Abury, A Temple of the British Druids, With Some Others, Described

by William Stukeley

No doubt but there are more in the britannic isles. I propose in this chapter to deliver my notions concerning them in the more eastern parts of the world, of which are many traces in ancient writing; avoiding prolixity as much as possible.

The practice of building these serpentine temples was us’d by the patriarchs, perhaps near the beginning of the world. I have some proof of their being ancienter than the flood; but shall not at present insist on it. The first person I shall take notice of on this account is Phut, a brother of Canaan, son of Cham. Phut was a person of much greater eminence in antiquity, than vulgarly thought. But would we know anything of the particular memoirs of this man, or of any other his relations and coevals, we have nothing left us for it but heathen story.

Tho’ the Phœnicians, and our Druids, as well as the Egyptians too, had the earliest use of alphabet writing, yet none of these nations have transmitted to us any memoirs of themselves. And for what little knowledge we have of them, besides their monuments, we are altogether indebted to the Greeks, that receiv’d these arts from them. They happily improv’d art and science, sculpture and writing, so as to hand down to us most of the ancient history we know, beside the bible. Still this misfortune attended them, that they improv’d the symbolical method of writing, which they learn’d from the Phœnicians and Egyptians, to that monstrous pitch, as to produce what we call by the general name of mythology. It was but very late that they came to write true history: so that the whole of the ancient history of the nations they write of, is invelop’d in this perplexing mythology.

Yet we should be highly to blame, if we absolutely neglected it. ’Tis all we can have of prophane antiquity. ’Tis more commendable for us to study to extricate it from its symbolic mystery, and find out the open truth. Those that have succeeded best therein, find much agreement between it and the scripture history, as far as they are concurrent.

’Tis from this mythology, chiefly, that I can pretend to discourse any further, concerning these great works I have been describing. I shall endeavour to do it with all the brevity and perspicuity possible, as becomes such sort of discourses. Yet I despair not of finding out a good deal of true history. I shall not answer for all. And a great deal of candour is necessary in the reader, if he would have either pleasure or instruction in it. Yea, says a predecessor in these kind of inquiries, Dr. Dickenson, Delph. Phœnic. “if we look over the greek mythology with proper sagacity, we shall easily discover many footsteps of true religion.”

“A fable is an artificial discourse, consisting of the marvellous, and a philosopher, in some sort, is a lover of such,” says the great philosopher, Metaphys. I. 2.

There are vast treasures of ancient knowledge in mythology, especially of history both sacred and civil. ’Tis all that we have left of heathen history of the most ancient times, and ’tis worth our while to shake off the rubbish, and pick out the useful part. The learned labours of Bochart, Selden, Marsham, Huetius, Gale, Cumberland, Banier, and many more, shew us its utility. And we must pardon them if, in some things, they have gone beyond the golden medium, we ourselves will be content to err somewhat with those great names.

Phut, son of Cham, was a person of eminence, tho’ not taken notice of so much as he deserves. I think it much to our purpose to recite some part of his history. He is the Apollo mention’d by Sanchoniathon, son of Cronus, who is Cham, as is demonstrated beyond doubt by bishop Cumberland, in his posthumous works; he is said to have been born in Peræa, i. e. the country towards the Euphrates: his third son; as likewise deliver’d by Moses. From the word Phut, he was called Python, by a little transposition natural in pronouncing a difficult name; and, by a like transposition, Typhon.

Apollo Pythius was the son of Ammon, that is Cham, says Lucius Ampelius, in libro memoriali. Plutarch de Isid. & Osir. writes, that Typhon was brother to Osiris, who was undoubtedly Misraim, son of Cham. The like by Diodorus Siculus.

To facilitate the understanding of antiquity, I here present the reader with a genealogical table of the great personages we are going to treat of. I could produce the evidences that prove each particular descent, in a strictly heraldical way, but it would now take up too much of our time.