Chapter D: E S C R I B’d (2)

The south-east prospect finishes the circle, TAB. X. looking towards the valley southward, where the rain-water passes, from the whole work of _Stonehenge_, the whole tract of the _Cursus_ and the country beyond it, as far as north long barrow; and so is convey’d into the river _Avon_ at _Lake_. That road between king barrow and the seven barrows is the way to _Vespasian_’s camp and so to _Ambresbury_. The barrow under those seven kings of later form, is that nearest to _Stonehenge_.

Doubtless in the sacrifices and ceremonies which were here practis’d, water was us’d, and I observe most of our Druid temples are set near rivers. The reason why _Stonehenge_ was not set near a river, has hitherto effectually preserv’d it, this part being uninhabitable upon that account, and rather too far off a town for tillage. But when I curiously contemplated the beauty and convenience of this court, I observ’d two remarkable places, which plainly have a conformity with the two stones set upon the _vallum_; which stones puzzle all enquirers. These particulars seem to explain one another, and more especially by the help of a coin in _Vaillant_, tom. II. p. 240. for which reason I caus’d it to be engraven on that plate, TAB. XXIII. the _area_ of _Stonehenge_. ’Tis a coin of _Philip_ the _Roman_ emperor, struck by the city of _Heliopolis_ in _Cœlesyria_ under mount _Libanus_, now call’d _Baldec_, where is an admirable ancient temple remaining, describ’d and pictur’d in _Maundrel_’s travels of the holy land. In the walls of it are two or three stones of an immense length, which seem to be the fragments of an obelisk, dedicated to the sun, whence the name of _Heliopolis_. The coin presents a temple built upon a rock: to which they ascend by steps. The temple is inclos’d in an _area_ with a wall. On the left hand by the circuit of the _area_ is a stone altar. A little further, is a great vase for water to be us’d in the sacrifices. The legend is COL_onia_ IVL_ia_ AVG_usta_ FEL_ix_ HEL_iopolitana_. Now the two cavities in the circuit of our _area_, very probably were the places where two great stone vases were set, and the two stones were two altars for some particular rites, which we don’t take upon ourselves to explain. See another coin II. in _Descamp_’s _selectiora numismata_, p. 23. which is to the same purpose. Those stones are set in their proper places in my scheme of the _area_ of _Stonehenge_: and I leave them to the better conjectures of the learned in these matters. Mr. _Webb_ fancies them the jambs of two portals of two entrances, besides the great entrance; and makes them favour his imaginary triangles, from which he forms the work of _Stonehenge_, upon a _Vitruvian_ plan. And in order to bring this about, he draws one stone, that toward the east, or on the left hand, from the true and only entrance, no less than 120 foot out of its real place. No doubt, the reader will be surpriz’d at this, and the easier credit me, when I say his ground-plot in other parts, is very far from being exact. The reader will observe from my scheme, that the two semicircular hollows mark’d A A, wherein I suppose the water-vases were set, are plac’d alternatively, with the two stones: I don’t pretend to show why the Druids did so. But that stone standing, together with the upper A, and the center of the grand entrance by the stone that lies flat there, make an exact equilateral triangle; yet really have not the least relation to the scheme of the work of _Stonehenge_ in general, or to the cell in particular. Nor do the stones, or those hollows, point out any other entrance cross the ditch into the _area_. So in the tabernacle of _Moses_ and temple of _Solomon_, great vases in brass were set for water, in the court before the temple.

_North Prospect from Stonehenge_

_Stukeley delin_ _Smith sculp_

P. _a barrow open’d by Lord Pembroke_. S. _by W. Stukeley_.]

CHAP. III.

_The admeasurement of the ground-plot; and outer circle of the
temple, and imposts over it. Of the principal line of the work,
running down the avenue, and single entrance, into the_ area,
_or court. The imposts are jointed exquisitely by mortaise and
tenon. The temple at_ Persepolis _a building of this sort._

Let us now set about an examination of the measures of the temple itself. Take a staff 10 foot 4 inches and ¾ long. Divide it into six equal parts. These are the cubits of the ancients. Each cubit is divided into six parts. These are palms. Thus have we the original measure of the founders of _Stonehenge_. We will take Mr. _Webb_’s measures, and compare ’em herewith. TAB. XI. the ground-plot.

Mr. _Webb_ says, p. 55. that the whole work of _Stonehenge_ being of a circular form, is 110 foot in diameter. But to be precise, ’tis 108 and somewhat more, and his own scale in his ground-plot shows the same. This is the diameter from outside to outside, which in our ground-plot is the principal diameter. The thickness of the stones of the outward circle, he says, p. 59. are 3 foot and an half. Hence the inner diameter becomes almost 102 feet _English_. If the reader pleases to measure 102 feet upon the comparative scales, which I gave of the _English_ foot and _Hebrew_ cubit, being the measure us’d by the Druids, or in the scales at the bottom of the ground-plot, he will find that it amounts exactly to 60 cubits. 30 cubits being the _radius_ wherewith they struck the circle upon the turf, which is the inner circumference of that work. _That_ sufficiently defin’d their ground-plot. For tho’ they intended in general, that the thickness of the stones of this outer circle should be 3 foot and a half; but to speak more properly, 2 cubits (which is the same measure) yet they were more careful of one side only, of that dimension. And the chief business being withinside this temple, they set the best face of the stones inwards, upon that ground-line; the other face was suited as well as the scantlings they could get, best answer’d. _Webb_’s 3 foot and a half is precisely 3 foot 5 inches, and somewhat more, making compleatly 2 Druid cubits, as you find by the scales. They that carefully view _Stonehenge_, will easily see, that the stones of the inside both of the outward circle and of the cell, are the smoothest, best wrought, and have the handsomest appearance. For so the polite architects of the eastern part of the world, bestow’d more elegance within their temples than without. Not as our modern _London_ builders, who carve every moulding, and crowd every ornament, which they borrow out of books, on the outside of our publick structures, that they may more commodiously gather the dust and smoke. The truth is, good sense and observation of nature, produces the same ideas in all ages and all nations. Our Druids observ’d, that God almighty in forming the body of a man, made all the external parts great, bold, round, with ornament sufficient; but where the beauty chiefly consisted in the fitness of the proportions, in symmetry and plainness. In the inside, he has display’d all the _minutiæ_ of divine skill. They have done the like, according to their way, in _Stonehenge_. So even as to the outward appearance, I find they took care to set those stones that had the best outward face, toward the front or entrance. And to embarrass the general scheme of the work, they made use of two centers instead of one, but 2 cubits distance from one another; perhaps to make the thing intricate and as magical: besides the advantage it gives to the oval form of the included cell.

Observe, in laying down the ground-plot and projecting this outer circle, we said it was 110 feet, (gross measure) in diameter. We remember what is before-mention’d, that the learned _Greaves_ measur’d two galleries in the greater pyramid, in like manner, each 110 feet. So the bishop of _London_ says, from the grand entrance of _Stonehenge_, to the work is 35 yards: so he says the diameter of the circle at _Rowldrich_ in _Oxfordshire_, is 35 yards: all this while 60 Druid or _Egyptian_ cubits are meant. So the length of _Solomon_’s temple was 60 cubits, whereof the _Ædes_ 40 cubits, the _sanctum sanctorum_ 20.

The intention of the founders of _Stonehenge_ was this. The whole circle was to consist of 30 stones, each stone was to be 4 cubits broad, each interval 2 cubits. 30 times 4 cubits is twice 60: 30 times 2 cubits is 60. So that thrice 60 cubits compleats a circle whose diameter is 60. A stone being 4 cubits broad, and 2 cubits thick is double the interval, which is a square of 2 cubits. Change the places between the stones and their intervals, and it will make a good ground-plot for a circular portico of _Greek_ or _Roman_ work. For supposing these intervals to be square plinths of 2 cubits each side, and columns properly set upon them: it will admit of 3 diameters for the intercolumniation, which is the diastyle manner in architecture. But to talk of pycnostyle with Mr. _Webb_, and call these stones of ours pillars or pillasters, where they are twice as broad as the space between them, and to call this an order, is monstrous.

Thus a stone and an interval in this outward circle of _Stonehenge_, makes 3 squares; 2 allotted to the stone, 1 to the interval; which for stability and beauty withal, in such a work as ours, is a good proportion. The curiosity of the work, and the general orthography of the outward circle, I have design’d in _Plate_ XII. and it may be seen in the seven stones now remaining at the grand entrance. Which show what strictly was the intent of the founders, and where they took the liberty to relax of that strictness, and that with judgment; so as to produce a good effect. I shall explain it from Mr. _Webb_’s own measures, that I may give the truth its full advantage. P. 59. he says, the stones which made the outward circle are 7 foot in breadth. Observe that 7 foot makes 4 cubits of the Druids. He says, they are 15 foot and a half high. You find that exactly 9 cubits. P. 61. he says, the architraves lying round about upon them, are 2 foot and a half high, _i. e._ our cubit and half. He mentions their breadth to be 3 foot and half, equal to the thickness of the upright, _i. e._ our two cubits. They are jointed in the middle of each perpendicular stone. Hence tho’ he has not mention’d the length of these architraves, we gather them to be 6 cubits long. This is spoke of their inward length, for outwardly they must needs be somewhat longer, as being an ark of a larger circle. I must observe about these architraves, as Mr. _Webb_ calls them, that they are more properly call’d imposts or cornishes; for they are not made to support any thing above them, as is the nature of an architrave, but for the stability and ornament of what supports them, which is the nature of imposts and cornishes. Tho’ these bodies of stone here, never had or were intended to have, any mouldings upon them, like _Greek_ and _Roman_ works; they are wrought perfectly plain, and suitable to the stones that support them. I observe further, the chizeling of our upright stones, is only above ground. For the 4 or 5 foot in length below ground, is left in the original natural form. And that the upright stones are made very judiciously to diminish a little, every way; so that at top they are but 3 cubits and a half broad, and so much narrower as to suffer their imposts, to hang over a little, or project (in properer terms) over the heads of the uprights, both within side and without. By this means these uprights are in much less danger of falling or swerving any way: and the imposts, which are not broader than the thickness of the stones at bottom, which support them, have a graceful effect, by projecting a little, without danger of surcharging them. We see here plain, natural, easy geometry, what we may call the first rudiment of art, deduc’d from common reason: but they that can find any _Roman_ delicacy herein, must, I freely own, have a much nicer eye and taste, than I can pretend to. The Druids had, from patriarchal times, made their altars or temples of rude unpolish’d stones. But now hearing, probably from _Phœnician_ traders, of the glories of _Solomon_’s temple, at least of other temples made artfully in imitation of it; such as those of _Sesostris_ in _Egypt_, and others about _Phœnicia_: they thus made a small approach to square scantlings and stones wrought. And this seems to have been the first and the last work of theirs of this kind, that I can hear of, either in the _Britanic_ isles, or on the continent. And no doubt but it must give them so high a reputation, that even the people of _Gaul_ themselves could not help owning to _Cæsar_, that the discipline of these men was first begun here, and carry’d on with such success, that they sent their youth from the continent hither, as to an academy, to be initiated in their learning. We are not to suppose these words are to be strictly taken, as if the Druids here began their institution: but that being an oriental manner of religion, and much different from that on the _Gallic_ continent, what they had of it there, was deriv’d from _Britain_. It appear’d as much new to them, who were chiefly idolaters, as in many ages preceding, _Abraham_’s religion appear’d new to the inhabitants of _Phœnicia_ and _Egypt_: who were then not much tinctur’d with idolatry. Nor, probably, had the Druids much opportunity of building another such work, as _Stonehenge_, between its foundation and the _Roman_ times. Because, I apprehend, the encroachments of the _Gallic_ nations from the continent, seating themselves in _Britain_, about 200 years before _Cæsar_’s invasion, had molested the Druids much, in these southern counties: and drove them with the old _Britons_, farther northward and westward. But of this we will treat more particularly afterwards, when we offer our opinion, of the time when it was made.

_Southwest Prospect from Stonehenge_

_Stukeley delin_ _Smith sculp_

A. _the barrow L^d. Pembroke open’d_ B.B. _those I open’d_ C. _Bushbarrow_ D. _a cavity in the vallum_.]

In the orthographic plate, TAB. XII. we may see the strict geometry of the work of this outward circle, and the artful variation therefrom, in order to make the aperture of the grand entrance somewhat wider than the rest. Mr. _Webb_ does not take notice of this particular; and he might have triumph’d in it. For ’tis no less than a _Vitruvian_ rule, to relax the intercolumniation just in the middle of the portico, in the front of a temple, and over-against the door. He speaks of it in _Lib._ III. 2. when talking of the _Eustyle ratio_, the best for use, appearance and strength: he directs the intercolumniation to be of two diameters and ¼; but the middle intercolumniation of three diameters. By which means the approach to the door will be much more commodious, and nothing diminish’d of beauty in aspect. And this is the reality of the case before us.

But alas, our _British_ priests knew nothing of _Vitruvius_; they deduc’d this knack from an authority much ancienter than him, _viz._, from pure natural reason, and good sense. Nor does this hurt the whole of the work. The aperture ought strictly to have been two cubits equal to the rest, but they advanc’d it to two cubits and a half. This only crowds the next intervals on each side a small matter nearer, the rest preserving their true distance quite round. And in the work itself, ’tis obvious enough to the naked eye. Again, there is another remarkable particular observ’d by our priests. Because the aperture of the principal entrance we are speaking of, is wider than the rest: they have made the impost over it thicker than the rest, and ’tis equally obvious to the naked eye. This was the more effectually to secure it from breaking. But this additional thickness they have put below. They were sensible it would have produc’d an ill effect at top, by breaking the line of that noble cincture. It must be own’d this was extremely well adjusted. And the breadth of the stone that hangs over head in this place is astonishing. See _Plate_ VII. call’d a peep into the _sanctum sanctorum_. I had the greatest pleasure imaginable, in the year 1723, _July_, in being here for several days together, with the learned _Heneage_ Lord _Winchelsea_. I have just reason to boast of that intimacy he indulg’d me in; and his memory must for ever be dear to me, for his noble qualities. My Lord and I were very careful in taking the measures of _Stonehenge_; and with great grief we observ’d, the stones here represented in that _Plate_, and TAB. V. the front view, to be much deviated forwards from their true perpendicular, and in the utmost danger of falling. ’Tis to be fear’d some indiscreet people have been digging about the great entrance, with ridiculous hopes of finding treasure, and loosen’d thereby the chalky foundation. We found by measure, that the upper edge of the impost overhangs no less than 2 foot 7 inches, which is very considerable in a height of 18. The whole breadth at the foundation is but 3 foot and a half. And this noble front is now chiefly kept up by the masonry of the mortaise and tenon of the imposts.

Thro’ the middle of the principal entrance, runs the principal line of the whole work; the diameter from north-east to south-west. This line cuts the middle of the altar, length of the cell, the entrance, the entrance into the court, and so runs down the middle of the avenue, to the bottom of the valley for almost 2000 feet together. This is very apparent to any one at first sight, and determines this for the only principal entrance of the temple. All the other intervals of the stones of the outer circle, have no preheminence in any respect. There is no such thing as three entrances, which Mr. _Webb’s_ scheme suggests. He might as well have pretended there are 6, for so many points of his triangles meet in intervals, at the verge of the outer circle. Upon this line are all the principal centers that compose the work, it varies a small matter from true north-east.

The contrivance of our artificers in making mortaises and tenons, between the upright stones and the imposts is admirable, but so contrary to any practice of the _Romans_, that it alone is enough to disqualify their claim to the work. Much judgment and good sense is shewn in the management of them. The centers of the tenons are 2 cubits distant from each other, upon each upright. By this means there is 4 cubits distance from the center of the tenon of one stone, to the center of the tenon of its next neighbour, across the intervals, or in one impost. Divide the upper face of an upright into its 2 squares, the center of a tenon is in the center of that square. Divide the under face of an impost, into its 3 squares, the correspondent mortaises are in the centers of the two outermost squares, and this was the strict geometrical method us’d by the founders: so that the stones fitted, as soon as plac’d in their true situations. These tenons and mortaises of this outer circle are round, and fit one another very aptly. The tenons and mortaises, are 10 inches and a half in diameter, which is 3 palms, or half a cubit. They rather resemble half an egg, than an hemisphere. These most effectually keep both uprights and imposts from luxation, and they must have used great labour that threw them down. Sir _Robert Sibbald_ speaks of a rocking stone in _Ireland_, contriv’d with mortaise and tenon like ours: of which Mr. _Toland_ gives us an account, with other like, the works of the Druids.

The whole height of upright and impost is 10 cubits and a half. The uprights 9 cubits, the impost 1 cubit and a half, so that the impost is a 6th part of the height of the upright. If we measure on the outside, the collective breadth of two upright stones, and the interval between them, ’tis 10 cubits and a half equal to the whole height; and the interval is half the breadth of a stone, the thickness of a stone is half its breadth. That impost which lies over the grand entrance, we said, was deeper and longer than the rest. _Abraham Sturges_ an architect, and myself measured it, in presence of Lord _Winchelsea_. Its middle length is 11 feet 10 inches, which is 6 cubits 4 palms; 2 foot 11 inches high, which is 1 cubit 4 palms. They have likewise added a little to its breadth, more than the rest, being 3 foot 9 inches, which is 2 cubits and a palm. _N. B._ The scale of my drawing is adapted for the inside of the circle, upon which the proportions in geometry are built: so that the outward breadths of the uprights and lengths of the imposts are somewhat more, than by the scale appears there. The intelligent reader knows this must be the consequence, in arks of a larger circle.

_South-East Prospect from Stonehenge_

_Stukeley delin._ _Smith sculp_]

Nothing in nature could be of a more simple idea than this vast circle of stones, and its crown-work or _corona_ at top; and yet its effect is truly majestic and venerable, which is the main requisite in sacred structures. A single stone is a thing worthy of admiration, but the boldness and great relievo of the whole _compages_, can only be rightly apprehended, from view of the original. On the outside, the imposts are rounded a little to humour the curvity of the circle, and within they are strait, tho’ they ought to be a little curv’d. This makes them somewhat broader in the middle, than at the end, and broader than the 2 cubits, which is the thickness of the upright stones, upon an ichnography. So that within, the crown-work makes a polygon of 30 sides. But this little artifice without debasing the beauty of the work in the least, adds much strength to the whole, and to the imposts in particular. We may guess their proportions are well chose, when so many of them are thrown down by violence, and not broke in the fall. And their greater breadth in the middle, or that part that covers the intervals, adds to the solemnity of the place, by the shadow they present at the bottom. The whole affair of jointing in this building is very curious, and seems to be the oldest and only specimen of this kind of work in the world. There is nothing, that I know of, comes in competition with it, but the celebrated ruins at _Persepolis_. TAB. XXXV. It is compos’d of great stones laid across one another, as _Stonehenge_: but not with mortaise and tenon. The vulgar and learned too, generally take it for the remains of the palace of the _Persian_ monarchs, burnt by _Alexander_ the great; but it is really an open temple like ours, and made much in the same manner. But the stones are well squar’d, ornamented with mouldings and carvings, and the whole of them are squares, not round works as here. _Persepolis_ is a mixture, between the ancient patriarchal round form of open temples, and the square form introduc’d under the _Jewish_ dispensation, in opposition to the former, which were generally degenerated into idolatrous purposes. But of this I shall speak more perhaps hereafter, when I treat of the most ancient temples.

Of the outer circle at _Stonehenge_ which in its perfection consisted of 60 stones, 30 uprights and 30 imposts, there are more than half the uprights, _viz._ 17 left standing. 11 of these uprights remain, continuous, by the grand entrance, five imposts upon them. One upright at the back of the temple or on the south-west, leans upon a stone of the inner circle. There are six more lying upon the ground, whole or in pieces. So that 24 out of 30 are still visible at the place. There is but one impost more in its proper place. And but two lying upon the ground, so that 22 are carried off. Hence I infer, this temple was not defac’d when christianity prevailed. But some rude and sacrilegious hands carried the stones away for other uses. However it cannot but be the highest pleasure imaginable to a regular mind, to walk round and contemplate the stately ruins which I have endeavour’d to preserve in the outside views, such as TAB. XIII. from the south-west, and so of the rest. But we may say with _Lucan_,

_Jam magis atque magis præceps agit omnia fatum._

CHAP. IV.

_Of the lesser circle of stones, without imposts. A disputation
against Mr._ Webb.

Many drawings have been made and publish’d, of _Stonehenge_. But they are not done in a scientific way, so as may prove any point, or improve our understanding in the work. I have therefore drawn four architectonic orthographies: one, TAB. XII. is of the front and outside: three are different sections upon the two principal diameters of the work. These will for ever preserve the memory of the thing, when the ruins even of these ruins are perish’d; because from them and the ground-plot, at any time, an exact model may be made. TAB. XIV, XV, XVI. these orthographies show the primary intent of the founders; they are the designs, which the Druids made, before they put the work in execution. And by comparing them with the drawings correspondent, of the ruins, we gain a just idea of the place, when it was in its perfection. But now as we are going to enter into the building, it will be proper again to survey the ground-plot, TAB. XI. which is so different from that publish’d by Mr. _Webb_. Instead of an imaginary hexagon, we see a most noble and beautiful ellipsis, which composes the cell, as he names it, I think _adytum_ a proper word. There is nothing like it, to my knowledge, in all antiquity; and ’tis an original invention of our Druids, an ingenious contrivance to relax the inner and more sacred part, where they perform’d their religious offices. The two outward circles do not hinder the sight, but add much to the solemnity of the place and the duties, by the crebrity and variety of their intervals. They that were within, when it was in perfection, would see a most notable effect produc’d by this elliptical figure, included in a circular _corona_, having a large hemisphere of the heavens for its covering.

Somewhat more than 8 feet inward, from the inside of this exterior circle, is another circle of much lesser stones. In the measure of the Druids ’tis five cubits. This circle was made by a radius of 24 cubits, drawn from the common centers of the work. This struck in the chalk the line of the circumference wherein they set these stones. The stones that compose it are 40 in number, forming with the outward circle (as it were) a circular portico: a most beautiful walk, and of a pretty effect. Somewhat of the beauty of it may be seen in _Plate_ XVII. where, at present, ’tis most perfect. We are impos’d on, in Mr. _Webb_’s scheme, where he places only 30 stones equal to the number of the outer circle, the better to humour his fancy of the dipteric aspect, p. 76. He is for persuading us, this is a _Roman_ work compos’d from a mixture of the plainness and solidness of the Tuscan order, with the delicacy of the Corinthian. That in aspect ’tis _dipteros hypæthros_, that in manner ’tis _pycnostylos_; which when apply’d to our antiquity, is no better than playing with words. For suppose this inner circle consisted of only 30 stones, and they set as in his scheme, upon the same _radius_, as those of the outer: what conformity has this to a portico properly, to an order, _tuscan_, _corinthian_ or any other, what similitude is there between these stones and a column? where one sort is square oblong, the other opposite (by his own account) pyramidal. Of what order is a column, or rather a pilaster, where its height is little more than twice its diameter? Where is the base, the shaft, the capital, or any thing that belongs to a pillar, pillaster or portico? the truth and fact is this. The inner circle has 40 stones in it. Whence few or none but those two intervals upon the principal diameter, happen precisely to correspond with those of the outer circle. Whereby a much better effect is produc’d, than if the case had been as _Webb_ would have it. For a regularity there, would have been trifling and impertinent. Again, Mr. _Webb_ makes these stones pyramidal in shape, without reason. They are truly flat parallelograms, as those of the outer circle. He says, p. 59. they are one foot and a half in breadth, but they are twice as much. Their general and designed proportion is 2 cubits, or two cubits and a half, as they happen’d to find suitable stones. A radius of 23 cubits strikes the inner circumference: of 24 the outer. They are, as we said before, a cubit thick, and 4 cubits and a half in height, which is above 7 foot. This was their stated proportion, being every way the half of the outer uprights. Such seems to have been the original purpose of the founders, tho’ ’tis not very precise, neither in design, nor execution. In some places, the stones are broader than the intervals, in some otherwise: so that in the ground-plot I chose to mark them as equal, each 2 cubits and a half. There are scarce any of these intire, as to all these dimensions; but from all, and from the symmetry of these _Celtic_ kind of works, which I have been conversant in, I found this to be the intention of the authors. ’Tis easy for any one to satisfy themselves, they never were pyramidal; for behind the upper end of the _adytum_, there are three or four left, much broader than thick, above twice; and not the least semblance of a pyramid. I doubt not but he means an obelisk, to which they might some of them possibly be likened, but not at all to a pyramid. Nor indeed do I imagine any thing of an obelisk was in the founders view; but the stones diminish a little upward, as common reason dictates they ought to do. Nor need we bestow the pompous words of either pyramid, or obelisk upon them. For they cannot be said to imitate, either one or other, in shape, use, much less magnitude: the chief thing to be regarded, in a comparison of this sort. The central distance between these stones of the inner circle, measured upon their outward circumference, is 4 cubits. I observe further, that the two stones of the principal entrance of this circle, correspondent to that of the outer circle, are broader and taller, and set at a greater distance from each other, being rather more than that of the principal entrance in the outer circle. It is evident too, that they are set somewhat more inward than the rest; so as that their outward face stands on the line that marks the inner circumference of the inner circle. I know no reason for all this, unless it be, that the outside of these two stones, is the outside of the hither end of the ellipsis of the _adytum_: for so it corresponds by measure upon the ground-plot. This is apparent, that they eminently point out the principal entrance of that circle, which is also the entrance into the _adytum_. For five stones on this hand, and five on that, are as it were the _cancelli_ between the _sanctum_ and _sanctum sanctorum_, if we may use such expressions. ’Tis scarce worth mentioning to the reader, that there never were any imposts over the heads of these stones of the inner circle. They are sufficiently fasten’d into the ground. Such would have been no security to them, no ornament. They are of a harder kind of stone than the rest, as they are lesser; the better to resist violence.

_The Geometrical Ground plot of STONEHENGE_

_Viro doctissimo et Britan̄icæ Antiquitatis peritissimo ROGERO GALE Ar̄. Geometriæ CELTICÆ specimen dedicat W Stukeley 1723_

_W Stukeley delin_ _Harris sculp_]

There are but nineteen of the whole number left; but eleven of them are standing _in situ_. There are five in one place standing contiguous, three in another, two in another. The walk between these two circles, which is 300 foot in circumference, is very noble and very delightful. Probably it gave _Inigo Jones_ the idea of designing that fine circular portico, which is one great beauty, among many, in his drawings for _White-hall_, publish’d lately from the originals by my Lord _Burlington_; who has a true notion of the extraordinary merit of that great man: and very commendably has reviv’d his memory. Such a circular portico put in execution, would have a marvellous effect, much exceed a common gallery in use, because ’tis a perpetual walk, without turning back, and well becomes a royal residence. The best view of this sort, to be had from our work, is from the north, as in TAB. XVII. the reader cannot but observe, how little pretence here is for an imitation of _Greek_ or _Roman_ portico’s, notwithstanding the grand and agreeable curve of the outward circle. But when we see the disproportion of the inner circle in regard to any purpose of this sort, we must own the invention of _Hermogenes_ in contriving the _pseudo-dipteros_, is here apply’d with an ill grace. The founders of _Stonehenge_ cou’d have no need of make-shifts for want of room on _Salisbury_ plain. Or how could a concentric row of little stones, or pillars if he will so have it, bear any resemblance to the contrivance of _Hermogenes_, which consisted in having none; in taking away the whole inner row of pillars, so as to add to the convenience of room, and preserve the aspect, at the same time? Most undoubtedly the Druids had no further meaning in it, than to make use of the even numbers of 30 greater stones, and 40 lesser stones; and this was to produce a more perplexed variety, by the interstices having no regard to one another. So far were they from having a notion of _Grecian_ beauty, in the pillars of circular portico’s being set on the same _radius_; pillar answering to pillar, intercolumniation to intercolumniation. And this will be shown repeatedly in the progress of this work, to be the common practice of the Druids in other like instances.

But when we consider the cell, as Mr. _Webb_ names it, we find him guilty of great disingenuity, in ill conceiving the form of it, and in distorting his ground-plots, to colour it over the better. The minute you enter this _adytum_, as in TAB. XVIII. you discover ’tis not a hexagon, nor ever was intended for one, and there can be no greater absurdity than to imagine it one. It is in truth compos’d of certain _compages_ of stones, which I shall call _trilithons_, because made, each of two upright stones, with an impost at top: and there are manifestly 5 of these _trilithons_ remaining. But the naked eye easily discovers, they are very far from making 5 sides of a hexagon. They cannot be brought to any approach, of a truly circular polygon. 3 _trilithons_ of the 5 are remaining entire, 2 are ruin’d indeed, in some measure, but the stones remain _in situ_. And nothing is easier, than to take the ground-plot, from symmetry and correspondency. We see the two _trilithons_ on the wings or sides of the _adytum_, are set almost in a strait line, one of another; when in a hexagon form, they ought to make a considerable angle. If you examine them trigonometrically, the true angle of an hexagon is 120 degrees, but here is an angle of near 150. And by making it an hexagon, he supposes one _trilithon_ entirely gone, _that_ nearest the grand entrance, when there is not the least appearance that ever there were such stones there. No cavity in the earth, no stump or fragment visible, nor is it easy to imagine, how 3 stones of so vast a bulk could have been clean carried away, either whole or in pieces. There is no room for them to have been carried away whole, no traces of their having been thrown down, broke in pieces and so carried away. This outer side of the work being the most perfect of the whole. Of the ruins of the other _trilithons_, there is not the least part wanting. What has been thrown down and broke, remains upon the spot. But this _trilithon_ in dispute, must needs have been spirited away, by nothing less than _Merlin’s_ magic, which erected it, as the monks fable. Besides, if it were still standing, it would be very far from making this _adytum_ a regular hexagon, to which he has accommodated his _peripteros_ scheme: p. 87. Further, granting it was a regular hexagon, it would be very far from corresponding with that scheme, or have the least appearance, of its being taken from such a one. For our editor there, has converted the cell quite from the nature of that at _Stonehenge_. He has made the upper end of his cell at the letter H opposite to the grand entrance G, not a _trilithon_ as it is notoriously at _Stonehenge_, but an angular interval between 2 _trilithons_. It is not the side of the figure, but the angle. Whereas it is most notorious at _Stonehenge_, that the upper end of the _adytum_ opposite to the grand entrance, and to the whole length of the avenue and entrance between it and the _area_, is a _trilithon_; not an angle or interval. And that _trilithon_ is exceeding stately, tho’ in ruins, one of the upright stones being fallen, the other leaning. So that here, we have the cell converted full a 6th part of the whole compass, from its true and original situation, and so in all the schemes of Mr. _Webb’s_ book, not one excepted. In that, for instance, _Scheme_ I, p. 56, the high altar is plac’d at D not against a _trilithon_, as it ought to be, opposite to the grand entrance in the front of the temple, and to the (only) entrance below, into the _area_, but against an angle between two. If then you suppose that hexagon remov’d back a 6th part, so as that a _trilithon_ be set behind the high altar, as it is really in the thing its self, and upon the principal diameter of the whole work: then this absurd consequence follows, that the opposite _trilithon_ of the cell stands in the very midst of the entrance into the cell, upon the same principal ground-line or diameter of the work, and quite obstructs the view and entrance into it. It is altogether as ridiculous, as if a dead wall was built under St. _Paul’s_ organ-loft, which is and ought to be the chief entrance into the choir. Besides, by _Webb’s_ ground-plots and uprights, it seems as if, when you entered this _adytum_, there were 3 _trilithons_ on the right, and 3 on the left, whereas it is most obvious, there are but two on the right, and two on the left; when you advance into it, the orderly way, from the north-east grand entrance of the avenue; which he himself p. 55. owns to be the principal. But I am tired of so ungrateful a talk, which necessity alone could have extorted from me.

_The Orthography of Stonehenge_]

CHAP. V.

_Of the cell or_ adytum _of_ Stonehenge. _Of the_ Surgeons
_amphitheater_, London.

Disputations become cloisters and porticoe’s. Let us now with minds free from passion, enter the _adytum_ with an intent to find out its true figure, to examine what it really was, and what it is. And that may easily be done, because (as I said before) as to the _trilithons_ of which it is chiefly compos’d, they are all remaining. Not a bit is lost, but what mischievous and silly people knock off with hammers, to see whether, as the wretched vulgar notion would have it, the stones be factitious. TAB. XVIII. is a design of it, which I made sitting in the center of the grand entrance in the inner circle. This point is properly the door-way or entrance into the _adytum_, as a wicket or little door, whilst the jambs of the hithermost _trilithons_ present themselves, as the greater door, of above 40 feet wide, 25 cubits. I observe in the old _Greek_ story, many footsteps of the primitive patriarchal way left in their sacred structures, which are parallels to this work before us, and others of our Druids. For instance, _Pausanias in atticis_ speaks of a temple dedicate to _Venus_, in the front of which, is a wall (as he calls it) built of rude stones. Nevertheless he concludes it to be a very famous work. One may very well imagine, this wall of rude stones is the remnant of some such old work as ours, left for the sacred regard the people had to it, even after art was risen to great height, together with superstition and idolatry. For that the most ancient _Greeks_ had very little of idolatry, any more than our Druids, I shall show when I discourse on that head. Again: the more sacred part of the temple at _Hierapolis_ answering to our _Adytum_, had no door, tho’ none enter’d therein but the chief priests. _Lucian de deâ Syria._ I suppose it was in imitation of the ancient usage, without doors to shut or open, as our temple here. For the ancients thought it wrong, to confine the deity, as it were, within any cover’d place: ’till _Moses_, by God’s direction, made a tabernacle cover’d with skins, which was to adumbrate the Messiah Son of God, who was to be cloathed with out nature. And _Solomon_’s temple was built in imitation of this tabernacle. But before that, the ancients meant no more by temples, or altars, as they were first call’d, than a certain known and conspicuous place, ornamented in a particular manner, that should mark out a _kebla_, or a place towards which we are to address the Deity, and that for uniformity sake. As the _Turks_ and _Arabians_ do now, who are the descendants of _Ishmael_, and had this custom from _Abraham_. Tho’ the supreme Being be omnipresent, yet for our convenience, where time, place, and such kind of circumstances are necessary to a public action, he would have, as it were, the place of his presence made notorious. As in the _Jewish_ dispensation he did in a most extraordinary manner, by the _shechinah_. And from _Solomon_’s temple, all the rest of the world borrow’d the fashion of temples, properly so call’d, built magnificently and with roofs. For the sacred houses mention’d in scripture before then, were only little chapels, shrines, like our Druids _kistvaens_, which sometime they carried about in a cart, sometime were fix’d in cities, for publick use; as _Beth Dagon_, and the like. These were but _kistvaens_ improv’d, niches turn’d into _sacella_, in imitation of two or three stones in _Abraham_’s altars, which we may well call the _kebla_, and find many of them among our Druid antiquities.

The cell is form’d by a radius of 12 cubits and a half, from the two centers _a_ and _b_, as to the inward curve; the outward takes a radius of 15 cubits; for these stones are two cubits and a half thick. The two circles are turn’d into an oval, by a radius of 30 cubits, (after the usual manner) set in the two centers _c_ and _d_, where the two circles intersect. The former centers are 12 cubits and a half distant from each other, the length of the radius. The same oval is obtain’d by a string of 60 cubits, the ends ty’d together, and turn’d round upon two centers, according to the gardiners method. An oval form’d as this is, upon two centers coinciding with each other’s circumference; or, which is the same thing, whose centers are distant from each other the length of their radius, is most natural and most beautiful, being the shape of an egg. Most probably these religious philosophers had a meaning, in thus including an egg-like figure, within a circle, more than mere affectation of variety. Whatever that was, we may reasonably conclude, that from the method in antiquity, of making the _kebla_ of a curved figure, the christians borrowed theirs of turning the east end of their churches in that manner; and that the Druids in the work before us, have produc’d the noblest _kistvaen_ or _kebla_ that is known.

My purpose in drawing many prickt lines upon the plate, is not difficult to be understood. Nor does it require particular explanations. To avoid affectation or tediousness, I leave them to the readers amusement: only observe, that Mr. _Webb’s_ equilateral triangles have no hand in forming the cell. The intent of it is very distant from a regular polygon. But that it is incomparably more beautiful; than such a one would have render’d it. It is as a magnificent niche 27 cubits long, and as much broad, measuring in the widest place.

This part is call’d Σηκος or _concha templi_ and _adytum_, into which, we may suppose, none but the upper order of priests, together with the high-priest, were commonly to enter, during the time of ministration, in religious rites. We may imagine the beauty of the appearance here upon those occasions, when an innumerable company of the Druids assisted, all in white surplices. The center of the excentricity of this oval is but three cubits nearer the entrance, than the center of the whole work. And they have cut off but one _trilithon_, which they make the opening of the _adytum_; meeting the eye to great advantage, from the grand entrance. By the aforesaid contrivance, there is left a space of five cubits between the jambs of the opening of the _adytum_, and the inner circle in front, just the same as is between the inner and outer circle. The inner circle there performing the office of _cancelli_ to it, as we observ’d before. If a choir of this form was put in practice, and executed by a masterly hand, it would have a very extraordinary effect, and perhaps excel the too similar concave of a cupola. Our Druids had undoubtedly such a notion, in placing this within a circle. And for the sake of this, they turn’d the two circles into a smaller species of an ellipsis.

_Stukeley. delin._ _G. Vander Gucht Senl._

_Prospect of_ STONEHENGE _from the Southwest_.]

There’s a Druid antiquity like our _adytum_ in shape, call’d _Eglwys Glominog_, on the top of _Arennig vaur_ in _Lhanykil_ parish, _Merionydhshire_, but made of a continued wall. The ancients thought the world of an egg-like shape, and as the world is the temple of the Deity, they judg’d it proper to form their temples, so as to have a resemblance thereto. The ancient hieroglyphic of the Deity is a circle, and I have reason to believe it more ancient than the flood. _Plato_, who learnt much from the ancestors of our Druids, says in _Diogenes Laertius_, that God is spherical, which he must mean hieroglyphically. So our Druids, as well as he, may mean the infinity of nature in the Deity, who made the world, by this scheme of _Stonehenge_; at least they understand by the circle, the seat and residence of the Deity, the heavens, which include all things.

It seems to me, that _Inigo Jones_ from this _adytum_ projected the plan of the _Surgeons_ theatre in _London_, a fabric for seeing and hearing much admired by all good judges. And which my Lord _Burlington_, out of a spirit truly noble, and a great love for the architect’s memory, has lately repair’d, with his own charges and excellent skill. I find the _Surgeons_ theatre (or rather amphitheatre) is form’d from the same proportion as our _adytum_, the transverse and conjugate diameters being as 4 to 3, _viz._ 40 foot and 30 foot. And this appears to me a strong presumption, that _Inigo Jones_ did not make the ground-plot of _Stonehenge_, publish’d under his name. The _Surgeons_ amphitheatre is a good deal less than our cell.

Such is the noble and easy geometry of the _adytum_ of _Stonehenge_. The stones that compose it, are really stupendous, their height, breadths and thickness are enormous, and to see so many of them plac’d together, in a nice and critical figure, with exactness; to consider, as it were, not a pillar of one stone, but a whole wall, a side, an end of a temple of one stone; to view them curiously, creates such a motion in the mind, which words can’t express. One very remarkable particular in the construction of this _adytum_, has escaped all observers: which is this. As this part is compos’d of _trilithons_ (as I before call them) sett two and two on each side, and one right before; they rise in height and beauty of the stones, from the lower end of the _adytum_, to the upper end. My meaning is this. The two hithermost _trilithons_ corresponding, or those next the grand entrance, on the right hand, and on the left are exceeded in height, by the two next in order; and those are exceeded by the _trilithon_ behind the altar, in the upper end of this choir. So that in laying down the measures of the parts, that compose this place, the reader must be content to take my word. Mr. _Webb’s_ measures cannot be precise in all of them, seeing he knew nothing of this particular; and that his notion of an hexagon, is contradicted by it, as well as by fact. “He says p. 60. the stones of the greater hexagon seven foot and a half in breadth, three foot nine inches thick, and twenty foot high, each stone having one tenon in the middle.” His measure of seven foot and a half in breadth, only shews the vastness of the stones, it is no precise measure, for the founders regarded not any preciseness in their breadth: because two together were design’d to make a _compages_, whereon to set the impost, and this I call a _trilithon_. Each _trilithon_ stands by its self, independant of its neighbour, not as the stones and imposts of the outer circle, link’d together in a continued _corona_, by the imposts carried quite round. Indeed the breadth of a stone at bottom is seven feet and a half, which is 4 cubits and a half. Two stones therefore amount to nine cubits, and there is a cubit of interval between them, making in the whole ten cubits. But they were not careful of the particulars, only of the whole, in one of these _compages_ or _trilithons_.

The stones of the cell are made to diminish very much, towards the top, most apparently with a design, to take off from their weight, and render them what we call top-heavy, in a less degree. Hence the interval between the two upright stones of the _compages_ widens so much upwards. This must certainly contribute very much, to their stability. In assigning 20 foot for their height, Mr. _Webb_ has well taken the _medium_. A very small matter more than 20 feet makes exactly 12 cubits of the _Hebrews_, _Egyptians_ and Druids. The reader remembers the proportion I assign’d between the _English_ foot and this cubit. 20 inches and ⅘ make a cubit, therefore 20 feet and ⅘ make 12 cubits. The true case as to the height of the _trilithons_, is thus respectively, and which may be seen in TAB. XV. with the harmony and symmetry, in the proportion of the whole. We may observe their gradual rising in height, all from the same base, like pillars of higher orders and more diameters. But the intelligent reader must needs see, that our founders never had sight of _Greek_ or _Roman_ pillars, and never pretended to imitate them, or take any one idea from them. And of these three different orders or degrees of altitude, in these _trilithons_, one exceeds the other by a cubit. So that their heights respectively are 13 cubits, 14 cubits, 15 cubits.