These pressing occurrences therefore, to wit, civill broyls amongst the Romans themselves, frequent insurrections of the Britans, daily inrodes by the Picts and Scots, together with the downfall of Paganism, decay of Arts, and fatall ruine of the whole Empire, making the times both long before and after Constantine incompatible for undertaking such works as this Antiquity, it may safely enough be concluded, if Stoneheng not founded by Agricola, yet created it might be about fifteen hundred and fifty years ago, in the times somewhat after his government,Tacit. in Vit. Agr. the Province being formerly left by him in good and peaceable state, the Britans reduced from Barbarity to order and civill conversation, and the Romans flourishing in all manner of Arts and Sciences.
Now, concerning the use for which Stoneheng at first erected, I am clearly of opinion, it was originally a Temple, it being built with all accommodations properly belonging to a sacred structure. For, it had an intervall or spacious Court lying round about it, wherein the Victimes for oblation were slain, into which it was unlawfull for any profane person to enter: it was separated from the circumadjacent Plain, with a large Trench in stead of a wall, as a boundary about the Temple, most conformable to the main work, wholly exposed to open view: Without this Trench, the promiscuous common multitude, with zeal too much, attended the ceremonies of their solemne though superstitious Sacrifices, and might see the oblations, but not come within them: It had likewise its peculiar Cell, with Portico’s round about, into which Cell, as into their Sanctum sanctorum (pardon the expression) none but the Priests entred to offer Sacrifice, and make atonement for the People: Within the Cell an Ara or Altar was placed, having its proper position towards the East, as the Romans used. Aræ spectent ad Orientem, saith Vitruvius.Vitr. lib. 4. cap. 8. And, that there hath been the heads of Bulls, or Oxen, of Harts, and other such beasts digged up, or in, or near this Antiquity (as divers now living can testifie) is not to be omitted; for who can imagine, but these were the heads of such, as anciently there offered in Sacrifice? together with which also, were heaped up great quantities of Charcole, happily used about the performance of their superstitious ceremonies. That the ancient Romans had Charcole in use amongst them, Pliny affirms.Plin. lib.16.
Tom. 1. lib. 33.
Tom. 2. And when I caused the foundations of the stones to be searched, my self found, and yet have by me to shew the cover of a Thuribulum, or some such like vase (I suppose) wherein Choul in his discourse of their Religion, reportsRosin. lib. 3.
Choul fol. 217, 229. the ancient Romans used to carry Incense, wine or holy water, for service in their Sacrifices, lying about three foot within the ground, near one of the stones of the greater Hexagon.
The Order whereof this Temple consists, according to the rules of Art observed by the ancient Romans in works of this kinde, is mingled of Greek and Tuscane work. For, as the plainnesse and solidnesse of the Tuscane Order, appears eminently throughout the whole Antiquity: so the narrownesse of the spaces betwixt the stones, visibly discovers therein, the delicacy of the Corinthian Order. Which commixture amongst the Roman Architects was very usuall, in regard Vitruvius (in his fourth Book and seventh Chapter) treating somwhat largely (his method otherwise considered) of severall sorts of the like composed Temples, mixt of the Greek and Tuscane manners tels us:Vitr. lib. 4. cap. 7. that, Nonnulli de Tuscanicis generibus sumentes columnarum dispositiones, transferunt in Corinthiorum & Ionicorum operum ordinationes. Some taking the qualities of the columns of the Tuscane Order, transfer them into the symmetry of the Corinthian and Ionick works. Whereby (to please themselves it seems in their own inventions) efficiunt Tuscanicorum & Græcorum operum communem ratiocinationem. They make of the Tuscane and Greek works one common composure. As the same Author likewise remembers.
The Aspect of this Temple; by which we understand that first shew which Temples make to those that draw near unto them, is Dipteros Hypæthros, which is double winged about uncovered. Dipteros circa ædem duplices habet columnarum ordines (saith Vitruvius)Vitr. lib. 3. cap. 1. Dipteros hath double orders of columnes about the Temple. Hypæthros sub divo est, sine tecto, (as the same Author) Hypæthros is open to the air, without a roof.
The Manner of this Temple is Pycnostylos, or narrow spaces. Pycnostylos is that kinde of Temples,Vitr. lib. 3. cap. 2. which hath the columnes set thick, and close together crebris columnis, as Vitruvius also hath it.
But it may be objected, though it appears from very good Authorities, the Artifice, and workmanship of this Antiquity, together with the Scheam which formed it, were Roman: and the Order of which consisting, invented in Italy, and so consequently Roman in like manner: as also, by the severall peculiar accommodations, the probable reliques of Heathenish Sacrifices, and determinate rules of Architecture, it was anciently a Temple: Neverthelesse it appears not, the Romans ever used any whatever profane structure like this, much lesse any manner of Temples of this kinde of invention, Where the Temple lies open without walls, surrounded only with pillars. For, that the upright stones which make this work Stoneheng, are in stead of them, may well enough be granted.
To this I answer, the learned in Antiquities very well know, those things which oblivion hath so long removed out of mind, are hardly to be discovered. Yet, as to the first part of the objection, that the Romans never used any whatever profane structure like this, Varro de re rustica (as I find him cited by Philander) tels us,Phil. in Vitr. lib. 4. that they had in use amongst them a round building without any wals, having a double Order of columns round about, this he cals by the name of Tholus, ædificium rotundum, columnatum duplici columnarum ordine. A round edifice (saith he) environed about with a double order of columns. Which double Order of Columns Pyrrho Ligorio a famous Neapolitane Architect, and great discoverer of Antiquities, in his description thereof designes without a roof also.
But to come to their sacred works, which in regard of this Antiquity, are (it’s true) of most concernment, I find the Romans used (as Vitruvius witnesseth)Vitr. lib. 4. cap. 7. such manner of Temples. For (in his fourth Book, and seventh Chapter) he delivers, there were amongst others two forms of round Temples, commonly in use amongst them, the one called Monopteros; the other Peripteros. This, had the Cell enclosed about with a continued wall, and at a proportionate distance from it, the columns placed which made a Portico round about it, clean different from Stoneheng: the other made open, and in stead of a wall encompassed with a row of pillars only, having no enclosed Cell within it at all, as much conducing to our purpose in hand. His words are these,Ædes sacræ Templa dicta fuerunt, quòd essent quasi ædes Deorum.
Rosin. lib. 2. cap. 2. Fiunt autem ædes rotundæ, è quibus aliæ sine cella columnatæ constituuntur. They make also (saith he) round Temples, of which some are built without a Cell, environed with Pillars only. These were without any wals, (as his Commenter hath it) lying open to the Air. And truly (as I may presume to say)Dan. Barbar. from this very manner the invention of Stoneheng was principally taken, in ordering whereof, the Architect disdaining usuall and common forms, of both the aforesaid forms composed one. For, taking the outward circle from the Monopteros, he made it open also as in that, but in stead of the continued wall circularly enclosing the Cell of the Peripteros, at Stoneheng he made only an Hexagon about the Cell, leaving the same open in like manner. And, as Hermogenes (whom I shall have occasion to remember again) to illustrate his work, leaving out the inner row of Pillars, made a single Portico about the Temple at Magnesia, whereby it came to be a new invention, for which he is famous to posterity: so the subtile Architect, whosoever he was, to ennoble this his work, adding the said Hexagon here, made a double Portico round about this Temple, and thereby a new invention likewise, no lesse famous to succeeding Ages. Our Antiquity Stoneheng had otherwise been of the self same Aspect without a Cell, as Vitruvius hath before delivered. That Temple Monopteros, was environed with a row of pillars; this Temple Stoneheng, in stead of them, supplied with a rank of pillasters (as they may well be called) continuing round about it. That, lay open to the air without any walls: so doth this at Stoneheng. That, had over the pillars an Architrave, Freese, and Cornice, the Order being delicate: this at Stoneheng, over the pillasters an Architrave only, as most conformable to the solidnesse of the Order and plainnesse of the work.
Thus it fully appears, the ancient Romans used to erect Temples, which lay open without walls, surrounded only with pillars; in invention like this at Stoneheng. But, let us see whether the form Monopteros, had any roof over it. That the Romans had Temples uncovered, and without roofs, like Stoneheng, is in part already, and shall more manifestly be hereafter proved: and searching curiously into their Antiquities, it will be found the greatest, most splendid, and most magnificent work of all others, which the Ancients made for service of their Deities, were those kinde of Temples of the Aspect Hypæthros. Whether the Monopteros was one of that kind, appears not yet, and Vitruvius is very obscure therein; neverthelesse, that it was built without a roof, I shall illustrate by these reasons.
First, Vitruvius tels us not it had a roof; for, in his precepts of all severall kinds of Temples, after he hath delivered the Aspect, Form, and Manner of them with much exactnesse, he omits not throughout his fourth Book to demonstrate aswell the contignation, as proportion of timbers of the roofs, belonging to all those Temples, which had any, and when vaulted he gives us likewise the form thereof, if the Temples so covered: but, in the description of the form Monopteros, there is no manner of timber work, nor form of vault, nor the least word mentioned of any roof at all, in what place soever throughout his whole work speaking thereof. In which respect, considering all Temples having roofs, those roofs are described by Vitruvius, and that he describes no roof belonging to this, it must necessarily follow, the Temples in form Monopteros had no roofs over them.