Part 5

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.

[Illustration: _P. 20._ TAB. XI.

_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.

[Illustration: _P. 22._ TAB. XII.

_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.