although the later
medieval names for thc most part are no older than the
fourteenth centun', e\'idence from the earliest list of \vards of
c. 1127 and from the topographical indications of such docu
ments as the list of purprestures of 1245, strongly suggest
continuity at least back to the early twelfth century.39 By I 127
the wards were already the smallest units of local govern
ment, headed by aldermen; and if the alderman's original
function was to be the chief man of a ward, then the wards go
back into the eleventh century.40 Very broadl\, one can say
that wards are of two kinds: the smaller wards, \\'holly within
the walls, and the larger wards, \vhich lap O\'er the wall. One
function of the latter was C\'idently to police the \vall itself;
and it may be that the\' grew up within the gates before the
frontier of extra-mural London was defined; it may be that
t he rooms over the gates themseh'cs proved focuses for
meetings and administration. It is noticeable that with two
exceptions all the extra-mural \yards ha\'e bridgeheads within
the walls, and are relativeh' very large. Characteristic are the
wards nmv called i\ldersgate, Cripplegate, and Bishopsgate,
which ha\'e a space of modest, but normal, dimensions within
their gates, then march out on a broad front along either side
of the road emerging from their gates to the frontiers of the
cit\. E\"en the exceptions seem to support the rule. For the
\\'ard outsidc Aldgate, the Portsoken, is the best documented
of all the \\'Iuds, and represents the area of extra-mural
jurisdiction enjo\ed b\ the Cnibtetw'ld in the elnenth cen
tury-and, b\ a tradition of respectable antiquity, from the
reign of Edgar.~l The other extra-mural ward, Faringdon
\\'ithout, was originall\ no exception at all, for it was only
divided from Faringdon \'\'ithin in the late fourteenth cen
tun'. Faringdon \\'ithin is of a perplexing physiognomy,
mostly lying round the Shambles and within the western wall;
e\'en after the division Faringdon Without comprises the
largest \\'ard of all, the whole space west and north-west of
between \X'estminstcr and the Cit\, seems to ha\'e been settled
by 1000, though perhaps not long before that date;42 and here
again we ma\' \\ell suppose that Faringdon \\'ard was fi.rst
defi.ned in the tenth centun' and later enlarged to its almost
imperial size.
For the rest, the ward boundaries have only revealed their
secrets so far by comparison and contrast with those of the
parishes. Before 12) 0, London held what seems to have been
.\!erritield in i.ondoll "Ircb. I. pts. j-q (19(ll) 72), t q 17, 156-60, t86-7, 224.
;;0-2: f'i.P. 12.2,.81.
Hl--., 10') n .. I IC'; C;. Home. Old LOlldoll Hrir{~e (19,1).
" Sec Bl--., d'2 ,I "qq.: ,ee .\. Il. /lea\'an, Tbe Aldermen U/ /lil City 0/ TJitidriIJ. Z
\'ob (1')08 13); .\. H. Th()I1l,I" inrroduction to Cal. Pc>,\[ 1-11,-1' (19-+,).
xxx-xli.
" for lIst oft.112' 'ce} I. \\. C. D'lIis in LHa)"JprfJenled tr; F J . Tr;III, cd, ;\. G,
Little and r..\1. PO\\';cke (1921), 45-j9 (text. 11--9); corrections in BK. 163 n.; the
purprcqurcs arc in L),re UN, IjG-I3; cf. Bl--.. 16, et .'-qq.
" Since aldermen seem to be recorded from the mid I I th cent. on (BK, I j j n.
lin Hrihtmxr of Cr,llTchllrchi. "ltlwugh the word in this ,,'me I, lirq dcliniteh'
u,ed in I I t 1 (Bel\\'lll, IIde !"!II , 'I, 1. ,I,,).
, ()n the Cllih/'J/?J/d. Ill--.. '/l ~; tor the argument that the fOrr11:ltl(Jn of the
\I'aHis came later. i.e ..lfter I reign, Hl--.. IG8. But it could he COl1ll"Ctllrcd that
the formation of I he l'orh{)ken lln,kr the Ctlih!ff~~ild in Edgar's ttTlle was the hr,t
,tel' towards the formati()n ilt \lank Un the Cnihtf/(gild as a general phen{)menon,
see now Bullough Inlt/li!I},"I, (n. " aDm'e). 2 I (Spoleto. 197-+), ,()X 9.
" Bl--.. 1("). citing '\IBH In LfR 19 (19-+81, 1(, 17.
34
 THE CENTRAL MIDDLE AGES: 800-1270
the record in \X7estern Christendom in having well over a
hundred parishes, and ninety-nine or so within the walls. This
preposterous number is a very eloquent piece of evidence for
the nature of city life and settlement between the tenth and
twelfth centuries, when most were probably founded; and a
stern and salutary reminder that the urban historian of this
period must study the history of the Church above all, must
study the ways of God as well as Mammon. 43
It immediately catches the eye that the boundaries of wards
and parishes rarely march together. There were roughly four
times as many parishes as wards, but in no case do a group of
parishes exactly fill a ward. Down to 1907 Bassishaw ward
and the parish of St Michael Bassishaw were virtually ident
ical in area; and it is probable that in the twelfth century the
Portsoken on the east side of the city and the parish of St
Botolph without l\ldgate were of the same extent. 44 These
apart, the detailed pattern is surprisingly different. There is
one broad similarity: in the north and east and outside the
wall lie the large parishes, as do the larger wards; around the
markets, and especially the Westcheap, and to the east and
south-east of St Paul's cluster the smaller wards and parishes.
In the late eleventh and twelfth centuries the map of England
was divided up into archdeaconries and (probably about the
same time) rural deaneries; \vith a certain number of excep
tions, it was normal for the archdeacons to set their frontiers
along the boundaries of shires, the deans, more approxim
ately, by hundreds. 45 One might expect to find wards hunting
parishes or parishes wards in the city of London. That they
did not do so has suggested to some scholars that the two
networks grew up together; and it seems abundantly clear
that the parishes, like the wards, originally reflected in shape
and size the pattern and substance of settlement in London in
this period. 46
The parish map is the more rn'ealing of the two. It is not
too much to say that the pattern of churches is the chief
indication we have of the settlement of the cin' in these
centuries. The chief difficulty is to determine the age of
individual churches: the earliest document, in the nature of
the case, rarely shows us the foundation of a church. Incid
ental mentions show that the pattern was \'irtually complete
by 1200; a few first occur in the early or mid-thirteenth
century. Rare is the case, however, of St Nicholas Aeon
where a secular pit of the early eleventh centun' beneath the
church assures that the first documentary evidence, of 1084,
cannot be more than half a century after its foundation;
and the mid-eleventh century saw the first flowering of the
cult of St Nicholas. 4 - Rarer still is St ;\ugustine's, of whose
parish we ha\'e the boundaries defined in a deed of the mid
4.1 See C. Brooke, 'The \[cdie\'al Town as an Ecclesiastical Centre.
M. yr. Barle\' (ed.), E1Iropean TOll'ns: Their ~~lr(haeol0.f!) and Ear!) Hij/orr (1977),
459-74, \[ilan may' ha\'e alread\' run London close, but the hiswn' of the
differentiation of urban parishes in !tal\- IS \'cn' obscurc (lowe this to an
unpublished lecture by' D ..'\. Bullough),
44 On Bassisha\\' see BK, 114-1. The relation between ward, parish, and
propcrty boundaries is pro\'isionalh' laid out in Barron, 16, 18, figs. I 2. Un St
Botolph .'\Idgate, see BK, 145-(,; rcccnt work 1)\ D. Kccne and his collcagues
suggcsts that its \'irtual identity \\'ith the Portsoken (in this sense) sun'in,d into
the 15th cent.
4.' For archdeaconries, see (.:\. L. Brookc in D. Greenwa\' 1'1 III. (eds.),
Tradition and Chanyl': Lr..a)'s ill Honoflr 0/ .1[lIr/oril' Chi/JIlIlII (19H I), I 19; on
deaneries, :\. \[ore\' and c:. :\. L. Brooke, (,i//Jtrl Foliol IIlId i,is LI'I Ifr.r (19(' I), 219
and n. 2.
4(. Scc csp. BK, ](;8.
4' BI(, IlH '9; on the cult of St :\icholas, and all problems of church dedication,
wc arc indcbtcd to thc hclp of \[r P. Hodges.
4K On St .'\ugustinc's see BK, 1;2- 1 (esp. 132 n. 2.'. For the churchcs \\'hich
have been excavated, see gaz.: St ;\Iban \\ood St., St Bride's Fleet St., St \[an
Aldermanbun', St \[ichael Bassisha\\', St :'\icholas :\eon, St :\icholas Shambles, St
twelfth century. The trowel has much to tell us of eleven of
the churches, but not more. 4H In the current state of know
ledge, however, it is reasonable to suppose that the large
majority of the parish churches were founded between the
tenth and twelfth centuries; and the proliferation of tiny
parishes, so characteristic of some of the larger English towns
of this period-though hardly to be paralleled on the conti
nent-reflects the religious sentiment of the eleventh cen
tun,.4()
Only a handful can be pro\'ed older. Oldest of all is the
cathedral, which has stood on its present site, and recorded
the cult of the Apostle and Roman martyr in whose honour it
was founded by the Italian ~Iellitus, since the earh seventh
century.50 Attached to St Paul's in the~liddle ,\ges \vas a
church of St Gregory,~lellitus's master; and so it may be a
reasonable conjecture that the early cathedral had, like its
sisters at Canterbury and York, a porticus altar dedicated to
Gregory; and that from this stemmed Gregory's parish.'! The
northern frontier of this parish marches \\'ith St Faith's,
equally intimate \vith St Paul's, for by the thirteenth century
and perhaps earlier the parish church \\'as in the cathedral
crypt. But the dedication at least can hardly be older than the
ninth century, when the relics of the saint first settled in
Conques, and is probably of the eln'enth when the cult was at
its height. The dedication to Mellitus's friend Augustine,
\vhose church lies immediately to the east, may be older than
the parish; but no dedications to Augustine are recorded
before 800 and it may \vell be much later. 52
After St Paul's, the first clear statement of London's
history is prm'ided by the churches without the walls; though
their parishes were not closely tied to the histon' of the city,
for they do not respect the boundaries of the city or its \\'ards.
Yet they are the best key we possess to the early history of the
suburbs. \'\'est of the cin' ran and run two major highways of
great antiquin'. To the north, crossing the ri\'er Holborn, ran
the road of that name, and by it lies the church of St ,\ndre\v,
recorded already. in a charter of the mid-tenth century. and
perhaps much older. 53 It is likely that Holborn is the oldest of
the cin"s
. suburbs. The southerh'. road led across the estuary.
of the Holborn, the neet, along Fleet Street and the broad
road which lay by the Thames shore or strand, the Strand.
l"ot far from Fleet Street lies St Bride's, built in an ancient
cemetery ultimately of Roman origin; but the church itself
may not be older than the tenth or eleventh century, and the
dedication is very probably Irish-l\'orse-reAecting Viking
settlement when the Irish Vikings were Christian, probably in
the ele\'enth century. Further on, in the midst of the Strand,
stood St Clement of the Danes, also a monument of the
',In Pancras, St S\\'ithun London Stonc (BK, 90 I, I,' tl .. qq. and ref., esp, to Grimes,
182-209; supplemcntcd by' rcccnt \\'ork c.g. on St :\icholas Shambles and St
Botolph Bililngsgatc 1)\ \[uscum of Lond()n Dept. ot l'rban .'\rchacolog\). For
reccnt \\'ork on St \[artin-in-the-Fields, sce abm'c, p. 28. Thcre arc in addition
those churchcs, esp. St \Ian' Ie Bow, \\'ith substantial mcdin'al remains.
BK, chap. 6; cf. C. :\. 1.. Brookc in III/din ill Chllrth Hislor)" (, (1970), j 9-8 l.
\\. Le\'ison, Ltz~/alld Illld I/H COlllillml illllit E~~lillJ CmlllT) (1946), 26 I and rcts.
For the altars at Canterbury and York, ibid., 264 I. It is most unlikel, that
thc boundan of St GregorY's parish coincided with the ancicnt boundaries of St
Paul's precInct.
On St Faith, see gaz.; r '""\, Fe,: 'capella Sancte Fidis in Cript' , (12\4). The
usc of 'capella' in this context suggcsts that thc parish \\'as in the process of
formation under the wing of St Gregon's. On the saint and Conclues, .1
Sumption, 1'i1~rill/lI.~r (19"), 11,3]3; P..1. Gcan, ]'lIrla .\(/(I"a (19,H), '0 (,,
1()9 74. On church dedications before 800, LC\'ison, op. Clt. 21') (".
See gaz.: the charter ()f~919 is not sccureh dated nor certainl, authentic, but
it is pro\'ided either in an original or a COpY not much later than 9'9, and is ,It
\\'orst good c\idence that St .\ndrcw's goes back at least to the mid- loth centurY
(see Sa\\'\'Cr, :\0. (,70, for rcferences; \\. de G, Birch (cd.), (drllllarilfllJ .la.YOlli(IIIIJ
(1881-93), Iii, :\0. 1048).
35
 CHRISTOPHER BROOKE
Christian Viking era. 'i4 They conform with the evidence of
the city boundary that the tenth-eln'enth century was the age
\vhen this suburb was formed; and they add more than a hint
that the Vikings played a leading part in settling it. A Viking
element determined to preserve its identin' seems also re
flected in the six churches dedicated to St Olaf in London and
Southwark, for Olaf owed his doubtful title to be a martyr to
death in battle against an army supported by the Anglo
Danish King Cnut in 1030; his cult flourished in England in
only a few places, nowhere more than in London. ss
St Bride's, St Clement's, and St I\ndrew's Holborn are the
only early churches known among the extra-mural parishes.
St Sepulchre's is of the age of the crusades and probably of
the early twelfth century; St Bartholomew's, based on a
founda tion of 1 I 23, and the four St Botoph's are all pro ba bh
of the twelfth centun'.'(' I t was still argued in the mid-twelfth
century that parts of the parish of St Botolph without ,\ldgatc
owed parochial allegiance to St Peter in the Bailey (ad
I'illm!a); and this is one of several indications- the presence
of sheep and vineyards arc others -that the Portsoken had a
sparse population at this time.
\'(,ith \en few exceptions the parish boundaries march
with the line of the wall. In the north, St Stephen Coleman
Street apparentlv enjoH'd jurisdiction over an area of marsh
with which it had no direct wad link, save by a postern gate
and perhaps a track-way.5- In the west, St :\lartin Ludgate
enjcwed a rectangle on either side of its gate which carried its
parish to the Fleet. For the rest, only minor variants break the
pattern. \\irhin lay tim' parishes, of an a\'Crage extent of no
more than three and a half acres; without, relativeh' larger
parishes running fwm the wall to the city boundan'; beyond
that, larger parishes still, like St Pancras, through which the
traveller could pass to the boundary of Hendon, and Hendon
carried him ro the edge of \liddlcsex.'ih Yet n'en St Pancras
and Hendon, large parishes though rhey \\'ere, were still
relati\'ely compact compared with the huge parishes of the
north-west of England.
\\ithin the walls the tin\' parishes at first gi\'e the impres
sion of bn\'ildering and irrational complexity. But certain
features stand out. First of all, the tendenc\' for the parishes
gathered round the cheaps to be smaller, those in the north
and east to be larger; a pattern we have alread\' seen shown
also by the \\'ards. In later towns, such as Salisbury, the
boundaries show a measure of regularit\, often following the
lines of streers.5~ In London within the walls it is rare for a
parish bounuan' to run straight for any length, save in the
artificial circumstances of the waterfront, where the encroach
ment on the Thames elongated the ri\'erside parishes. For the
rest, no planner designed this extraorclinan jigsa\\' punle.
Doubtless many of the irregularities show us the outlines of
property boundaries long since lost, and a number of these
are clearly later than 1200. 611 But in the main we must be
" The Strand was hrst ") namcd in sUf\'i\'in)! documcnts in the 12th century
(gaz.). On St Bride, see BK, 1'9 ,p, Un St Clement, sec F. Cinthio in SarlT)(k liT
RI'J .\If(ltael'ales Raynar B/olllql'ist ., . oblala" :\rchaeologia Lundensia, 3 (1968),
103 (,; Id, in Acta r 'isiJ)IIIJia, 3 (1969), rC'l 9, correcting BK, ql n,
" HK. 141; Bruce Dickins in S,,~a-Bo{)k ojtlie r 'iki'!R Soc. 12 (1937-4\), \3-80.
'e, Sce the discussion in BK, q; rl, esp. q6 n. 2 tor the ul1ccrtainn' ab()ut the
date of St Bmolph .\ldgate, For \\hat folio\\s, BK, q \ ( , ; HF Cart . \:os, 9(11
(e\'idcnth referring to East Smlthtield!, 964-9'
,- So the later c\'idence of parIsh buundaries suggests; but the histof\ of Its
boundan' eyidenth' needs further inYcstig,ltion,
" Hampstead was apparently a chapeln' of Hendon still in the I ,th cent. (so
V.'\, 1 \9; cf. C\:. L. Brooke, Tillie the .lrc/JJaliriJ't (19G8), Z I),
,i See Hie/(rTie TOll'ns .-ltlas, i ,r 19('9\ cd. \!an' D. L()bel, Salisbun (K. Rogers),
4, and map of parishes and warcb in the 18th centun complied Lw \.\'. H. John>,
,.
looking at the outlines of the tenements and messuages of
groups of neighbours who formed the early parishes.
Through almost every parish ran a road, and in a majority of
them a major artery of the city; in a fair number the church sat
by a crossroads with the parish lapping round all four
corners. Such were St ~Iichael in the Cornmarket, i.e. St
:\Iichael Ie Querne, in Westcheap, and St Leonard and St
Andrew Hubbard in Eastcheap. In such cases it may well be
that the church succeeded an ancient cross, such as we know
to ha\'e stood b\' St :\Iichael Cornmarket.(,j But in an\' case
they enforce the essential point: these parishes are formed hy
gatherings of neighbours; and in the case of St Augustine's
we are given in the foundation charter of I 148, which
provided a pound a year for the building (or rebuilding) of
the church, what appear to be the names of the landholders of
the parish. 'The limits of this parish are the d\vellings of
,\Ifrcu of \\'inc1sor, 0;icholas Pan'us and Hugh Ie Noreis.'(,2
Recent studies of these tiny parishes ha\'e suggested that
there are two possible origins for them: some may be
proprietan churches, perhaps pri\'ate chapels of rich men or
the churches of sokes, pri\ate jurisdictions in the cin; others
neighhourhood churches built by a group of like-minded
citizens, like the 'merchants' churches' obser\'ed on parts of
the continent.(" The Yen' elaborate excayations at St Mary's
Tanner Street, \\'inchester, re\'ealed a stage when the church
l11a\' only ha\'e opened into a pri\'ate house; hut this was
apparently preceded and certainh followed by periods when
. 1a\ more open to \lsltors.
It " (,4 1n t I'
11S case-an d per h aps In
'
man\' such -it may ha\'e been at one rime a pri\'ate church, at
another a neighbourhood church. It is likely that many such
cases occurred in London; e\'en more likely that we shall
ne\'er know the precise story oyer any length of time of any
single case. But the elements can be clearly traced.
In the twelfth centun' the canon la\\ of the western
church howeyer modifIed b\'local custom and tradition and
compromise, and tempered b\' respect for rights of prop
ern'-conquered most of the law and custom of the parishes,
and in the process froze their legal entities and rendered the
redrawing of boundaries and the rnision of rights more
formal and difficult [n' far than thn' had been hitherto. 65
Difficult, though not impossible: for in the majority of
Lnglish towns with multiple parishes substantial revision
took place, as the parishes grew fewer and larger in the late
:\fiddle i\ges. It is a measure of the constant prosperin' of
London, and of the tenacity and continuity of its histon', that
only minor changes took place in the city within the walls.
The parish, meanwhile, as defined by canon law, comprised
an area of fixed limits; at its centre lay a parish church with a
monopoly of the right to haptize and bun' the parishioners,
and to receiYe their tithes; substantial rights too to their
offerings, which could not of their nature be so closely
defined. Behind this, in the tenth and ele\'enth centuries, lay a
Sec n. 52 abo\c.
~t()\\-, i. 2J)7 8, cf cd.\ T10t<: at ii. _)_~2, suggesting ;1 I 3th-centur~ datt', but
this may ha\'e replaced an earber cross, For an analogy' 111 York, and the general
d()ctrine, see Br()()ke in Studies ill Chllrch fiistor)" 6 (1970), 78, following a
suggestion by R. B. Pugh.
" TLlmlated BK, 152, from St Paul's \'\'.0.4, fo, ) I',
"; p, ,i()hansen, in Siudiol {II (itn ,-lnjiin,gen des mmp<iiJ,I'tn StadtflJ'fsI'I1J, \'ortr,ige
und l'Ofschungen, cd. T. \Ll\Cr, i\' (1958), 499 \2\; d, Brooke, an. CIt. (n. GI,
abon'), 77 tI sqq. \!any of the pansh churches may ha\'e originated as churches of
,okes; but for the ditliculn' of reconstructing the sokes, which were often not
coherent areas, see BK, 155-6, esp. 1\6 n. 2.
, See \L Biddle, ,-111/1'1' j., \2 (1971), 104 cI sqq., esp, fig, 4 (10\), phase J, and
discu"...;j( In on 107.
e,' Sec BroOKe art. ciL, ()S ,! sqq"and refs,

 THE C E" T R A L \1 I DOL E AGE s: 800 - 1 270
concept of a parish fully as intimate to the life of a com
munity, but much more nebulous in legal definition. First of
all, a parish church before I 100 was the \\'orshipping centre of
a community. . \X'ithin a town this community . must have been
fairly well defined, especially as the multitude of churches
e\"idently depended mainly on the ofFerings of its flock for its
foundation, repair, and the stipend of its priest. So far, it was
a spiritual entity; and it is unlikely that early city churches,
then or later, had anything like the monopoly of font and
cemetery normal in country parishes. A. charter of Henry I
cited a custom b\" which the citizens of London could be
buried where they would; but it did not define who the
citizens were; nor does the charter explain hem' burial
disputes could none the less occur.M ~Iany if not most of the
intra-mural churches had cemeteries already in the t\\'elfth
century, and all may ha\"e buried some parishioners within
their walls-though such n"idence as there is seems to
suggest that much use was made of the cemeteries of St Paul's
and the con\"entual churches, and burial in church was rare
till long after this period. Thus a parish church in fact and
sentiment was a spiritual home in which ~Iammon had ah\'ays
been somewhat im'oh"ed. It could be a status s\'mbol too:
hence no doubt the aggressi\"e Viking patriotism of the
churches of St Olaf, and the readiness of many citizens to
build and maintain these highly expensive centres of local
loyalty in a city not deficient in places of \\"CHship. Abcwe all,
the church was a piece of property. It is a strange irony that in
an age when spiritual \"alues were \"er~" highly regarded, and
papal reformers particularly concerned to emphasize the
spiritual nature of all rights in churches, ownership of a
church could also be one of the most specitlc and tenacious
kinds of property known. This helps to explain why a rich
man should wish to ha\'e his own church; and the shifting
pattern of city life and settlement helps to explain \\'hy the
most tenacious rights could suddenly disappear or change
their nature. The account of l\:orwich in Domesda\" Book
makes this particularly plain. There were ecclesiastical pro
prietan" churches and a royal thegn held two and one sixth.
Holy Trinity \\"as the property of tweh"e burgesses; tlfteen
other churches were held by a group or groups of to\\'ns
folk.()- There is no reason to doubt that these \\'ere churches
built and O\\'ned by groups of neighbours. In London \\'hat
tended to happen when laymen's rights were forgotten was
that the priest \\'as deemed the o\\"ner, or came so to regard
himself. Thus a group of London's priests gave themseh-es
and their churches to Christ Church, Canterbun, in the
eleventh centurY. These included: 'the church of blessed
~Iary [St ~Ian" Ie Bow] with lands and houses and churches
pertaining to it which Living the priest gave when he became
a monk in the church of Canterbun" ... the Church \\"hich
Godwine the clerk named Bac [gave] [St Dionis Backchurch]
when he became a monk in the church of Canterbun ... The
church of St Dunstan the Confessor [in the EastJ and also the
other church of St .\lphege with the lands and houses
pertaining to the same, which A.ndrew the clerk gave when he
became a monk at Canterbun,.,()K .\nother of Canterbun"'s , .
Ilr..:, IP, l.jl (). F()r \\lut f()ll()\\" esp. Br..:, I iC n.; Bro()ke, art. cn.; Ilr..:, I q
e! ,;qq.
DB, ii. 11(," I pi'; F. Barlo\\', n,p LI~~/i,;!' (!I/Ir(/, I';"" 1;00 (19("). 192;
Hi.rtoric' 1'011'11'; ,ltla,;, ii (Hrl), ed. \\an' D. Lobel, :-"'or\\'ich (J. Campbell), z, -1;
Lnglish parish church in th" period, Barlo\\', 18;-208; J Blair (cd.), .\II/utlf'; alld
I'Clri.rh (/I/I/'(/)f,; (H)88;..
. , Tram. h~~. I Frt. Dodr. Ii, cd. D. C. Douglas and G. \\'. Greena\\';1\' (19H:i,
,)q-(), from B. \\. r..:i"an\ article, FLIJ,1.1 8 (1,)-10), ,,--69 (at ,--8). There i, an
intriguing hint of Canterbun In the dedication ()f the laSt t\\o.
benefactors was the alderman Brihtma=r of Gracechurch, who
seems to have built the grass, that is thatched, church of All
Saints (All Hallows), which has bequeathed its name to
Gracechurch Street, in the mid-eleventh century,69
London and the Kingdom
,\ slightly older contemporary of Brihtma=r, King Edward
the Confessor, reoriented the shape of medieval London by
founding the palace and refounding the abbey of Westmin
ster. The contrast between the modest thatched church-and
its very numerous tiny, box-like colleagues-and the enorm
ous Romanesque basilicas of Peter and Paul, was not com
plete until the early twelfth century, when Edward's church
had been tlnished, the new St Paul's begun by Bishop
~Iaurice (1085/6-1107) half-finished, and the conquerors had
spread a mantle of vast and tiny churches about the king
dom.- II Edward's \'\'estminster was the tlrst large church of
north French or l\:orman type to be built in this country.
:\earby lay the king's hall, first of wood, then, from \X'illiam
Rufus's time, of stone, for much of the shell of \X'estminster
Hall is of the late ele\'enth century, e\'en though the carpentry
is fourteenth. Doubtless the kings had always had a palace in
London. But \X'estminster gave them a more independent
centre which could become the core of a larger complex of
public buildings; the canny :'\Jorman and Angnin kings used
the abbey's domestic buildings as annexes to their palace.
In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, in what sense can we
call \\'estminster the political capital of England, or of the
:\orman and ,\ngn'in empires? In the modern use as a fixed
head'-juarters of government, an English or Angevin capital
was unthinkable. In that age, in western Christendom, only
Rome was such. Paris came near to it, and was perhaps the
largest of northern cities, anyway by the thirteenth century;
but its role in the French king's affairs was enhanced by the
small size of his domain. Edward the Confessor rna,' have
spent much time at \\'estminster in his later years; after the
coocjuest \\'estminster became the normal place for royal and
ecclesiastical councils, and the frequency with which the
kings \'isited it \\'as enhanced by their reluctance to visit the
north of England, and, especially after Henry II's accession,
by the comenience of London as a hinge between Britain and
the continent. In the I I 70S \\'illiam FitzStephen could refer to
it as 'regni ,\nglorum sedes,.-J But the irony of the story is
that it \\'as the reign of Richard I, of all the "\ngeyin kings the
least interested in England, which witnessed the tlrst major
step towards a permanent seat of gO\'ernment. St Augustine
had tlxed his see in Canterbury; but the growing importance
of \\'estminster in the ele\'enth and twelfth centuries made
fairly frequent \'isits to the metropolis necessary for the
archbishop, as king's tlrst counsellor and the man who had
the tlrst \'oice in electing a new king. From the time of St
.\nselm, the archbishops found it conYenient to lodge at
Lambeth; but it \\'as not until the I 1905 that Lambeth became
their permanent headquarters. From the time of Archbishop
BI---:, HI.
e)n \\cstminstCf .\hhc\ and Ed\\';ud the Confessor, see Br..:, Z9\ fI sqq,; F.
Ihrl()\\', i:dll'drd thp ((!Ilt;.r,;", ~1970;" esp. 229 fI ,;qq.; Killis II"orkJ, i, chap. -1. On St
Paul's, Bro()ke In \\. R. \latthe\\'s and \\. \1 ..\tkins (eds.), Hi,;tor)' o/.It Paul's
CII!ltdral (H))'), chap. I, esp. (" ", ,(,z; GFL"o(, 8; 13r..:, chap. 12. On
\\estminster I !all and Palace, see Kil!~.r I/"ork.r, i, chap. I z.
.IIB, iiI. z .
 CHRISTOPHER BROOKE
Hubert Walter, who combined the primacy \\'ith the role of
king's first minister, Lambeth Palace has been the principal
. -)
headguarters of the southern pnmate.
The South Bank: Southwark and Bermondsey
The main artery of London was the Thames; and down to the
heyda \. of Greenwich and Hampton Court it was the chief
road for the stateh' barges which carried the rich and great
from house to house and palace to palace, as well as for
commerce by sea and river. 'Almost all the bishops and ab
bots and magnates of England', wrote \vTilliam FitzStephen,
possibly with prophetic exaggeration, 'are as it were citizens
and burgesses of the cin' of London; they have there their
own splendid houses, where the\T dwell, where the\' layout
great sums, \\'hen they answer the king's summons to the city
for royal councils, the archbishop's for ecclesiastical gather
ings, or the call of their own affairs.,-l On the south bank
stood Southwark, with Lambeth and other great houses to its
west, and a scatter of religious houses in and about it-the
Cluniac priory of Bermondsey and the Augustinian priory of
St Mary Overy, now the Cathedral, under whose wing grew
up the hospital of St Thomas.- 4 Southwark was admin
istratinh' in Surrey, but \'itally if ambiguously tied to the
Cit\, until it became the ward of Bridge Without in the
sixteenth cenrurv.- J
Religious Houses: The City, Holborn, and
Clerkenwell
.Most of the religious houses of London stood, like the great
churches of Cologne, in an arc round the walled city.-6 In
Cologne this reflected the circumstances of earlier centuries,
especially perhaps the ninth; in London it was caused by the
shape of the city in the twelfth century. \X'ithin the walls
space could only be found for one substantial house, the
f\ugustinian priory of Holy Trinity, which owed its origin to
the powerful patronage of a gueen, ~fatilda, the English wife
of Henry I, who seems deliberately to ha\'e been, or been used
as, a symbol of traditional regality to foster the loyalty of a
city still largely English in speech and sentiment. She also
founded the first major leper hospital, St Giles in the Fields,
Holborn, without the city; and her successor, Stephen'S
Matilda, founded St Katharine's by the Tower: one of the
two ga\'C her name to the Queenhithe. Both were invoh'ed in
the spiritual and temporal life of the city. In addition, to Hoh'
Trinity, tradition asserts that on the site of the Elsmg Spital,
a fourteenth-century hospital within the wall, had once stood
a tiny com'ent of nuns.- s Howe\'er that may be, the t\velfth
century nunneries which survi\'ed all lay. well outside the
,
wall; at Clerkenwell, Haliwell, and Stratford-atte-Bow. They
BK, 1\7-8, 364, hased on Brooke in Report 0/ the Fnilidc o( [."miNt/! !'altl(f
l.l/Irar)'/or 19.-2 (1973> I I 2J. See also D. C;ardiner, Th, liun oj l."wbd!' Pal"(f
1<);0); C. R. Cheney, }-{lIbat W'tlltfT (I 'y(,-), esp. chap. \.
.IIB, iiI. 8.
-, ilK, ,12 14; Kn()\\ks "nei Hadc(}ck, 392-1; \X. P'lgC (cd.), I "CI-I Lond"'l, I.
480 4; II. I:. \laldcn (cd.-" 1(1l II/un, ii. 10-' 12.
D. J. ,johnson, S!JII//JII'"rK <lilt! rh, Cit)" (19(")"
On Cologne, see nup rqlf()[iuced in D .. \. l:\ullough\ paper In Spo]eto
Sdtim",,! (n. 11 ahoye), 21, Ii". 10, and refs. ihid. 1K, n. 42; Brooke ill Studif.' in
('1'!II'e/) HiJtor)", 6, (n 11. I.
BK, ,2,99 100, ; '4 21,lH
BK, 3Hand rets. For the tradition of a nunnery preceding Lls\"ng Spital,
Kn()\\ les ,mti I Lldc()ck, 2KK, 1-2, cite Stow and .11.1, \"I, Pt. 2, -'0,; there does not
seem 10 he.!I1\ L.!rlicr e\'idence than 5to\\ (i. 29;j'. F()r the other nunncries, BK,
p8-" .
..
were joined In the early thirteenth century by St Helen's
within Bishopsgate, an exception to prove the rule; for St
Helen's was founded in an existing parish church and its
precinct, never very large, spread, like Holy Trinity, in an
area probably (on other grounds) little occupied in the
twelfth century. These modest houses survived and even
flourished as they attracted the daughters, the dowries, and
the rents of rich citizens.
But the prevailing impression of the twelfth-century
foundations-faithfully reRecting the varied pattern of
twelfth-century religion-is of variety of ideal and function.
The Strand was no doubt alreac1\- the site of great men's
houses, though only those of some bishops and abbots can
now be traced earlier than the palace of Henry Ill's wife's
uncle of Savoy; but the oldest and most substantial was the
house of the Knights Templar, moved to the new Temple,
where their church still stands, in the I 160s and I I 70S,"7 9 Here
lay one of Henry II's principal treasuries, his first (so far as we
know) in London; and here the long drawn-out farce of
Henry's pretence that he would be a crusader was consum
mated in I 185, The Patriarch of Jerusalem came on a fruitless
mission in which he failed to win effective aid to threatened
Jerusalem, but performed the ceremony of consecration to
her local representatives, the church of the l\ew Temple and
the similar church of the Knights Hospitallcrs in Clerken
wel1. 80 Between Clerkenwell and the Cit\' the chief witness of
the union of religion and welfare, the priory and hospital in
Smithfield, had been founded by St Bartholomew and Canon
Rahere, courtier turned canon regular, in the I 120S. As the
canons became more monastic and the hospital more
worldly-that is to say, e\'en more deeply im'oh'ed with the
welfare of those who depended on a medieval hospital, the
young, the old, and the sick -the two institutions became
partially severed; hence the marked di\'ision into twO pre
cincts, and the sUf\'i\~al of the hospital when the priory was
dissolved,S! Each has bequeathed a major monument of the
medieval aspect of Smithfield: the priory, the church of St
Bartholomew the Great, and the hospital-one of the finest
collections of muniments in London.
The Temple and St Bartholomew's la\' within the city; the
hospital of St Giles, the two houses in Clerkenwell, and the
coment of Haliwell without. All were part of the complex of
London. It is characteristic of the concern of the friars, when
they settled in London in the thirteenth century, to be part of
the urban community-and perhaps too of the civic author
ities to have the friars under their e\'es that all the 'orders
four' \vere established within the city. Of these, the Greyfriars
and Blackfriars came to he within the wall; so too the Austin
hiars, who found a site a little to the \'{'est of St Helen's, by
Broad Street, in the 125 as. H2 The Carmelites, the \X'hite Friar;,
came to be settled in a fine site outside the walls, immediatel\'
east of the Temple. s3 -
SeL' .le.l/.; HI--:, 2l 1- .H I 2 and refs.; also plates 44-6.
"
" ilK, 24' ,Inti n. 3,332 and n. 2; for the Temple as treasun', R. A. Bro\\'n in
1'/udifJ /f; Sir H. JfI1kill.f(;fl (19\ 7)" \ 49, esp. 43 and n. 9,
Sec esp. :\. I--:erling, ell/ldhidl .11i..([lltllI)", 4, :\0. 3 (1972), 117 4S; ;\[oorc; BK,
J2 \ X.
\bOH:, n. 2(,. For the .\ustin !'rLus, 'lTle.!/.; Stow, i. 1_1--; F. Rotb, LI((Ii.ciJ
Friars i (19M,), 2U, d ..qq.
.111.,//11
" ltthe account in Sl\\ (li. 46) is at :111 correct, II m,l\" be thai Ldward l's ,,,LUll
of the later site of the church followed the lir,t t()un(hti()n of the cornent b\ ahout
a genccati()n; so Ihat it is po"ibk Ihat the sHe was first elsewhere. But rhe onll'
n-idence \\c han' tound suggc,t, that thc Carmelites already had interL,r, ,n their
permancnt ,ite h\ 1279 (Ca/. Pat. Jr2- !l/, 299-,00). For some of thl' c()ntusion
ahout the date and carll history of the L()ndon \X'hilc Friar" sec I--:m)\des and
Hadcock, 23 \. To the.c c()uld be added the Crutched FriH>: ,ee ga7.

 THE CE~TRAL '.fIDDLE AGES: 800-1270
The Government of London 1n the Twelfth and
Thirteenth Centuries
One of the strangest aspects of London's topography has
alwa\'s been its relation to the government of the urban
complex. The old city still retains its medieval territory and
its medie\'al constitution; round it in recent centuries has
lapped Greater London; beside it, respectful and jealous,
\'\estminster and Whitehall. Alreach in the late ;\fiddle Ages
the strength of the purse and the hospitality of the Guildhall
kept the city powerful. The king sometimes found it neces
sary or expedient to bludgeon the city; but in the long run the
need for ready money and financial support kept him at peace
with it. The city feared often for its privileges, and sometimes
lost them; hut direct confrontations suctl as that of 1215 were
not frequent. London lay on the frontiers of many jurisdic
tions, and most of these suryi\'ed. Spiritually it lay where
the sees of London, \,('inchester, and Canterbury joined, and
the splendid eleyenth century cn'pt of St ~lary Ie Bow, the
church which was and is the home of the Court of "-\rches, is a
reminder that this is Canterbury not London ground. Last of
the Tower lay the archdeaconry of Essex; the City and
Islington were in the archdeaconry of London,84 \'('estmin
ster, in principle, in the archdeaconn' of ;\Iiddlesex- but (wer
the abbey and St ;\fargaret's neither archdeacon nor bishop
held any sway. The frontiers of the see of London represented
the old kingdom of Essex and were the most ancient of
London's boundaries. K')
The officials who interpreted the king's will in these
regions were the sheriffs (and, in the first half of the twelfth
century, the justices), of London and ;\liddlesex, Essex, Kent,
and Surrey.H(,
. In the twelfth centun'. these officials sometimes
had to play second fiddle to their earls, and always to contend
with ri\'als for power in the castellans of the Tower and of the
castles of Ba\'nard and ;\Iontfichet. In Stephen's reign some
thing like a monopol\' of official power was concentrated into
the hands of Geoffrey de ~fande\'ille for a space, w hen he \\as
earl of Essex and sheriff and justice of ;\fiddlesex, Essex, and
Hertfordshire; and C\'en so late as 1215 it was of considerable
significance that the leader of the barons in rebellion against
John was the lord of Baynard's castle, hereditary 'Banneret'
of London. ,,- But the thermometer and \\'eathercock of royal
and ciyic control O\'er the city's destinies, at least down to the
Commune of Richard l's reign and the appearance of the first
man)f, was the shrievalty of London and ~Iiddlesex, a single
office from the late 11 20S and perhaps from long before. 8B
Sometimes a baron, sometimes a leading royal official, often a
citizen of London, most often some combination of two or
three of these, the sheriff rook a meandering course between
representing the king and the city. Since it was his function to
see that cash flowed steadily into the royal coffers, and that
the affairs of London were smoothly conducted, it was
essential for him to ha\'e the favour both of the court and the
Cin'. In 1 129 '30 the citizens tried to purchase the right to
q So alreacl\' the earlie't known complete Jist oi the parishe, In the arch
deaconf\', 1'.\', F() " ,e,p. ,2(" for Islington), oi IZq, On the e,empt1on
"i \\'estmimter, sec D, hnowlcs, f)oll/Hid!' Rl'l'il'lJ', I (19\:O\. .. I \ <I 'qq,; Barbara
fLu\c\, 11"/JllIllllill'r .jMJf)' (19"), p. 2 .. and n.; ()n Sr \!an::lfct\, (,jL,\02\.
" Bh, iC) I~, 19H.
, SlT Ill'., chap. 8, esp, 20.\ d .eqq.; for the carl. ,ee e'p. Gh, 19(" 19X 9 . there
\\as none In \!iddlesc" sa\'e brieth in the mld'llth centul'l .
. ' Bh, q \, 2 q 1(,; ior C;eoffrn de \Ll11dnille, rets, 1r1 Gh, 2 I"',
" HI'., !l)l ~; and see ior all problems connected \\ Ith the goyernment oi
Lond()[l in the 12th centufl, Susan Re\[lOlds\ Important paper, 'The Rulers oi
London in the Twelfth Ccntuf\', Hislor)" P (19'2),33' p; also her 'The Farm
39
._
elect the sheriff-or sheriffs rather, for a multiplicity was
already the norm; the experiment was a failure, and its
aftermath is made obscure by the doubt surrounding Henry
l's famous charter of the carh' 11 ;oS.H9 From Henry II's reign,
howC\er, the situation is tolerably clear. The king was
commonh beholden to the cin for financial aid, especially in
his middle years-when he sometimes re\\'arded it for its help
by allowing the sheriffs to be mJ/odeJ, to render, that is, no less
than the full farm, no more than the basic royal dues; and the
sheriffs, who often served for long periods of time, were
commonly city magnates or royal officials with a stake in the
cin'.
Early in the reign of Richard I London follO\yed the
example set not long before by Rouen, the other chief capital
of Richard's empire, and actjuired a ma\or. The sheriffs were
still responsible for the farm, and doubtless still officialh'
responsible for relations \I:ith king and court. But the mayor
came quickly to be effectiye leader of the ci\'ic communin'.
The transition was eased by a remarkable circumstance: from
the opening years of Richard's reign the sheriffs held office
(with rare exceptions down to the 1220S) for one year only
and were alwa\'s two in number; the first ma~'or, Henry
FitzAylwin, was mayor for life, from about 1191 to his death
in 1212. 911 EYen though no mayor held office for life there
after, and terms were often tluite short, the initiati\'e and
authorin'. of the
, man)f had been established. B\'. now the
citizens were coming to be a defined body with definite
rights, led by an oligarchy mainly of rich merchants whose
names greet us in the roll call of the sheriffs; in the twelfth
century they had already claimed to be called 'barons', and in
the I 1905 and the earh' thirteenth century the mayor had
status in certain respects on a footing with the leading barons.
Henn himself \\'as one of the collectors of Richard 1's ransom
in I 193; and his successor in 121) was one of the twenty-fi\'C
barons appointed to ensure that the king kept the terms of
'I agna Cana. <)1
"\
The London of William FitzStephen
Of London in the latter part of this period we ha\'e two
contemporary descriptions: that deliberateh' laid out in flow
ing rhetoric by \,('illiam FitzStephen, Thomas Becket's clerk
and biographer, in the 1170S, and that which may be culled
from the pages of the London Ene of 1244.92 They gi\'e a
remarkabh different picture. \,\illiam was a dC\'oted Lon
doner, writing about the most celebrated son the city pro
duced in that century; inspired by a hazy know lege of classical
models and the flights of fancy of Geoffrey of ;\lonmouth, he
produces a picture inflated with rhetoric and mythology, a
rhapsody in which the good fortune of London \\'as only
marred b\ immoderate drinking and frequent fires. The
record of \\'hat the royal justices found when they came to sit
in judgement on the city in 1244 is an interesting commentan
and Ta,ation of I.()ndon, I I I.. 12 I (,', Gllildhall Stlldi,,' in Lr,lIdoli HiJlor), I, :\0, 4
(ITI), 211 2H,
, Brooke, heIr, and RClnolds, I SOl'. o( ,jr{hirirfr+ (IC)"',), 118 -,8, But see
( \\. 1l()1]"rCf, in J. IJ .\frdim;/ fiielr,r), (, ( 1<)8C.i. ,X'j,c(,.
F"r the commune and carll' mill oraln, imd the sheflffs oi the period, Susan
ReI n()ltl" 111J/f)r), I', ;-+3'.. , ;-+8-10, ,II: Hr.", 21 H 2' i!11d chap. 9, esp., for the
c, >1lt:llcntill hackground and Roucn, 2,() tI .e(N., 2 .. 3 \, For lIenf\' FitzAdwin:
lOr.... 2j\ H, ,-I ("
:-'ce nc~t note; Lrrr l2N.
 CHH.ISTOPHER BROOKE
on this doctrine. Most of their record is a catalogue of
murders, homicides, and other misdemeanours; and in a
substantial appendix added in 1246 they give a fascinating list
of purprestures, infringements of the king's highway, from
which we can get some ,'ision of t11C other plagues the
stench of the butchers' stalls, the failure of sanitation, the
blocking of lanes and waterways, as well as the extension of
hne houses into and over the tiny streets of an e,'er more
crowded city. But if the Ene does something to dispel the
golden haze set about fitzStephen's description, it is clearh'
prejudiced in another \\a\, for it must of its nature be a
catalogue of the crimes and follies of mankind. \'(,hen all is
said and done, evidence and impression alike conhrm the
substantial accurac,' and precision of most of FitzStephen's
description; and his account of the southern segment of the
wall, along the ri,cer hank long dismissed as fiction - has
recently been dramatically conhrmed by the spade.'!'
Amid the noble cities of the world, the city of London, throne of
the English kingdom, is one which has spread its fame far and
wide, its wealth and merchantli5e to great distances, raised its head
on high. It is blessed b\ ~l \\holesome climate, blessed to() in
Christ's religion, in the strength of its fortiticati()!1S, in the nature of
its site, the repute of its citizens, the honour of its matrons ...
The bishop's see is in the Cathedral of St Paul ... ; and there are, for
Christian worship, both in London and in the suburb, thirteen
greater, con\'entual churches, apart from lesser, parish churches in
number one hundred and t\,centY-six.
On the East stands the ro\~ll ci tadel [the T()\\er] ... on the \nst
two well-fortified keeps; ~ll1d the whole wa\ round the north of the
city the wall, tall and wide, qrengthened with turrets at inren'als,
links the seven gates of the city, each double-arched. Once London
was \\'alled and w\\'ered on the south side too; but that great river,
the Thames, well stocked with tish, with tidal flm\ and ebb, has
lapped agaimt the walls mer the \ears and undermined and
destrO\cd them. Two miles to the \\'est of the Cin, with a populous
suburb in bet\\'een, the fO\al palace [of \\'estminster] rises on the
bank, a building of the greatest splendour with outwork and
bastions. Eyerywhere without their houses are the citizens' gar
dens, side b\' side \et spacious and splendid, and set about with
trees. T() the north lie aLlble tields, pasture land and lush, le\'el
meadows, with brooks f-lowin,l! amid them, \\hich turn the wheels
of the \\atermills with a hapf" sound. Cl()~e by is the opening of a
might\, forest, \\ith well-timbered copses, lairs of wild beasts, stags
and does, wild boars and bulls ... There are also in the northern
suburbs of London splendid wells and springs, \\ith s\\'eet, healing,
clear water, , . HoI \'\\'ell l Hall \\ell], Clerkefl\\cll and St Clement' s
\'i."ell arc l'specialh' fam()us and often \isired; and cro\\ds ()f
schoolboys and students and young men of the cin take the air
there on summer e\'enings ..\ good cin' indeed, if it should haye a
good lord.
'The men of the city win it honour, their arms glory; and it is
densely populated.' He claims for it a militia of 20,000 horse
and 60,000 foot in the \\ars of Stephen's reign, hgures no
doubt neyer intended to be counted so literalh' as the
numbers of churches. 'The inhabitants of other to\\'ns are
called citizens, of Lond()n, barons ... '
l\ext the schools, then the qllarlierJ.
,\bmc. p. ;2; BK. III 21. The he,t edition i, IIl,\IIl. Iii. 2 I\; for \I:\S alld
tcxt,. BK. xx 11, . mel C()mmentH\. Ibid., I 12 2 I; Oil ht/SlcphCIl, ,ee e,p. \1. C.
Chcnc~' in C/'J(r l ),' dJJd COl'fnlllJtll/ iIi "!i! .\liddlr ."lJ.,:f.l: j I I)rt'.I"rnlt'd 1& C. f< ()Iflll'l
(I(FC), '-'9 1(,. There I, an excellent .lnnotated trall,Llllon b\ Ii. L. [lurier in
L'\1. Stcnton, ,\:01'111(/11 Ltd/dOli (edn. of I')q). 2\ il. The t[;ln,iat](Hl bclow is
u,ualh Jl1\' own, but I owc a fL\\' phra,l" and much help to Butler's. The next
paragraph, comc fwm\lLl, iii. 2 4
" i.c .. no d()ubt. in the \'Intfl and (~:HlIckhirhc. This paragLlph i, from ,\Til, iii.
I ("
'at
Those who ply each particular business, or sell each kind of ware,
those who hire out their labour, arc found each morning in their
se\Ceral quarters, each employed on their peculiar tasks. There is
besides in London on the river bank a public kitchen, among the
wines bing sold in the wine-ships and wine-cellars. 94 There daily
may be found the dishes of the season: roast, baked, fried, boiled,
Ash large and small, coarser meat for the poor, more tender fur the
rich, game, fowls, small birds ... However large the throng of
knights and pilgrims pressing into the city at any hour of day or
night, or on their way (Jut, they come not in without feeding nor go
out unfed, but go to the kitchen to refresh themsel\ces, each in their
own wa\' ...
Outside one of the gates in the suburb is a field smooth in name and
fact (Smithfield). EHry Friday, except on a major festi\Cal, there is a
splendid horse-fair there, much frel] uented ...
He goes on to describe both the horse-fair and the horse races
at Smithtield, a glo"'ing description in remarkable contrast to
the account of the same area in the Foundation History of St
Bartholomew's, which describes it-admittedh' before the
foundation of the prionc and hospital-as waterlogged and
mudch, with the slightly higher ground equipped with
gibbets and other penal instruments.')' 'You would think
n'erthing \,'as in flux, as Heraclitus thought,' FitzStephen
proceeds. ' ... In another part is a separate stand for the
peasant farmers' stock and agricultural equipment; pigs with
long flanks, cows \vith distended udders', sheep and oxen,
mares 'ready to haul ploughs, sleds and carts', some with foal.
'From eyen' people which is under heayen merchants are glad
to bring their goods in ships'; but we are not treated to any
description of the Port of London, onh' to flowery yerses on
the remoter sources of this commerce: l\rabia, Saba, Babylon,
Eg\'pt, China, Gaul, Norwa\, and Russia. Allowing for an
element of fantas\, the list fairly describes the luxury, long
distance trade which was one ,'ital element 1I1 London's
()()
commerce.
;\105t of \\'hat rema1I1S consists of a brief comparison of
London and Rome- FitzStephen, following Geoffrey of
\Ionmouth, assumed the latter to be the younger of the
two and a long account of the sports of the city. London's
customs, he would ha\'e us belie\Ce, were much like Rome's:
annually appointed sheriffs, like consuls, 'its senatorial dig
nity', that is, the body of aldermen 'and lesser magistracies;
sewers and conduits in its streets'; a structure of courts and
assemblies-presumabh' referring to the large, occasional
general assembly in the Folk moot, and the regular 'shire' and
'hundred' courts of !-lusting and \\'ardmote.'r
I do not think there is am' cin' in which there are more admirable
customs, in visiting churches, honouring God's ordinances, celeb
rating festiyals, gi\ing alms, recei\'ing guests, contirming be
trothals, arranging marri~lges, celebrating wedding feasts, adorning
banllucrs, making cheerful parties, as well as in seemly funerals and
the burial of the dead. The onh' plagues of London are the
immoderate drinking of fools and the frequenc:' of tires ...
l\ext the sport, from miracle plays to carnival; mock warfare
on the land, and at Easter a water tournament on the ri\er;
jumping, archen c, wrestling, and the like; and hunting and
Hf...., ; e(, - and ref,.
tI,,,,,.
\11l. III. -, Sec Elf...., 21 x lor a dc;;cript](Hl "f the port, ;;ee thl' rU'</(lIl of
Tlwt11.I' . cf. Penguin C1a"le. tLln,. 111 .\. T. I htt() III C;ottfried YOIl StLl"burg,
{ric/all 1 ~(h:., ;41 (), lju()tcd Ilf..... 1 I X 9).
13K, LI8 If. Thc referencc to c()n;;uis i, a curious anticipation of the practice of
,lpp()inting t\\'O ,hcrit-j';; annualh, ",hich hegan in Richard I', rugn, about I j \'cars
after the ",riting of FitzStephen's book. The next passage i;; fullowed b\' that
ljuotecl on p. ;R.
 THE CE'.JTRAL yIIDDLE AGES: 800
hawking. 98 '\'{'hen the great marsh which laps up to the
northern walls of the city is frozen over, crowds of young
men flock out to play on the ice'-some skating, others
making great snowballs on which they sit; and others more
ambitious sports.
Finally, our guide is ready tC) return from the city's sports
to its great men and women, and to intrc)duce us to Thomas
Becket; and so we take leave of \'\"illiam FitzStephen, but not
before he has helped us, in a remarkably \Ci\Cid and revealing
way, to see London as a living city, to see it 'in flux', to define
its shape and meaning for a singularly enthusiastic Londoner
of the twelfth century.
The enthusiasm indeed is the final and most crucial piece of
evidence in the description. The student of renaissance
florence can compare descriptions more sophisticated than
FitzStephen's with a living city still clearh' renaling the pride
of its late medieval citizens in replanning and beautifying it.
Similarly, although twelfth and thirteenth-century descrip
tions of cities on this scale are very rare, the physical remains
of places like San Gimignano and Todi in Tuscany and
l'mbria show us a like pride in their citizens in the period of
this chapter. In England, a few of the planned towns of the
period I 150-1 3oo-Salisbury is the most notable example,
and in Wales, Conway-still reveal the care and thought and
concentration of resources in the making of a town. But there
is no other literary description from the twelfth or thirteenth
centuries comparable to FitzStephen's.99 If it is the best
commentary on the map of London in the twelfth and
AfB, iii. 8 IZ; the longest single passage, on ice sports, is on I I -I 2.
e .,cote Interesting recent discussions relevant to this chapter include T. Tatton
See J. K. Hyde, Illliletin of IiiI' jolJfl Rylands Library, 48 (I9(,(,), 308 40; B"-,
, I - I 8 and refs.
f)t antiqlliJ l,gibllJ Liber, ed. T. Stapleton. (amden Soc (I 84(,), 8.
"II~
1270
thirteenth centuries, likC\vise the map is the only effective
commentary on FitzStephen. In it we see plotted the evidence
of a quite extraordinary concentration of resources into the
outward semblance of a community not by our standards
very numerous, and a town hampered by shortage of stone
and natural building material. This meant that many early
churches were doubtless built of wood and some roofed with
'grass'. Yet stone was brought to rebuild the walls and gates,
to fortify the castles and especially the \v'hite Tower and the
later outworks; to build the Palace and Abbey of \'\'estmin
ster, the Temple and the convents in the city, and the ring of
religious houses to north and south, together with numerous
hospitals and parish churches and some citizens' houses;
above all to rebuild St Paul's as a grandiose Romanesque
cathedral with a Gothic spire and furnishings. The major
dedication of the 'old Work' at St Paul's took place in 1240.111(1
In the buildings of London which served the needs of
defence, religion, and prestige, king, bishops, nobles, and
citizens shared; and the result was a \'ariegated urban com
plex, with palaces and great churches reflecting the stake in
greater London of many elements of the English ruling
classes; and the parish churches of the city reflecting the local
pieties of innumerable lords of sokes and groups of neigh
bours. This physical aspect, so far as we can reconstruct it, is
the major evidence for London's history in these centuries;
from about [270 its record becomes much more richly
documented, and the problem of fitting together the literary
and the topographical evidence takes on a new complexion.
Brown, 'The topographl' of Anglo-Saxon London; Antiqllity, 60 (1986), 21-30;
J. Haslam. 'Parishes, Churches, Wanb and Gates in Eastern London', in J. Blair
(ed.) . .\fiIiJ/ers and Parish Chllrclies (1988), 3 \e43.