Part 4

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.

[Illustration: _P. 14._ TAB. VIII.

_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.

[Illustration: _P. 16_ TAB. IX.

_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.

[Illustration: _P. 18._ TAB. X.

_South-East Prospect from Stonehenge_

_Stukeley delin._ _Smith sculp_]