STONEHENGE
A WORK of the
British Druids
DESCRIB’D.
CHAP. I.
Of the Situation of Stonehenge in general. That it was a temple of the Druids, of the patriarchal mode, who were a most ancient oriental colony. In later times, the Belgæ from the continent, conquer’d this country from them. Whence these stones were brought? Of their nature, magnitude, weight. Of the measure of the Druids, the ancient Hebrew cubit, and its proportion to the English foot.
THE Wiltshire downs, or Salisbury plain, (as commonly call’d) for extent and beauty, is, without controversy, one of the most delightful parts of Britain. But of late years great encroachments have been made upon it by the plough, which threatens the ruin of this fine champain, and of all the monuments of antiquity thereabouts. Monuments, we can scarce say, whether more wonderful in themselves, more observ’d, or less understood! among them, Stonehenge has been eminent from the remotest ages, tho’ ’tis not the greatest, most considerable, or most ancient. But ’tis my intent to begin my discourse from it, because the latest, and from thence proceed upwards in our inquiries, about the times and authors of these stupendous works, the temples of the Druids in our Island: for I cannot doubt that Stonehenge was such. The idea we conceive of the distance of time, when these kind of works were made, cannot be ill-form’d, if we consider, that the utmost accounts of ’em we have in writing, are from the Britons, the remains of the people who lived here, at the time of the Roman invasion. This is mention’d in some manuscripts of Ninnius before the Saxons and Danes came over. And the oldest Britons speak of this only by tradition, far above all memorial. They wonder’d at Stonehenge then, and were as far to seek about the founders and intent of it, as we now. They have recourse to magic, as is usual, when they would account for any thing seemingly so much above human power, to accomplish. They tell us, these stones of immense bulk were brought from a plain, in the middle of Ireland, and the like. Which reports give us only no obscure hint of their true authors, the Druids, who were fam’d for magic, and were driven last into Ireland, in the time of the Romans. There they built such like works again, or their brethren had built before; till Christianity, to which the greatest and purest part of their own doctrine was akin, soon put an end to their polity, which the Roman arms could not do. And they embrac’d that religion, to which their own opinions and rites had so direct a tendency. This is the sentiment of Origen on Ezekiel iv. And ’tis sufficiently evident, if we consider, that the first planters of Christianity in Ireland, immediately converted the whole island, without so much as the blood of one martyr. Nay, the Druids themselves, at that time the only national priests, embraced it readily, and some of them were very zealous preachers of it, and effectual converters of others. For instance, the great Columbanus himself was a Druid: the apostle of Ireland, Cornwall, &c. We need not be surpriz’d at this, when we assert, that there is very much reason to believe, these famous philosophic priests came hither, as a Phœnician colony, in the very earliest times, even as soon as Tyre was founded: during the life of the patriarch Abraham, or very soon after. Therefore they brought along with them the patriarchal religion, which was so extremely like Christianity, that in effect it differ’d from it only in this; they believed in a Messiah who was to come into the world, as we believe in him that is come. Further, they came from that very country where Abraham liv’d, his sons and grandsons; a family God almighty had separated from the gross of mankind, to stifle the seeds of idolatry; a mighty prince, and preacher of righteousness. And tho’ the memoirs of our Druids are extremely short, yet we can very evidently discover from them, that the Druids were of Abraham’s religion intirely, at least in the earliest times, and worshipp’d the supreme Being in the same manner as he did, and probably according to his example, or the example of his and their common ancestors.
All this I shall prove, in the pursuit of this work. But before we come to speculation, intend to give an exact description of their several temples, and the like works; for such will be a good foundation for us to build upon. That we may proceed from things evident and more known, to those less known, and which we design to make evident, as well as we are able, and the nature of it will permit. A matter so immers’d in the dark mist of time, where very few scatter’d traces remain, must needs bespeak the reader’s candor. The dignity of the subject will excuse my boldness in attempting one so difficult. And however I succeed in accounting for these wonderful works; at least, I shall be instrumental in preserving their memory, in giving just drawings of them.
Stonehenge, by the extravagant grandeur of the work, has attracted the eyes and admiration of all ages. After the reformation, upon the revival of learning among us, the curious began to consider it more intimately, I cannot say successfully. Mr. Camden rose as the sun of antiquity, that put out former lights, and, like Cæsar, affrights all that value a reputation, from attempting any thing in his way. His great skill in Roman learning, and our English history, only enabled him to be, as it were, silent on Stonehenge. He saw with excellent judgment, that neither Roman nor English had place there, or could serve to illustrate it. He writes modestly, as his manner was; “Of these things I am not able so much to give an accurate account, as mightily to grieve, that the founders of this noble monument cannot be trac’d out.” He could not persuade himself that either Romans, Saxons or Danes had any hand in it. And as for his representation of it in picture, I verily believe, it was drawn only from fancy or memory, or by some engraver from his oral description. A. D. 1620, king James I. being at the earl of Pembroke’s seat at Wilton, and agreeably surpriz’d with the sight of Stonehenge, consulted the famous architect Inigo Jones, upon it; thinking it a matter in his way. This great man, who deservedly may be stiled the English Vitruvius, gave his opinion of it, as a Roman work; and left, I suppose, some few indigested notes in writing there-upon. From which his son-in-law John Webb compos’d an intire treatise, endeavouring to prove it. But they that are acquainted with Roman architecture, or have consider’d Stonehenge, must needs be of a different opinion. And as my Lord Bishop of London well observes, in his notes on Camden, “it cannot be safe to close with Mr. Jones, tho’ his book otherwise be a learned and ingenious piece.” Inigo Jones lived 30 years after this, and yet Mr. Webb makes an apology for his work, “that if he had surviv’d to have done it, with his own hand, it would have been better.” But ’tis very reasonably believ’d, that tho’ Inigo Jones was an extraordinary genius in architecture, yet he wanted many qualifications for an author, especially in such a work as Stonehenge. ’Tis my opinion, that had his architectonic skill been united to Mr. Camden’s learning, he could never have demonstrated Stonehenge to be a Roman work. Afterwards, Dr. Charlton publish’d a piece against Webb’s performance, and certainly has said enough to overthrow it, tho’ he could not with equal success establish his own opinion, that it was the work of the Danes. Whereas Olaus Wormius finds no such monuments among the Gothic nations: which, as Mr. Toland observes, is answer sufficient to his allegation. Webb answer’d the Doctor’s book, and by turns effectually demolish’d his opinion, but could not still vindicate his own. Yet from all their disputations, no spark was struck, towards a discovery of the real truth. What is the worst part in both performances of Mr. Webb, his representation of the real monument in his drawings, is fictitious. And, as Mr. Aubry rightly observes, “in endeavouring to retrieve a piece of architecture in Vitruvius, he abuses the reader with a false representation of the whole.” It requires no great pains to prove this, nor need we take much time to be satisfy’d in it: the work is still extant. As soon as a judicious eye comes upon the spot, we discern that Webb’s equilateral triangles forming the cell are fancies: his three entrances across the ditch are so too; and that he has turn’d the cell a sixth part from its true situation, to favour his imaginary hypothesis. But ’tis against my inclination to find fault with the labours of others, nor do I thereby seek to bribe the reader in my own favour. I had a great pleasure for several years together, in viewing and examining these noble remains of our ancestors. What I wrote about them, was for my private amusement, and that of friends. And I publish them only for the honour of my country, and in hopes that such a publication will not be unserviceable to religion; which is my ultimate view.
Stukeley. d.
Prospect of the Roman Road & Wansdike just above Calston May 20, 1724.
This demonstrates that Wansdike was made before the Roman Road.