The most notable Antiquity of Great Britain, vulgarly called Stone-Heng, on Salisbury Plain / Restored by Inigo Jones Esquire, Architect Generall to the late King
Date: 2020-12-17T00:00:00+00:00
Keywords: Megalithic monuments -- England -- Wiltshire -- Early works to 1800; Stonehenge (England) -- Early works to 1800; Wiltshire (England) -- Antiquities -- Early works to 1800; Prehistoric peoples -- England -- Wiltshire -- Early works to 1800

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The most notable Antiquity of Great Britain, vulgarly called Stone-Heng, on Salisbury Plain

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: The most notable Antiquity of Great Britain, vulgarly called Stone-Heng, on Salisbury Plain

Author: Inigo Jones

Editor: John Webb

Engraver: Wencelaus Hollar

Release date: December 17, 2020 [eBook #64069]
Most recently updated: October 18, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/64069

Credits: MWS, Robert Tonsing and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE MOST NOTABLE ANTIQUITY OF GREAT BRITAIN, VULGARLY CALLED STONE-HENG, ON SALISBURY PLAIN ***

Ignatii iones    mag: brit: architecti generalis,    vera effigies,

Anth. van Dycke Eques pinxit,

W. Hollar fecit, aqua forti

THE
most notable
ANTIQUITY
OF
GREAT BRITAIN,
vulgarly called
STONE-HENG
ON
SALISBURY PLAIN.

RESTORED
By INIGO JONES Esquire,
Architect Generall to the late
KING.

LONDON,

Printed by James Flesher for Daniel Pakeman at the sign of the
Rainbow in Fleetstreet, and Laurence Chapman next door
to the Fountain Tavern in the Strand.    1655.

TO
The Right Honourable
PHILIP
Earle of Pembroke and Montgomerie,
Baron Herbert of Caerdiff and Sherland,
Lord Parr and Rosse of Kendall, Lo: Fitzhugh
Marmyon and Saint Quintin &c.
STONE-HENG restored
is
humbly dedicated
by
Your Lops devoted servant
John Webb.

TO
THE FAVOURERS
OF
ANTIQUITY.

THis Discourse of Stone-heng is moulded off, and cast into a rude Form, from some few indigested notes of the late judicious Architect, the Vitruvius of his age Inigo Jones. That so venerable an Antiquity might not perish, but the world made beholding to him for restoring it to light, the desires of severall his learned Friends have encouraged me to compose this Treatise. Had he survived to have done it with his own hand, there had needed no Apology. Such as it is, I make now yours. Accept it in his name, from

J. W.

STONEHENG
RESTORED,

BY
INIGO JONES Esquire.

BEing naturally inclined in my younger years to study the Arts of Designe, I passed into forrain parts to converse with the great Masters thereof in Italy; where I applied my self to search out the ruines of those ancient Buildings, which in despight of Time it self, and violence of Barbarians are yet remaining. Having satisfied my self in these, and returning to my native Countrey, I applied my minde more particularly to the study of Architecture. Among the ancient monuments whereof, found here, I deemed none more worthy the searching after, then this of Stoneheng; not only in regard of the Founders thereof, the Time when built, the Work it self, but also for the rarity of its Invention, being different in Forme from all I had seen before: likewise, of as beautifull Proportions, as elegant in Order, and as stately in Aspect, as any.

King James, in his progresse, the year one thousand six hundred and twenty, being at Wilton, and discoursing of this Antiquity, I was sent for by the right Honourable William then Earl of Pembrook, and received there his Majesties commands to produce out of mine own practise in Architecture, and experience in Antiquities abroad, what possibly I could discover concerning this of Stoneheng. What mine opinion was then, and what I have since collected in relation thereunto; I intend to make the subject of this present Treatise. And certainly, in the intricate, and obscure study of Antiquity it is far easier (as Camden very well observes) to refute and contradict a false, then to set down a true and certain resolution. For mine own part, in what I shall here deliver, I intend not to struggle against any opinion commonly, and long since received. Let every man judge as it pleaseth him. What opinion soever the Reader inclines to, I shall not make much materiall, my aime being, a desire only to vindicate, as much as in me lies, the Founders of this venerable Antiquity from oblivion, and to make the truth, as far forth as possibly I may, appeare to all men.

Severall Writers, both Strangers, and our own Countreymen, have treated of Stoneheng. Before recite whole opinions, I think not amisse to seek this subject from the most ancient times, endevouring thereby to give satisfaction whether or no, the Druides, aliàs Druidæ (in Authors indifferently written, and in old time the Priests of the Britans and Gauls) or the ancient Britans, for the Druid’s use, might not be the Founders of so notable a monument; which if they were, there is then no cause why bestow farther study or pains, in searching who the Founders were, but acquiesce in the honour of our own Nations first erection of it.

As far neverthelesse, as from History ancient or moderne may be gathered, there is little likelyhood of any such matter, considering especially what the Druid’s were; also, what small experience the Britans, anciently inhabiting this Isle, had, in knowledge of what ever Arts, much lesse of building, with like elegancy and proportion, such goodly works as Stoneheng.

Concerning the Druid’s in the first place, true it is, they are reported in ancient times, to have been in great esteeme in this Island, where their discipline, and manner of learning, was supposed to be first invented, and from hence translated into Gaul. Disciplina in Britannia reperta (saith Cæsar) Cæsar. Commen. lib. 6. atque inde in Galliam translata esse existimatur. They are said in like manner no have ordered and disposed all divine matters, as well in relation to their severall kinds of Sacrifices, as to expounding whatever rites of their idolatrous superstition;Plin. lib. 16. insomuch, you may call them (if you please) the Bishops and Clergy of that Age.

Their power moreover, and preheminence was not confined within the strict limits of sacred matters, but enjoying a more large prerogative, temporall negotiations, and affairs of State were transacted by them: the managing of Peace and War was usually remitted to their Authority, even when Armies were ready to joyn in Battell. Publica iis (saith StraboStrab. lib. 4.) & privata judicia committuntur, & aliquando causis bellorum disceptandis jam acie congressuros composuerunt. Judges they were (saith CæsarCæsar. lib. 6. also) in almost all civill and criminall causes: sentence they gave in case of life and death: decide they did controversies, and debates betwixt party and party: finally, whatever else was requisite and convenient to keep the people in due obedience to their Princes, they wholly took the care and charge of.

These were the maine affaires wherein the employment of the Druides consisted, and whereunto they wholly addicted themselves. Whosoever desires to know more of them, may read Cæsar, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Pliny, Diogenes Laertius, Ammianus Marcellinus, and such like ancient Authors. But, whatsoever these, or other Historians have written of the Druides, certainly, Stoneheng could not be builded by them, in regard, I find no mention, they were at any time either studious in Architecture, (which in this subject is chiefly to be respected) or skilfull in any thing else conducing thereunto. For, Academies of Designe were unknown unto them: publique Lectures in the Mathematiques not read amongst them: nothing of their Painting, not one word of their Sculpture is to be found, or scarce of any Science (Philosophy and Astronomy excepted) proper to informe the judgement of an Architect; who, (as Vitruvius Vitr. li. 1. saith) should be peritus Graphidos, eruditus Geometria, & Optices non ignarus &c. perfect in Designe, expert in Geometry, well seen in the Opticks, skilfull in Arithmetick, a good Historian, a diligent hearer of Philosophers, well experienced in Physick, Musick, Law and Astrologie.

Of all that have written of the Druid’s, no Author knew them better then Cæsar, neither hath any more fully described them; who after a large discourse of their discipline, priviledges, and Theologie,Cæsar. li. 6. Multa de sideribus (saith he) atque eorum motu, de mundi ac terrarum magnitudine, de rerum natura, &c. disputant, & juventuti transdunt. They make much dispute, and instruct their Scholars in many things concerning the Stars, and their motion, the greatnesse of Heaven and Earth, of the nature of things &c. As for other Arts relating to the Mathematiques, or any works of this kind, he makes no manner of mention, though himself an Architect, glorying in his own, and much more extolling others invention in that Art.

The truth is, those ancient times had no knowledge of publique works, either Sacred or Secular, for their own use, or honour of their Deities. Besides, they us’d not any buildings of Stone, or (for ought is manifest) knew so much, as how to order working therein. The Druid’s led a solitary contemplative life, contenting themselves with such habitations, as either meer necessity invented, to shelter them from contrariety of seasons, without Art, without Order, without any whatever means tending to perpetuity: or, such as Nature alone had prepared for them in dens, and caves of desert and darksome woods; esteeming it, questionlesse, the highest secret of their mystery, rather to command in caves and cottages, then live like Kings, in Palaces, and stately houses. They were too wise, knew too well, ’twas their humility, integrity, retired manner of life, and pretended sanctity possest the people with an awfully reverend esteem of them; and which fed, and kept up their reputation throughout the Countrey, when outward appearances of State and magnificence would either have brought them into envy, and their superstition into contempt, or themselves and Religion both to be wholly extirpated and laid aside.

Pomponius MelaPomp. Mela lib. 3. discoursing of the Druides, Docent multa (saith he) nobilissimos gentis clam & diu vicenis annis in specu, aut in abditis saltibus, They teach the Nobility, and better sort of their nation, many things, even twenty years together, secretly in caves, or close coverts of obscure woods and forrests. Such, and no other were their habitations, such their Universities, and publique Schooles.

As for their Temples and sacred structures, they consisted not in variety of formes, costlinesse of materials, or perfection of humane Arts, but were of Natures own framing in like manner, being no other then groves of Oke. The Druid’s chose of purpose (saith Pliny)Pliny lib. 16. such groves for their divine Service, as stood only upon Okes; nay they solemnized no Sacrifice, nor performed any sacred Ceremonies without the branches, and leaves thereof; from whence they may seem well enough to be named Dryadæ in Greek, which signifies as much as Oke Priests.

The Romans having forced their passage, and gained victory over the Druid’s in Anglesey, cut down their woods and groves, amongst them reckoned holy, and consecrated to their execrable superstitions. Excisi luci (saith Tacitus)Tacit. Ann. lib. 14. sævis superstitionibus sacri.

To this purpose, Humphrey Lloid, in his history of Wales, The vast woods growing in that Island, were not only by the Romans, but afterwards, when the Christian Faith took place in this Nation, by the Christians also fell’d and rooted out. And why? because of the idolatry (saith he) and absurd Religion used in them. Again, in his Epistle to Ortelius concerning the Isle of Anglesey, the same Author affirmes; Though there is little wood now growing there, yet every day the roots and bodies of huge trees of a wonderfull length and bignesse are by the inhabitants found, and digged out of the earth, in divers places in low grounds, and champion fields.

Now, if in stead of these roots, and bodies of trees, the ruines of ancient Structures had been there found, it might peradventure, with some probability, have been presumed either that the Druid’s used Temples, or some other buildings of stone. For, their ancient seat was in the Isle of Mona, now Anglesey, whence modern Writers style it Insulam Druidum, the Island of the Druid’s, and sedem Druidum, the seat of the Druid’s. And from hence, questionlesse, it came to passe, the Romans, with such difficulty, under the conduct of Suetonius Paulinus, brought that Island under their power; nor was it wholly subdued to their Empire, untill Julius Agricola’s time. For, whereas in other parts of Britain, the people contended for Liberty only, there, they fought pro aris & focis, for Liberty, and Religion both.

There it was the British armies (saith Tacitus)Tacit. Ann. lib. 16. being imbattailed, the women ran to and fro amongst them in sable weeds, their hair about their ears, and fire-brands in their hands, like infernall furies, the Druid’s round about them also, lifting up their hands to Heaven, and pouring forth deadly curses; the novelty of which sight bred such amazement in the Roman Legions, (the Romans here, it seems, were unacquainted with the Druid’s till then) that they stood stock still, and close together, not once moving a foot, as if possessed with a resolution to act nothing at all, but receive their deaths tamely and without any great resistance.

Wherefore, besides, that History hath not remembred the ruines of any ancient buildings digged up in Anglesey; if either, this Antiquity had been remaining in that Island, or any Author delivered such Actions of the Druid’s, as aforesaid, performed about the place, where Stoneheng remains standing, there might have been some advantage made thereof to the purpose now in hand. But Anglesey excepted, ancient Writers give them residence in no part of Britain beside, nor are they remembred by any, to have been found elswhere, throughout the whole Nation. With respect whereunto, if the Druid’s had knowledge, either to build the like magnificent structures, or use, for any such, they would, without all peradventure, have erected them upon the same place rather where themselves resided, then elswhere.

Neither are we to wonder, they chose such an out-nook or corner as Anglesey, to reside in; in regard, there, they lived remote, and solitary; there, were store of caves, and dens to instruct their Scholars in, close and retired places for their own habitations, and plenty of groves to perform their sacred mysteries in. Moreover, they past their days there, like the Hermits of old time, according to their own desire, in full contentment, and with free liberty to study, and contemplate what they pleased. For, Anglesey (we must know) in those times of yore, was wholly overgrown with desert Woods, and obscure forrests, from whence the ancient Britans call’d it Ynis Dowil, the shadowy or dark Island. Which name it still retains, and is well known thereby to the now inhabitants, who are, even at this day, likewise enclined, (yea, they usually accustome themselves) to commit things more to Memory, then Writing; and, as having received it by tradition from their Ancestors, living in those ancient times, still endevour to observe that custom of the Druid’s, who held it unlawfull to commit any thing to writing. As CæsarCæs. Com. lib. 6. (in the sixth book of his Commentaries of the Gaulish war) delivers.

Concerning the Britans in the next place, The condition of those ancient inhabitants of this Island in the Druid’s time duly considered, (viz. in what manner they lived, how unskilfull in all Sciences, and civill customs, what Deities they had, in what places they adored them, and what manner of buildings, or sacred or secular, were used by them) as little reason appears, that this Antiquity was by them erected.

As for their manner of living, the Britans were then a savage and barbarous people, knowing no use at all of garments. Vestis usum non cognoscunt (saith Herodian.)Herodian. lib. 3. Now, if destitute of the knowledge, even to clothe themselves, much lesse any knowledge had they to erect stately structures, or such remarkable works as Stoneheng. What fashions they used to adorn their bodies with, the same Author tells us. As a rare and rich habiliment, they wore about their wasts and necks ornaments of iron (saith he) and did pounce and colour their bodies with sundry forms, in rude manner representing severall creatures. In which regard, they would not be otherwise clothed, lest constrain’d thereby to hide such their simple (though with them much esteemed) bravery.

Again, in other their civill customs, they were no lesse rude and ignorant; yea, so barbarous, even in things appertaining to common sustenance, and whatever husbandry; that (as Strabo)Strabo li. 4. Quidam eorum ob imperitiam caseos nullos conficiant, cum tamen lacte abundent: alii hortos colendi, & aliarum partium agriculturæ ignari sunt. Many of them, though they had great plenty of milk, yet their want of skill was such, they knew not how to make cheese: others so simple, they knew not to order their gardens or orchards, or any thing belonging thereunto.

Their Countrey also then lay uncultivated, no corn sown: Quævis herba & radix cibus est, Their food was herbs and roots (saith Dion Cassius.)Dion li. 62. Hence Sir Walter Raleigh cals them the British Nomades.Ral. li. 3. c. 5. And (by the way) it may not inappositely be observ’d, milk, roots, and fruit were the chief banquetting dishes; and skins of beasts (if clothed) the most costly habits of our Forefathers. Now who can, in reason imagine, that any great knowledge, practice, or delight of Arts and Sciences, wherein the elegancy of Architecture consists, should be in use or esteem, amongst a people, wholly devoted (as I may so say) and given over to such barbarity?

There were then no publick roads, or common high-ways to passe from one place to another, no constant habitations, Nec mœnia, nec urbes, Nor towns nor walls (as DionDion li. 76. out of Xiphiline hath it) much lesse Temples, or other buildings made of stone, composed by Art, with Order, and Proportion.i

Moreover, who cast their eies upon this Antiquity, and examine the same with judgement, must be enforced to confesse it erected by people, grand masters in the Art of building, and liberall sciences, whereof the ancient Britans utterly ignorant, as a Nation wholly addicted to wars, never applying themselves to the study of Arts, or troubling their thoughts with any excellency therein. Omnis arbor domus.Dion lib. 62. Every tree being in stead of a house to them.

In the wars which Bunduica (whom Tacitus cals Boadicia) Queen of the Iceni, undertook against the Romans, wherein seventy thousand of their Citizens, and allies perished; in disdainfull contempt of the experience in Arts, wherein the Romans flourished, She accounted it her chiefest glory (saith Dion Cassius)Dion lib. 62. to command over the Britans, in regard, a people they were, who had not learned, or knew, what belonged to the cultivating and manuring of lands; or the practice of Arts, or to be craftsmen in any thing, save war. Qui non agros colere, non opifices esse, sed bella gerere optimè didicerunt. Where you see, their having nor experience nor practice in any kinde of Sciences, war excepted, was enforc’d, by Bunduica, as redounding greatly to the Britans honour, much advantage being made thereof by Her, towards advancing Her designs, as the Historian plainly tells us.

But certain it is, however barbarous in other affairs, a most warlike people they were. Never, untill the forces of the whole world united in the Roman Empire conspiring to subdue them, liable to conquest: neither could all that power, till after numbers of years spent in the attempt, with infinite expence of men and treasure, ever prevail against them. Now, as their sole skilfulnesse was in war, so they idoliz’d principally what had relation thereunto, their Dea optima maxima, being Victoria, whom they worshipped under the name of Andates. Another Goddesse they had in much esteem, called Adraste, which some imagine (as the Nemesis amongst the Greeks) was their Goddesse of Revenge. These, according to their savage manner of living, they adored in groves, and woods, the only Temples in use amongst them, to perform their Sacrifices, and divine mysteries in. (as from severall Authors I have already proved) Neither find I any particular place mentioned, to which any of these their Temples (if they may so be called) were assigned; only Andates (it seems from Dion Cassius) had a grove sacred to her in the Countrey of the Iceni, anciently containing Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridge, and Huntingdon Shires, farre enough from Stoneheng.

Besides, it is not to be past over in silence, how Tacitus expresseth himself in the before cited fourteenth Book of his Annals, telling us; The Romans overthrew not the Temples, or razed to the Foundations, any of the sacred structures of the Druid’s and Britans made of stone, or other materials, which he might as readily have done, if they had used any such: but positively, the Romans cut down the Britans woods and groves, amongst them reckoned holy, and consecrated to their execrable superstitions. True it is, other Temples, of greater magnificence then already spoken of, I find none: Ornaments of Art to enrich them they were not acquainted with: such orderly composed works as Stoneheng, they had not any: yea, no kind of sacred structures of stone were in use amongst them: their idolatrous places being naturally adorned, only with wild, and overgrown shades, designed and brought to perfection by Dame Nature her self, she being Architect generall to all their Deities. Nor did it consist with their vain Religion to use any other, they making their worship, performing their Ceremonies, offering their Sacrifices in dark and obscure groves, most conformable unto their barbarous, and inhumane, humane oblations.

Neither must it seem strange, they used no other Temples then these, it not being their custom alone; for the ExcelsiMayer. 1 K. 1. Ch. or high places mentioned in the sacred Story, wherein the Heathen performed idolatrous rites unto their Idols, were commonly groves, affectedly sited upon some mountainous place, without any House or Temple. The Persians of old, (of whom Herodotus)Herod. li. 1. Neque statuas, neque templa, neque aras extruere consuetudo est, Erected neither Images, nor Temples, nor Altars: quinimo hoc facientibus insaniæ tribuere, accounting it great folly and madnesse in those that did: but ascending to the tops of the highest, and most lofty hils, on them offered sacrifices to their Gods. From hence, Xerxes, in his expedition, burnt down the Temples of the Greeks, because they shut up their Gods therein, to whom all things are open and free, and to whom the whole Universe serves for a Temple. The Abasgians also (inhabiting Mount Caucasus) did worship, even till Procopius his time, groves and woods; and in a barbarian simplicity esteemed the very trees themselves to be Gods. In like manner, the Northern and Southern people of America, made all their Invocations and Exorcisms in woods. The ancient Germans likewise consecrated woods and forests. Lucos ac nemora consecrant, saith Tacitus of them. And the like places for idolatrous superstition, did divers other barbarous Nations use, before reduced to order, and civility of life, Tacitus giving this reason for it: They thought it a matter ill beseeming the greatnesse of their Deities, to enclose them within Temples made by Art. His words are, Nec cohibere parietibus Deos arbitrantur, They thought it not fit to restrain their Deities within compacted walls: id est, neque templis, neque domibus, viz. neither within Temples or Houses made with hands, as C. Pichenas commenting thereon more fully interprets.

Touching the manner of the buildings of the ancient Britans, and of what materialls they consisted, I find them so far short of the magnificence of this Antiquity, that they were nor stately, nor sumptuous; neither had they any thing of Order, or Symmetry, much lesse, of gracefulnesse, and Decorum in them, being only such as OvidOvid. Met. lib. 1. (relating to the first Age of the world) makes mention of.

———————domus antra fuerunt,

Et densi frutices, & junctæ cortice virgæ.

Thus Englished by Arthur Golding.

———————their houses were the thicks,

And bushy queaches, hollow caves, and hardles made of sticks.

To like purpose Vitruvius.Vitru. lib. 2. In the first Age of the World (saith he) men lived in woods, caves, and forests, but after they had found out the use of fire, and by the benefit thereof were invited to enter into a certain kind of society, cœperunt alii de fronde facere tecta, alii speluncas fodere sub montibus, nonnulli hirundinum nidos, & ædificationes earum imitantes, de luto & virgultis facere loca, quæ subirent. Some of them began to make themselves habitations of boughs, some to dig dens in mountains; other some, imitating the nests of birds, made themselves places of lome and twigs, and such like materials, to creep into, and shroud themselves in. Directly after which manner of workmanship, were the houses of the ancient Britans.

Domos ex calamis aut lignis ut plurimum habent compactas. Their houses for the most part are of reed and wood, saithDiodo. li. 6. Diodorus Siculus.

In the Northern parts they live in tents. Degunt in tentoriis, (saith Dion, epitomis’d by Xiphiline.)

Their Cities were without walls, the Country without Towns. Urbium loco ipsis sunt nemora, (saith Strabo)Strab. lib. 4. woods stand them in stead of Cities or Towns. Arboribus enim dejectis ubi amplum circulum sepierunt, ipsi casas ibidem sibi ponunt, & pecori stabula condunt, ad usum quidem non longi temporis. For when by felling of trees, they have inclosed, and fenced therewith a large circuit of wood, therein they raise cabbins and cottages for themselves, and hovels for their cattell, of no great continuance, but only to supply their present use and occasion.

Opidum Britanni vocant (saith Cæsar)Cæsar. lib. 5. quum silvas impeditas vallo atque fossa munierunt, quo incursionis hostium vitandæ causa, convenire consueverunt, The Britans call a thick wood, enclosed about with a ditch and rampire, made for a place of retreat to avoid the invasion and assault of their bordering enemies, a Town.

Thus, you see, in what condition the Inhabitants of this Island lived in those ancient times, having of themselves, neither desire, nor ability to exercise, nor from others, encouragement to attain whatever knowledge in the Art of Building. Precepts, and rules therein, the Druid’s neither could, nor would impart unto them. That they could not, appears from what is formerly said, and in what skilfull above others, they communicated nothing, but to those of their own society, taking speciall order (as Cæsar affirms) their discipline might not be divulged.

As for Colonies of any Nation practised in Arts, from whom they might receive or knowledge, or civil conversation, there were none setled amongst them: neither had they commerce, or traffique, with any people experienced therein, much lesse acquaintance with any other, except those of Gaul, welnear as barbarous as themselves. None of the Gauls in a manner, had any knowledge (saith Cæsar)Cæsar. lib. 4. of the nature and quality of the people of Britain, or of the places, ports, or passes of the Countrey. Neque enim temerè præter mercatores illò adit quisquam, neque iis ipsis quidquam, præter oram maritimam, atque eas regiones quæ sunt contra Galliam, notum est. For, not any went thither without eminent danger, except merchants, and they also could give accompt of nothing, save only the Sea-coast, and those Countreys which were opposite to Gaul. Never any Colony of the Greeks, for ought I know (saith Ortelius)Ortel. descr. Fr. was seated in Britain. And Cæsar, the first of all the Romans that discovered it, saith Camden.Camden fo. 2.

If desire neverthelesse, to know in what times the ancient Britans began to be civilized, when to learn the knowledge of Arts, to build stately Temples, Palaces, publick Buildings, to be eloquent in forrain languages, and by their habits, and attire, attain the qualities of a civil, and well ordered people, Tacitus shall relate the same.

Sequens hiems saluberrimis conciliis absumpta &c. The winter ensuing (being the second year of Julius Agricola his Proprætorship, or Leivtenancy in Britan; Titus Vespasian Emperour, about one hundred thirty three years after the first discovery thereof by Cæsar) was spent in most profitable, and politick Councels (saith Tacitus.)Tacit. in vit. Agr. For, whereas the Britans were rude, and dispersed, and thereby prone, upon every occasion, to warre; Agricola, to induce them by pleasure to quietnesse and rest, exhorted in private, and helpt them in common to build Temples, Houses, and places of publick resort, commending those, that were forward therein, and punishing the refractory. Moreover, the Noblemens sons he took, and instructed in the liberall Sciences, preferring the wits of Britain, to the students in Gaul, as being now eagerly ambitious to attain the eloquence of the Roman tongue, whereas lately they utterly rejected that language. After that, our attire grew in account, and the gown much used amongst them, and so by little and little they proceeded to provocations of vices, to sumptuous galleries, baths, and exquisite banquettings. Thus far Tacitus. Now had there been but the least mention made, by any Author, concerning the Druid’s instructing, and training up the ancient Britans in any such matters, as these, (which Tacitus remembers the Romans to have done) what conclusions might have been rais’d from them? what presumptive reasons drawn, to prove, Stoneheng a work of the Druid’s, or at least erected for their use?

To conclude, if this authority from Tacitus only, (an Author esteem’d the Polybius of the Latines) be throughly weighed, it will evidently manifest, (whatever else hath formerly been delivered) there was no such thing in Britain, before the Romans arrived here, as that which we now call Stoneheng. What credit else with posterity could Tacitus expect to gain, in affirming the Britans were taught and instructed in the liberall Sciences by the Romans; if those Arts acknowledg’d, to be practis’d amongst the Britans before? What need to have told us, the Romans made them skilfull in erecting sumptuous Palaces, stately Portico’s, and publick places, if the inhabitants here, accustomed to enjoy such noble buildings, before the Romans arrivall in this Land? Why, tell succeeding Ages, when gentle persuasions not prevail, to make the Britans innovate, and admit of sacred structures to whatever Deities, Agricola compelled them to found magnificent Temples, and assist therein, if this Antiquity Stoneheng extant before those times? Why also, should the Britans look upon the Temple erected by the Romans at Camalodunum, (supposed Maldon in Essex) in honour of Claudius sacred memory, as an Altar of perpetuall dominion over them, if been used to such structures before? yea, such an eye-sore the Britans accounted it, as, that Temple was one of the principall causes, which gave birth to that fatall insurrection under Boadicia. Neither would Tacitus have magnified the introducing those customs amongst them, as admirable policy in Agricola, and the true and only rule to bring them from their rude, and dispersed manner of living to civility, if the Britans attain’d such discipline before, or any knowledge in the excellency of Architecture preceding the time of the Romans government here. No, for what saith Camden?Cam. fo. 63. It was the brightnesse of that most glorious Empire, which chased away all savage Barbarism from the Britans minds, like as from other Nations, whom it had subdued.

Furthermore, in the time of this Agricola, Britain was fully discovered, the Romans had circumnavigated it, and knew, for certain, it was an Island, formerly doubted of till his time; yea, there was not a Port (as I may so say) a bay, mountain, valley, hill, plain, wood, or forest, either any custom, rite, ceremony, or what else belonging to the knowledge of the Countrey, or manners of the People, but the Romans were then as well acquainted with (especially, in that part of the Island now call’d England) as, at this day, the Inhabitants themselves are. Neverthelesse, what mention soever is made by their Historians, concerning other matters of the Britans, not one word is to be found of this Antiquity, or any building of this kind in use amongst them. But, because some curiously learned have desired somwhat to be spoken for their better satisfaction touching this particular, I have been too prolixe. In a word therefore, let it suffice, Stoneheng was no work of the Druid’s, or of the ancient Britans; the learning of the Druid’s consisting more in contemplation then practice, and the ancient Britans accounting it their chiefest glory to be wholly ignorant in whatever Arts. Neither could it be otherwise, seeing their life so uncivil, so rude, so full of wars, and consequently void of all literature. (as Camden relateth)Cam. fo. 4.

Yet, before I come to speak of this middle Age (if I may so call it) wherein the Romans prevailed, and to compleat their victories gave first rise to civility in this Island; as, I began with times of great Antiquity, so must I now descend to those lesse ancient, and modern, wherein, as posterity hath suffered an irreparable damage, through want of writing in those first times, so hath it been almost at as great a losse, by too much writing in later times; so many Authors, so much contrariety, so little certainty is found amongst them. Who, when they could not search out the truth in deed, laboured to bring forth narrations invented by themselves, without or reason, or authority: delivering (saith Camden) their severall opinions, rather with a certain pleasant variety to give contentment to their Readers, then with any care or judgement to find out the truth of things.

THOSE ancient Historians who (among other actions of the Britans) treat of this Antiquity, differ much in their severall reports. And, as it is usuall with Historiographers of other Nations, where, they cannot give a just and rationall accompt of unwonted accidents, beyond the common course of things, to fill up their stories with fabulous, and incredible relations; so, no marvell, if we hear the like in our own Histories.Leyland. de assert. Arth. fo. 35. Credibile enim est calamitatem bellicam, quæ ecclesias unà cum bibliochecis exhauserat infinitis, clara vetustatis monumenta abrasisse. For evident it is, through the calamities of wars (saith Leyland) which together with infinite Libraries ruined the Churches themselves, the certain records of our Antiquities, are utterly lost. Unde scripturienti de antiquitate Britannica occultissima, pleraque omnia. Whereby the Writers of the British Stories, are all of them, for the most part, very obscure and doubtfull.r

Some others again, especially the most ancient and authentick British Historians, who liv’d in Ages next succeeding those, wherein, Stoneheng might probably be first erected, have wholly passed it over with silence. In like manner venerable Bede, William Malmesbury, Roger Hoveden, and others, speak nothing thereof, as happily, willing rather to decline it altogether, then deliver it upon frivolous conjectures, and in so doing cast a blemish upon their other labours. Neither is it improbable, that the most ancient Authors, considering the times wherein they wrote, upon the first springing up of Christian Religion here, might through zeal unto the true God, forbear to commemorate unto posterity, places designed for idolatrous uses; endeavouring rather, to suppresse the memory thereof, and make succeeding generations sollicitous therein; then, in that infancy of Divine worship, to illustrate the magnificence of the Heathens, for building such notable structures to their false Gods. Insomuch, I find very little, or no mention at all thereof in the British Stories, except by Geffrey Monmouth, with some who follow him, and by such Authors only, as our most judicious Writers hold in many things, either meerly fabulous, or overladen with malicious, or accidentary untruths. Such relations neverthelesse, as they make thereof, I shall endeavour to deliver in their own words, reduceable into two conjectures, viz. either that Stoneheng was erected by A. Ambrosius (in ancient times King of the Britans) in memory of the British Nobility perfidiously slain at a treaty by Hengist the Saxon: or else, set up by the Britans themselves in honour of Him their said King.

Giraldus Cambrensis, curiously diligent in his relations of the miracles in Ireland, amongst other strange things in those parts, reckons up this Antiquity Stoneheng.Gir. Camb. de adm. Hib. Cap. 18. Fuit antiquis temporibus in Hibernia, lapidum congeries admiranda, (saith he) quæ & Chorea Gigantum dicta fuit, quia Gigantes eam ab ultimis Africæ partibus in Hiberniam attulerunt &c. There was in Ireland in ancient times, a pile of stones worthy admiration, called the Giants Dance, because Giants, from the remotest parts of Africa, brought them into Ireland, and in the plains of Kildare, not farre from the Castle of the Naase, as well by force of Art, as strength, miraculously set them up. These stones (according to the British story) Aurelius Ambrosius, King of the Britans, procured Merlin by supernaturall means to bring from Ireland, into Britain. And, that he might leave some famous monument of so great a treason to after ages, in the same order, and art, as they stood formerly, set them up, where the flower of the British Nation fell by the cut-throat practice of the Saxons, and where under the pretence of peace, the ill secured youth of the Kingdom, by murdrous designs were slain.

Rainulph Monk of Chester, speaking of Aurelius,Polychr. li. 5. alias Aurelianus Ambrosius (by others called Ambrosius Aurelianus) saith (as Sir John Trevisa the Priest in old English laid it down) His brother Uter Pendragon by help of Merlin the Prophet brought Choream Gigantum, that is Stonehenges out of Ireland. Stonehenge is now in the plain of Salisbury: of that bringing of Stonehenge out of Ireland, speaketh the British story, if it should lawfully be ytrowed.

It appears, Rainulph of Chester, as easie credit as he gave to strange stories, had not much confidence in this: and if, according to Geffrey Monmouth, or Matthew Westminster, I should set it down, I presume you would be of his mind. But, I affect not such conceits, they are neither fitting my discourse, nor your perusall. Neverthelesse, seeing none of them tell us, by what ways, or Arts, Giants (as they will have it) brought them from the remotest parts of Africk into Ireland (for it seems they could not hansomly find a Merlin to help them therein also) I shall take so much leave, following Geffrey Monmouths steps, as to give you, at least, some part of the story, and relate (according to their opinions) how they came from Ireland hither. After Geffrey Monmouths discourse of Uter Pendragons victory over the Irish, who with Merlin forsooth and a great Army, were sent by A. Ambrosius to fetch the Giants dance, Lapidum structuram adepti (saith he) gavisi sunt & admirati; circumstantibus itaque cunctis, accessit Merlinus & ait, utimini viribus vestris juvenes, ut in deponendo lapides istos, sciatis utrum ingenium virtuti, aut virtus ingenio cedat, &c. i.e. Having found the structure, from joy they fell into admiration, and standing all of them at gaze round about it, Merlin draws near, and thus bespeaks them: Use now your utmost strength young men, that in taking away these stones, you may discover, whether Art to strength, or strength gives place to Art. At his command therefore, they bring severall sorts of engines, and addresse themselves to pulling it down. Some ropes, some cables, some had made lathers ready, that what they so much desired, might be effected, but in no wise able to atcheive their purpose. Deficientibus cunctis, solutus est Merlinus in risum (saith Geffrey) & suas machinationes confecit. Denique cum quæque necessaria apposuisset; leviùs quàm credi potest lapides deposuit: depositis autem, fecit deferri ad naves, & introponi: & sic cum gaudio in Britanniam reverti cœperunt. All of them tired, Merlin breaks out into laughter, and provides his engines. Lastly, when he had set all things in a readinesse, hardly to be beleev’d it is, with what facility he took them down: being taken down, he caused them to be carried to the Ships, and imbarqued; and so with joy they began their return towards Britain. Leaving it for us to suppose, with as small labour they were imbarqued, dis-imbarqued, and brought from their landing place to Salisbury plain: all (it seems) done by Merlins spels. But of this too much.

Neverthelesse, as I contemne fables, so doe I imbrace, and take pleasure in the truth of History: and therefore, that which concerns the slaughter of the British Nobility by treason of Hengist commander of the Saxons, as of greater moment, and truth, I shall more fully relate. And Geffrey Monmouth’s Authority in this treacherous slaughter of the Britans, though I respect not so much, as Ninnius, Malmsbury, Sigebert, and others that affirm the same; yet, because he was the first, after so many, and so ancient Authors, that father’d Stoneheng their monument, and A. Ambrosius founder thereof, and therefore must trace him, and his followers therein. I will give you the history likewise from him, and thus it was: Hengist, upon his return with new supplies into Britain, finding Vortigern beyond expectation restored to the Crown, and withall greatly alienated in his affections towards him, prepared for his defence, with force of arms. But, whether he thought himself too weak; or, that he rather sought to be especially revenged on the British Nobility, who had wholly unriveted his designs, or both; he thought it no difficult matter to delude him by a Treaty, whom formerly he had so easily beguiled with his Neece Rowena. To which purpose, he makes an overture, to compose the enmities betwixt them at a Parley; and the King accepting it, appoints Ambresbury Town their meeting place, Nec mora, statuta die instante convenerunt omnes intra nominatam urbem (saith Geffrey)G. Mon. li. 6. & de pace habenda colloquium inceperunt. Ut igitur horam proditioni suæ idoneam inspexisset Hengistus, vociferatus est, Nemet oure saxas: & ilico Vortigernum accepit, & per pallium detinuit. Audito ocyùs signo, abstraxerunt (i.e. eduxerunt) Saxones cultros suos, & astantes principes invaserunt, ipsósque nihil tale præmeditantes jugulaverunt circiter quadringentos sexaginta inter Barones & Consules. The prefixed day being come, they all, without delay, met in the aforesaid Town, and began their Treaty for Peace; when therefore Hengist saw fit time for execution of his intended Treason, he cried out, giving the word, Nemet oure saxas (Nem eowr seaxes (saith Verstegan)Verstegan Ch. 5. that is, Take your seaxes; a kind of crooked knives, which each of the Saxons then carried closely in his pocket) and forthwith seised upon Vortigern, and held him by his robe. The Saxons quickly hearing it, drew forth their knives, and fell upon the Britans standing by, of whom, part Noblemen, part officers of State, expecting no such design, they slew four hundred and sixty. Quorum corpora beatus Eldadus postmodum sepelivit, atque Christiano more humavit, haud longè à Kaer-caradane, quæ nunc Salesberia dicitur, in cœmeterio, quod est juxta cœnobium Ambrii. Whose corpses holy Eldad, according to custome, after Christian manner interred, not far from Kaer-caradane, now called Salisbury, in the Churchyard adjoyning to the monastery of Ambresbury.

With this relation of the Saxons treachery, Mathew WestminsterMa. West. fo. 84. (in his Flores historiarum) seems to agree. And it wholly destroys the opinion commonly received, That the said Treaty with the Saxons, the massacre of the Britans, and likewise their interment, were at Stoneheng; and that in memory, those matters so transacted there, A. Ambrosius in the same place erected this Antiquity. Wherefore, I much wonder, our modern historians should cite the aforesaid AuthorsHollinsh. l. 5.
Speed lib. 7.
Stow fo. 53. 4to. in confirmation thereof, especially, when they affirm directly, the treaty was held in Ambresbury Town, and that the British Nobility fell by Treason there. Jussit Vortigernus & cives & Saxones Maiis Kalendis, quæ jam instare incipiebant, juxta Ambrii cœnobium convenire (saith G. Monmouth)G. Monm. lib. 5. Vortigern commanded both his own people, and the Saxons, upon the Calends of May then approaching, to appear near to the Monastery of Ambresbury. In Pago Ambri convenire, to meet in the Town it self of Ambresbury (saith Mathew Westminster) In order to which summons, (that I may proceed with Geffrey Monmouths story explaining himself positively concerning the place) statuta die instante convenerunt omnes intra nominatam urbem, &c. the appointed day being come, all of them met together within the forenamed Town, and there treated. The issue whereof was, that upon the word given (as before related) The Saxons drew their knives, and falling upon the Britans standing by, slew them. And, lest posterity should doubt those sacrificed for their Countreys cause neglected in their funerals, he leaves not there, but gives us the direct place, and manner of their buriall, affirming plainly they were buried by a Metropolitane of those times, even in a Church-yard, as Christians should. In cœmeterio, quod est juxta cœnobium, In the Church-yard, close by the Monastery. (saith he) There is not one word mentioned (I pray observe) of Salisbury plain, where this Antiquity Stoneheng remains, throughout all their Story.

But, it’s objected, although they were buried at the Monastery, the monument for their memory might be set up elsewhere, in a place more proper, and more conspicuous; even, as in the most properly conspicuous places where great actions happened Trophies were erected by the Romans, whose customs A. Ambrosius living long time amongst them, knew very well. I answer, A. Ambrosius, is suppos’d by Bede, and the best Authors, descended from the Romans; who, living many years under their subjection, in forrain parts, had fully inform’d his judgement, no doubt, with whatever customs, civill or martiall, then in use amongst them. For, though the Romans in those times, had utterly lost all knowledge of Arts, questionlesse civill, and martiall customs in some sort continued with them. Neverthelesse, if A. Ambrosius did erect any monument for the British Nobility, he rather, doubtlesse endeavoured to observe the rules of his own Religion, being a Christian, then the Heathenish customs of his Ancestors. However, in erecting it, at the place of their interment, he pursued both. As for the Christians honouring to posterity their famous men after death, it being so well known, I need not relate it. And, as concerning the ancient Romans manner in burying their Emperours, and those that had triumphed, or otherwise deserved well of the Common-wealth, though they burned their bodies abroad, the place for sepulture of their Ashes,Thomas. Procachio fo. 46. was within the City, monuments to their memory being erected, upon the same place where buried; so was Publicola honoured, so the Fabritii, the Cæsars, and others. And, after the same fashion it seems, was the monument for the British Nobility (if any) set up where they were interred; as in the place of all others most proper for it, all the considerable circumstances touching their deaths, happening there in like manner.

It’s true the Romans set up Trophies for great Victories, in the most eminent places where those victories were obtained by them; as the Trophy for Caius Marius his vanquishing the Cimbrians, in the most notable place where that memorable field was fought. Also, the Trophy dedicated to the memory of Augustus Cæsar that by his happy conduct, all the Alpine Nations, were reduced to Roman obedience, was erected in the most conspicuous place of the Alps. Now, this martiall custome considered, the British Nobility being (as the aforesaid Historians maintain) slaughtered in the Town, and buried at the Monastery adjoyning. Some one of those high hils, on either side Ambresbury, had certainly for site been more eminent, and the monument it self more exposed to the daily view of travellers, then about two miles from the Town, in a place remote, where this Antiquity stands. Which, though indeed eminent of it self, and overlooking the plains adjoyning; yet, at a large distance, especially on that side towards Ambresbury, and Salisbury-ward, is so surrounded with hils; as it appears with an Aspect of Religious horror, rather then as carrying any form of whatever sepulture.

This, though sufficient to refute the preceding objection (the former reasons being grounded upon customs only) I shall yet, from the histories of those times, further answer thereunto; Mathew Westminster tels us,Math. West. fo. 92. A. Ambrosius having compleated his victories over Hengist, and subdued his sons at York; Deinde porrexisse ad monasterium Ambri, ubi principes defuncti jacebant, quos Hengistus prodiderat; from thence came to the Monastery at Ambresbury, where the deceased Nobles, whom Hengist betrayed, lay buried. And Geffrey Monmouth,G. Mon. li. 8. prosecuting the same story, affirms also, that A. Ambrosius being come to the Monastery, ut locum quo defuncti jacebant circumspexit, pietate motus in lachrymas solutus est, dignum namque memoria censebat cespitem, qui tot nobiles pro patria defunctos protegebat. So soon as he cast his eyes upon the place where the slaughtered Princes lay interred, deplored them; esteeming that very ground which covered so many Nobles, dying for their Countreys cause, worthy eternall memory. Upon this consideration, Præcepit Merlino (saith the same Author) lapides circa sepulturam erigere, quos ex Hibernia asportaverat. A. Ambrosius commanded Merlin, that the stones brought out of Ireland (for he still troubles himself and readers therewith) should be erected about the place of their buriall. Whereby it clearly appears their Sepulchre was set up about the same place where they were buried, and not elsewhere. Also, as fully that their buriall place (as both the said Historians have told us) was at the Monastery of Ambresbury, or Churchyard adjoyning to it. All which former circumstances duly weighed, ’tis not possible Stoneheng should be supposed their Monument; except Geffrey Monmouth, having made so formall a tale of their easie transportation from Ireland, would compell us also to imagine, posterity might as easily be induced to assent, they were in like manner removed from the Churchyard at Ambresbury to Salisbury plain, the one being equally as ridiculous as the other, and no manner of credit to be given to either.

Wherefore, laying all the aforesaid Authorities together. First, that Giraldus Cambrensis formerly cited, tells us, (in that part of his story which carries most likelihood of truth) a Monument was set up by A. Ambrosius, in memory of the Britans, slain at a Treaty by the Saxons, upon the very same place where slain; and in order thereunto the aforesaid British Historians unanimously affirming the place at which that treaty was held, and where those Britans were slain was the Town it self of Ambresbury, not where this Antiquity Stoneheng remains: again, if suspect Cambrensis authority, and allow rather what our Historiographer of Monmouth saith, That the Monument was erected by A. Ambrosius, upon that plat of ground, where the slaughtered Britans lay buryed; he telling us also, their buriall place was in the Churchyard of the Monastery at Ambresbury (at the Monastery it self, saith Matthew Westminster) certainly then their Monument (whatsoever it was) being set up at the place, where they were both slain and buried, and (according to the aforesaid Authors) they being nor slain nor buryed at Stoneheng, it must necessarily follow, this Antiquity was not erected in Honour of those Britans. Unlesse any man will undertake to prove (which most certain it is none can) Stoneheng stands now, where Ambresbury stood of old: or that the Monastery and Churchyard thereof were not at Ambresbury, but at Stoneheng.

That the Monastery of three hundred Monks,Cam. fo. 254. stood there, (to wit at Ambresbury) Camden, out of the Book called Eulogium, affirms. And, that the Churchyard was close adjoyning to it, there’s no question to be made. First, because in all times since Monasteries erected, it was always in use, to lay out places for Churchyards belonging to them, near to the Monasteries themselves. Secondly, because divers Sepulchres, upon severall occasions, broken up at Ambresbury Monastery, manifest the same. Thirdly, because Geffrey Monmouth plainly tels us, they were buried in cœmeterio, quod est juxta cœnobium; in the Churchyard which is close by the Monastery. Lastly, it is further confirmed by these his formerly recited words,G. Monm. lib. 6. & 8. A. Ambrosius being come unto the Monastery, cast his eyes upon the place where the slaughtered Princes lay interred. Which is not possible he should have done, if the Churchyard had been at Stoneheng; it being very well known Stoneheng cannot be discerned, even from the highest hils, upon those parts especially, that next surround Ambresbury, much lesse from the Monastery it self, sited in the bottome of a deep vale by the river Avons side.

Among other Sepulchres found at the said Monastery, it’s worthy memory, that about the beginning of this Century, one of them hewn out of a firm stone, and placed in the middle of a wall, was opened, having upon its coverture in rude letters of massie gold,

The originall Inscription I could not procure; such relation thereof neverthelesse as came to my hands, I have, upon credit of those persons of quality from whom received, inserted it here.

R. G. A. C. 600.

The bones within which Sepulchre were all firm, fair yellow coloured hair about the scull, a supposed peece of the liver, near upon the bignesse of a walnut, very dry and hard, and together therewith, were found severall royall habiliments, as jewels, veils, scarfs, and the like, retaining even till then, their proper colours. All which were afterwards, very choicely kept, in the collection of the Right honourable Edward, then Earl of Hertford: and of the aforesaid gold divers rings were made and worn by his Lordships principall Officers. Concerning which Tomb (though I list not dispute) why might it not be the Sepulchre of Queen Guinever, wife of King Arthur; especially the Letters R G. as much to say, Regina Guinevera, declaring her title and name; and the date An. Chr. 600. (if truly copied) agreeing (possibly well enough) with the time of her death? Besides, Leyland affirms,Leyl. de assert. Arth. severall Writers make mention, she took upon her a Nuns veil at Ambresbury, died, and was buried there. To which he gives so much credit, that (whatever Giraldus Cambrensis delivers to the contrary) he will by no means allow, either her body to be afterwards translated from Ambresbury, or, at any time, buried by her husband King Arthur at Glastonbury. Unto Leylands reasons for her interment at Ambresbury, Camden (it seems) inclines also, because wholly silent of her Sepulchre, discovered any where else: though he at large sets down all the circumstances of her Husbands body, its being found at Glastenbury. For, had Camden apprehended any thing inducing him to beleeve, her body had been together with his there found, he would never, certainly, have concealed it from posterity.

Whether the aforesaid Tomb so found, were her monument, yea or no, enough concerning the slaughter and sepultures of the afore mentioned Britans; as also, that Stoneheng was not erected in memory of them. Let us come now to Aurelius Ambrosius, and see whether Polydore Virgill’s story in relation to Stoneheng agrees with what other Authors have delivered of Aurelius. For from Polydore’s authority, our modern Writers raise their second, and quite contrary opinion:Speed lib. 7.
Stow fo. 53. namely, that the Britans erected this Antiquity for A. Ambrosius his Sepulchre.

Polydore VirgillPolyd. Virg. lib. 3. treating of the actions of those times betwixt the Britans and Saxons; Britanni, Duci suo Ambrosio de republica bene merito magnificum (saith he) posuerunt sepulchrum &c. The Britans in memory of his great atchievements for the Commonwealth, erected a magnificent Sepulchre to their Chieftain Ambrosius, made of great square stones in form of a Crown, even in that place, where fighting, he was slain, that the prowesse of so great a Commander, should neither be forgotten amongst themselves, who then lived, or left unremembred to posterity. Which Monument remains even to this day, in the Diocese of Salisbury, near unto the village called Amisbery.

This opinion of Polydore is grounded (as I conceive) upon no great likelihood. For, should the British Nobles, far inferiour to A. Ambrosius, in honour, and dignity, be buried in the Churchyard of a Monastery, and a Sepulchre assigned for Ambrosius himself in the open fields? Should that Christian King, who had accomplished so many great atchievements victoriously against the Pagans, enemies to Christ? Caused Churches to be repaired, which the Barbarism of the Saxons had destroyed? pulled down and demolished idolatrous places of the Heathen, and (as is more probable) rather, then erected by him, whilst living, to others, or by others, to his memory after dead, the very first that began to deface this Heathenish sacred structure (for, though a Roman, yet a Christian, and zeal to true Religion might, no doubt, cause him dispense with ruining idolatrous Temples though formerly built, and consecrated to false Gods by his seduced Auncestors) should he, I say, be buried Pagan-like, in unsanctified, unhallowed ground, and others far lesse eminent, lesse conspicuous, in more noble, and sacred places? It could never be. Neither reason of State, nor fervor of piety, in those more scrupulous times, could ever admit thereof.

Leyl. de assert. Art.

Had Polydore, or any other, told us some Pagan-Saxon-Commander lay there intombed, ’twould have carried a shew of much more credit, and the ancient custome of that Peoples burying their dead might have been produced, at least as a probable argument, to confirm the same. For the Saxons a Pagan Nation, if any of their Princes or Nobility died, in their houses at home of sicknesse, were buried in pleasant, and delightfull gardens; if from home, and in the wars, not far from their camps, in heaps of earth cast up in the fields, which heaps they called Burrows: and the promiscuous common people in medows and open fields. Saxones Nobiles gens Christi ignara, in hortis amœnis, si domi forte ægroti moriebantur: si foris & bello occisi, in egestis per campos terræ tumulis quos Burgos appellabant, juxta castra sepulti sunt: vulgus autem promiscuum etiam in pratis & apertis campis. As Leyland, who laid a good ground-work towards the discovery of British Antiquities, delivers.

Polydore neverthelesse, had great reason to imagine A. Ambrosius famed the restorer of his Countrey (and Bulwark of War, as Camden cals him) worthy an everlasting Monument, Extat etiam nunc id monimentum in diœcesi Sarisberiensi prope pagum quam Amisberiam vocant, Which monument is yet extant in the diœcese of Salisbury (saith he) not far from Ambresbury Town: and so was the Churchyard of the Monastery too. He also tels us, Factum fuisse ad formam coronæ, it was made in form of a Crown. An elegant expression (I confesse) of a no lesse elegant work, if he meant Stoneheng; yet no argument thereby to prove A. Ambrosius or buried, or slain there. For, as touching A. Ambrosius his death, severall Authors, of as good credit as Polydore (his integrity neverthelesse I question not, others have been busie enough therein) affirm,G. Monm.
M. Westm.
Polychron.
Caxton.
Leyland. that Pascentius Vortigerns son, with many rewards corrupted a certain Saxon called Eopas (Clappa, saith Caxton) who, taking upon him the habit of a Monk, under pretence of Physick (A. Ambrosius being then sick) gave him poyson, whereof he died at Winchester. And no wonder he was so poysoned, many examples of the like kinde being recorded in History. As in later times,Knolls in vit. Ba. the Turkish Emperour Bajazet the second, under pretence of Physick poysoned by a Jew: also Conrad third of that namePed. Mexia in vit. Con. Emperour of Germany, by an Italian: and, in times of old, under the same pretence, Pyrrhus that famous EpirotPlutarch in vit. Pyrr. had been poysoned by his own Physitian, if C. Fabricius the Roman Consul would have enclined to such ignoble resolutions, as Pascentius after put in act against A. Ambrosius in our story.

Amongst other, who relate this disaster of A. Ambrosius, Matthew WestminsterMa. West. fo. 94. tels us, The said pretended Monk, tandem ad Regis præsentiam perductum, venenum ei porrexisse, &c. being at last admitted to the Kings presence, administered poyson unto him, which having drunk, the wicked Traytor advised him to sleep, and in so doing suddenly should recover health! Nec mora, illabente per poros corporis & venas veneno, mortem pariter subsecutam esse. But, ere long, the poyson being dispersed through the pores and veins of his body, death seizes upon him.

Concerning the buriall of A. Ambrosius, if give credit to Geffrey Monmouths affirming A. Ambrosius on his death-bed gave command, and was accordingly buried, in the Sepulchre by him (whilst living) prepared in the Churchyard adjoyning to the Monastery at Ambresbury, then was A. Ambrosius nor buried at Stoneheng, nor consequently this Antiquity erected to his memory. Geffrey Monmouth tels us; His death being known, the Bishops, Abbats, and all the Clergy of that province, assembled together in the City of Winchester.G. Monm. lib. 8. Et quia vivens adhuc præceperat, ut in cœmeterio prope cœnobium Ambrii, quod ipse paraverat sepeliretur, tulerunt corpus ejus, eodem atque cum regalibus exequiis, humaverunt. And with respect to his command, whilest living, that in the Churchyard adjoyning to the Monastery at Ambresbury, prepared by him, he would be buried, they took his body and with royall solemnities enterred him there.

Furthermore, at Ambresbury, that is, Ambrose his Town, (Camden tels us)Cam. fo. 254. certain ancient Kings, by report of the British story, lay interred. Whether A. Ambrosius was one of them, or no, I argue not; yet the same Author saith, Ambrose Aurelianus gave name unto the place. And why not, he being buried there, as well, as upon the translation of the body of Edmund that most Christian King, the Town of Edmundsbury in Suffolk was so called?

It manifestly hence appears, Stoneheng no Sepulchre, either erected by A. Ambrosius, or by the British Nobility, or to any of their memories. Some Monument there was, perhaps, anciently set up in honour of them, at the Monastery of Ambresbury. Which, the fury of the Saxons when victorious, or violence of time, which destroyeth all things, utterly consuming, might happily be the reason, Historians in succeeding Ages, finding so notable an Antiquity as Stoneheng, not far from thence, and not apprehending for what use it was first built, suppos’d no other thing worthy A. Ambrosius, or those Britans, then such an extraordinary structure. Whereas, the Monuments in those ancient times, made for great Princes here in Britain, were onely two Pyramids between which interred, of no extraordinary bignesse erected to their memory in whate’re Religious places those Princes lay buried. Moreover, if seriously take notice of the severall sorts of Sepulchres used by divers Nations, none are found bearing like Aspect with this work Stoneheng, but of other kinde of Architecture, far different in Form, Manner, and Composure. Some, made of one Columne onely; or, if otherwise, only a vase erected on the place of buriall, as amongst the Athenians: Some, had a Columne whereon the shields used in War by the deceased, whilst living, were fixt, as in those medals of silver, which the Roman Senate dedicated to Vespasian: Some, a Columne with a Statue thereon; so the famous Columne of Trajan had a Colossus on the top thereof, as by his medals also appears. Again, the Gauls on the tops of Mountains, erected Pyramid’s or Columnes, as Monuments to their Princes. The Saxons were buried (as said before) in huge heaps of earth, to this day visible among us. The Keep of the now Castell S. Angelo at Rome was the Sepulchre of the Emperour Adrian. (such mighty moles were the Monuments of the Romans) The Greeks erected Altars, and instituted Sacrifices to the memory of their Chieftains, as the Spartans to Lysander: The renowned Carian Queen made the Mausoleum for her husband, a massie bulk of building, 140 foot high: The huge Pyramid’s in Ægypt causing such wonder in the world, were Sepulchres of Ægyptian Kings. In a word, amongst all Nations, Sepulchres whether little or great, were always reall and solid piles; not airous, with frequent openings, and void spaces of ground within, exposed to Sun and wind, neither uncovered like this Antiquity; or in any manner so built, as may enforce the least presumption, that this our Stoneheng was ever a Sepulchre.

I have given you a full relation what concerning Stoneheng hath been delivered by Writers, in respect of us though ancient, yet in regard of the great antiquity of this Work, indeed but modern, Geffrey Monmouth living not full five hundred years ago, and Polydore Virgill long after him, in King Henry the eighths reign: Who, as they are the principall Authors that write any thing of Stoneheng; so, upon what authority deliver the same, they make not appear. Insomuch, Camden gives no more credit to their relations in this very particular, then unto common sayings, (so he cals them) as if grounded upon Fame only, or invented by themselves. And it may the rather be so presumed, because, as they lived not in ancient times, and consequently could not themselves bear testimony of any such things; so, neither the Britans nor Saxons for a long time after their first arrivall here, had any Records or Writings to convey whatever actions, either of their own, or others to posterity. Ninnius a British Historian, living about one thousand years ago, telling us, Britannos doctores nullam peritiam habuisse, &c. The great Masters and Doctors of Britain had no skill, nor left memoriall of any thing in writing: confessing, that himself gathered whatsoever he wrote, out of the Annals and Chronicles of the holy Fathers. Nec Saxones amusi quicquam penè de rebus inter ipsos, & Britannos eo tempore gestis scriptum posteritati reliquerint, &c. Neither did the Saxons being unlearned (saith Leyland)Leyland. de assert. Art. fol. 25. leave almost any thing in writing to posterity, of the actions performed in those times betwixt themselves and Britans: whatsoever, remembred after Christ taught in this Island, of the first victories of the Saxons, being both taken up upon trust from the mouth of the common people, and committed to writing from vulgar reports only. Neither the Britans, utterly worn out with so many wars, had (as the same Author hath it) or desire, or opportunity, had they desired it, to bestow their pains in compiling any whatever history, that might commend their actions to succeeding Ages.

But, it maybe objected: If Polydore Virgill, and Geffrey Monmouth could neither be eye-witnesses themselves, nor have authority from other more ancient Authors for what related by them concerning Stoneheng: and that from whatever writings ancient or modern, not any thing of certainty can be found out concerning the same; from whence then appear, for what use, or by whom Stoneheng erected? I answer, though not appear from Histories written either by the Britans or Saxons; yet, as Gildas professing he wrote his History (for the former reasons) by relations from beyond Sea: and, as Ninnius his out of the Annals and Chronicles of the holy Fathers as aforesaid: so, severall other ways a possibility of truth may be gathered, namely, from the authority of other Nations; from the concurrence of time for such undertakings; from the customs of forepassed Ages in like works; from the manner and form of building proper to severall Countries; from the use to which such buildings applied, and the like. Upon which, as occasion serves, intending hereafter more largely to insist, I shall in the mean while set down the judgement our late Writers give of this Antiquity.

Camden, a diligent searcher after Antiquities of our Nation, having, in his Chorography of Wiltshire, collected all the aforesaid opinions, together with his own, gives a summary description of Stoneheng, in words as follow. Cam. fo. 251. Towards the North, about six miles from Salisbury, in the plain, is to be seen a huge and monstrous peece of work, such as Cicero termeth insanam substructionem. For, within the circuit of a ditch, there are erected in manner of a Crown, in three ranks or courses one within another, certain mighty and unwrought stones, whereof some are twenty eight foot high, & seven foot broad, upon the heads of which others, like overthwart peeces, do bear and rest cross-wise, with a small tenon and mortaise, so as the whole frame seemeth to hang; whereof we call it Stoneheng, like as our old Historians termed it for the greatness the Giants dance. Our Countrimen reckon this for one of our wonders, and miracles. And much they marvell, from whence such huge stones were brought, considering that in all those quarters bordering thereupon, there is hardly to be found any common stone at all for building: as also, by what means they were set up. For mine own part about these points I am not curiously to argue and dispute, but rather to lament with much grief, that the Authors of so notable a Monument are thus buried in oblivion. Yet some there are, that think them to be no naturall stones hewn out of the rock, but artificially made of pure sand, and by some glewy and unctuous matter knit and incorporate together, like as those ancient trophies or monuments of victory which I have seen in Yorkshire. And what marvell? Read we not I pray you in Pliny, that the sand or dust of Puteoli, being covered over with water, becometh forthwith a very stone, that the cisterns in Rome of sand, digged out of the ground, and the strongest kind of lime wrought together grow so hard, that they seem stones indeed? and that statues and images of marble scalings, and small grit grow together so compact and firm, that they were deemed entire and solid marble? The common saying is, that Ambrosius Aurelianus, or his brother Uther did rear them up, by the art of Merlin, &c. Thus far Camden, it being needlesse to repeat more from him, having already delivered the story from the Authors themselves. Yet here neverthelesse, as necessarily induced thereunto, I shall take leave to observe something more remarkable to our purpose in hand, upon his words.

In the first place then, Stoneheng is by him called a huge and monstrous peece of work, terming it from Cicero, insanam substructionem. To which I say, had Camden as well attained other abilities of an Architect, as he was skilfull in Antiquities: or been as conversant in Antiquities abroad, as learned in those of his own Nation, he would have given a far different judgement hereof. For, whosoever is acquainted with the ancient ruines yet remaining in and about Italy, may easily perceive this no such huge building, either for the circuit of the work, or bignesse of the stones, they being as manageable to the Roman Architects, as amongst us to raise a May-pole, or mast of a Ship. And, if this styled huge and monstrous, what may be said of Diocletians baths? the great Cirque? Marcellus his Theater? Vespasians Temple of Peace? and other prodigious works of the Romans? the very remainders whereof now lying in the dust, breed amazement and wonder (not without just reason too) in whosoever beholds them with attentivenesse and judgement. Nay, whereas he styles it insanam substructionem, it’s demonstrable, that betwixt this Island of great Britain, and Rome it self, there’s no one structure to be seen, wherein more clearly shines those harmoniacall proportions, of which only the best times could vaunt, then in this of Stoneheng.

Moreover, Our Countreymen marvell (saith he) from whence such huge stones were brought, considering that in all those quarters bordering thereupon, there is hardly to be found any common stone for building. Upon what trust Camden (his extraordinary judgement otherwise considered) took this relation, I know not. For there is not onely common stone thereabouts, for ordinary uses, but stone of extraordinary proportions likewise, even for greater works (if occasion were) then Stoneheng: the Quarries of Hasselborough and Chilmark, both of them not far from the borders of the plain, having of a long time furnished all the adjacent parts with common stone for building. And (to come nearer the matter) it is manifest, that in divers places about the Plain, the same kinde of Stone whereof this Antiquity consists may be found, especially about Aibury in North-Wiltshire, not many miles distant from it, where not onely are Quarries of the like stone, but also stones of far greater dimensions then any at Stoneheng, may be had.

They wonder also (saith he) by what means they (that, is such huge stones) were set up. What may be effected by that Mechanicall Art, which Dee in his Mathematicall Preface to Euclyde, cals Menadry, or Art of ordering Engines for raising weights; those (it seems) of whom Camden speaks took little notice of, when Archimedes during the siege of Syracuse,Plut. in Marcel. raised out of the Sea, and turned in the air at pleasure, the Ships and Gallies of the Romans, full fraught as they were with Souldiers, Mariners, and their ordinary lading: and if King Hieron could have assigned him, a fit place to firm his engines on, he would have undertaken to remove, even the terrestriall Globe out of the worlds center, so high, perfection in this Art transported him. What should I say of the Obelisk in Ages so far past, brought from the Mountains of Armenia, and erected in Babylon by Semiramis, one hundred & fifty foot high, and at the base twenty four foot square of one entire stone? Est in fano Latonæ (saith HerodotusHerod. lib. 2. of his own knowledge) delubrum ex uno factum lapide, cujus parietes æquali celsitudine ad longitudinem quadragenum cubitorum, cujus lacunari, pro tecto impositus est alius lapis quatuor cubitorum per oras crassitudine. In the Temple of Latona (in Ægypt) is a Chappell formed of one stone, whose walls being of equall height, are in length forty cubits, covered in like manner with one sole stone four cubits thick. Those, which made this wonder would have much more admired, if they could have seen the Obelisk raised in times of old by King Ramesis at Heliopolis,Ptol. lib. 4.
Plin. lib. 36. in that part of Ægypt anciently called Thebais, in height one hundred twenty one Geometrical feet (which of our measure makes one hundred thirty six feet) of one entire stone: and so little wonder made they of raising it, that the Architect undertook and did effect it, the Kings own son being at the same time bound to the top thereof. Amongst the Romans, Augustus Cæsar erected in the great Cirque at Rome, an Obelisk of one stone, one hundred and twenty foot, nine inches long: another also, was set up in Mars field, nine foot higher then it, by the said Emperour. And it seems also, neither they, nor Camdens self had ever seen that Obelisk, which even in these our days, in the year one thousand five hundred eighty six, Sixtus Quintus caused to be erected in the Piazza of S. Peter at Rome,Dom. Font. lib. 1. one hundred and eight Roman palms high, and at the base twelve palms square, (according to our Assise, fourscore and one foot high, and nine foot square) of one entire stone also: Dominico Fontana being Architect. But, there are more strange things (as Sir Walter Raleigh hath it) in the world, then betwixt London and Stanes. It is want of knowledge in Arts makes such admirers, and Art it self have so many Enemies. Had I not been thought worthy (by him who then commanded) to have been sole Architect thereof, I would have made some mention of the great stones used in the work, and Portico at the West end of S. Pauls Church London, but I forbear; though in greatnesse they were equall to most in this Antiquity, and raised to a far greater height then any there. What manner of Engines the Ancients used for raising; and what secure ways they had, for cariage and transportation of their huge weights, is more proper for another subject.

Some there are (saith Camden) that think them to be no naturall stones, hewn out of the rock, but artificially made of pure sand, and by some glewy and unctuous matter, knit and incorporate together, like those ancient trophies, or monuments of victory, which I have seen in Yorkshire. As for these Monuments (for my part) I have not seen, otherwise I would give my sense upon them, and happily they may be found as far from being artificiall, as those at Stoneheng. And what marvell? (saith he) read we not, I pray you, in Pliny, that the sand or dust of Puteoli, being covered over with water, becometh forthwith a very stone &c. He might as well have told us the Rocks in Portland are artificiall. But it’s true, this sand of Puteoli, was much used by the Ancients, and it is such a kind of earth, as is very famous for its admirable effects in building, being tempered with the cement of Cuma: For, it not onely yeelds strength to all other buildings, but thereby also, all works made in the Sea under water, are most firmly consolidated. Yet, doe I not find, that ever the Ancients made any artificiall stones thereof, or that Vitruvius hath any thing to that purpose, to him the credit given to Pliny, and others, concerning the Earth of Puteoli, being only due; posterity being in the first place beholding unto him for finding out the nature of that earth, he giving us not only the effects thereof, but the cause also from whence those effects proceed. Hoc autem fieri hac ratione videtur, quòd sub his montibus (i.e. in regionibus Baianis,Vitr. lib. 2. cap. 6. & in agris, quæ sunt circa Vesuvium montem) & terræ ferventes sunt, & fontes crebri, qui non essent, si non in imo haberent, aut de sulphure, aut alumine, aut bitumine ardentes maximos ignes. Which is (saith he) by reason in those mountains (to wit, in the regions of Baiæ, and fields about mount Vesuvius) the grounds are hot, and full of springs, which heat could not be, but that from the bottome, are nourished mighty great fires, arising from sulphur, alume, or brimstone there. Indeed, according to Pliny, the sand upon the side of the hill of Puteoli, being opposed to the Sea, and continually drenched, and drowned with the water thereof, doth (by the restringent quality, no doubt, of the salt water) become a stone so compact, and united together, that scorning all the violence of the surging billows, it hardeneth every day more and more.

Neverthelesse, whosoever could find out any kind of earth in this Island, naturally apt, to make artificiall stones of such greatnesse as these; and, like them so obdurate also, that hardly any tool enter them: or, that our Auncestors in times of old, did make use of such a cement, and in what manner composed by them. The benefit thereof doubtlesse, would amount so ample to this Nation, that Records could not but render him deservedly famous to all posterity. In the mean while, as it is most certain those stones at Stoneheng are naturall; so, am I as clearly of opinion, the very Quarries from whence hewn, were about Aibury beforementioned: where, no small quantities of the same kind, are even at this day to be had; vast scantlings, not only appearing about the Town it self, but throughout the plain and fields adjoyning, the Quarries lying bare, numbers also numberlesse of stones, are generally seen. (being no small prejudice to the bordering inhabitants) As also, not far from the edge of Wiltshire, in the ascent from Lamborn to Whitehorse hill, the like stones are daily discovered. To mention, more places in particular is needlesse, the Quarries at and about Aibury (without relating to Lamborn, or what ever other) distant but fifteen miles or thereabouts from Stoneheng, being of themselves sufficient to clear the doubt. These, having through long time, got the very same crustation upon them, are in like manner coloured, grained, bedded, weighty, and of like difficulty in working, as those at Stoneheng. Some of which, being of a whitish colour, are intermixt and veined here and there with red: some, of a lightish blew, glister, as if minerall amongst them: some, for the most part white, perplexed (as it were) with a ruddy colour: some, dark gray and russet, differing in kinds as those stones at Aibury do. Some of them again, of a grayish colour, are speckled or intermixt with dark green, and white, together with yellow amongst it, resembling after a sort, that kind of marble which the Italians (from the valley where the Quarries are found) call Pozzevera; nothing, notwithstanding, so beautifull, though naturally much harder, and being weathered by time, as in this work; disdain the touch even of the best tempered tool. Insomuch, that if nothing else, the more then ordinary hardnesse of them is such, as will in part convince any indifferent judgement in the nature and quality of stones; those, in this Antiquity, are not (as Camden would have them) artificiall, but naturall.

Whatsoever, worthy admiration concerning Stoneheng, either in relation to the greatnesse of the work in generall, the extraordinary proportion of the stones in particular, the wonder the people make, from whence brought, by what Arts or Engines raised, and in such order placed, Camden delivers; certainly, in his judgement he was wholly opposite to the opinions of the aforesaid British Historians. He would never else, with so much regret have complained, The Authors of so notable a Monument lay buried in oblivion, had he given any the least credit, this Antiquity had been built, either by A. Ambrosius, or the British Nobility, or to eternize either of their names, or actions to succeeding generations. Let Geffrey Monmouth and his followers, say what they please, Henry Huntingdon (his Contemporary, if not more Ancient) is mine Author,H. Hunting, lib. 1. Nec potest aliquis excogitare, qua arte tanti lapides adeo in altum elevati sunt, vel quare ibi constructi sunt. No man knows (saith Huntingdon) for what cause Stoneheng erected, or (which is fully answered already) by what Art such huge stones were raised to so great a height. Take with you also Draytons judgement in his Poly-olbion couched under the fiction of old Wansdikes depraving Stoneheng. (Wansdike being a huge Ditch in Wiltshire so called, anciently, as Camden opines,Cam. fo. 241. dividing the two Kingdomes of the Mertians and West Saxons asunder)

Poly-olbion Cant. 3.

Whom for a paltry ditch, when Stonendge pleas’d t’upbraid,

The old man taking heart, thus to that Trophy said;

Dull heap, that thus thy head above the rest doth reare,

Precisely yet not know’st who first did place thee there;

But Traytor basely turn’d to Merlins skill dost flie,

And with his Magicks dost thy Makers truth belie.

For, as for that ridiculous Fable, of Merlins transporting the stones out of Ireland by Magick, it’s an idle conceit. As also, that old wives tale, that for the greatnesse it was in elder times called the Giants dance. The name of the dance of Giants by which it is styled in Monmouth, hath nothing allusive, no not so much as to the tale he tels us, saith a modern Writer in the life of Nero Cæsar.

Furthermore, our modern Historians Stow and Speed,Speed lib. 7.
Stow fo. 58. in 4o. tell us, in severall parts of the Plain adjoyning, have been by digging found, peeces of ancient fashioned armour, and the bones of men, insinuating this as an argument, for upholding the opinions of the British Writers. To which, if they would have those to be the bones of the slaughtered Britans, how came those Armours to be found with them, they coming to the Treaty unarmed, and without weapons? Howsoever, what is done in the Plains abroad, concerns not Stoneheng, Neither can any man think it strange, that in a place, where Fame hath rendred, so many memorable and fierce battels, fought in times of old, rusty armour, and mens bones should be digged up. It is usuall throughout the world in all such places, and (if I mistake not) Sands in his Travels, relates, that even in the Plains of Pharsalia, such like bones and Armour, have lately been discovered: and Sir Henry Blunt in that notable relation of his voyage into the Levant, speaks with much judgement of those Pharsalian fields. Likewise, the aforesaid Writers,Cam. fo. 194. Speed lib. 7. might well have remembred, some of themselves deliver, that at Kambulan, or Cambula in Cornwall, such habiliments of War have been digged up, in tillage of the ground, witnessing either the fatall field, sometimes there fought, where Mordred was slain by Arthur, and Arthur himself received his deaths wound: or else, the reliques of that battel betwixt the Britans and Saxons, in the year eight hundred and twenty. ’Tis true, the relation conduces much towards confirming, that ancient custome of the Saxons, formerly recited out of Leyland, considering especially, not far from this Antiquity, lie certain hillocks, at this day commonly called the seven Burrows, where it may be presumed, some Princes, or Nobles of the Saxon Nation lie interred. But, that Stoneheng should therefore be a place of buriall, the aforesaid relation to maintain the same is nothing worth.

They adde moreover, the stones yet remaining are not to be numbred, according as our Noble Sydney in his Sonnet of the wonders of England.

Near Wilton sweet, huge heaps of stone are found,

But so confus’d, that neither any eye

Can count them just, nor reason reason try,

What force brought them to so unlikely ground.

This, though it scarcely merits an answer, yet, to satisfie those which in this point may be curious, let them but observe the orders of the Circles, as they now appear, and not passe from one to another confusedly (noting neverthelesse where they begin) and they’ll find the just number easie to be taken.

Now, though whether in order to the Place it self where this Antiquity stands, or Persons, by whom Stoneheng pretended to be built, enough laid, to wave the reports upon fancy, or common Fame, formerly delivered: to the state of Time neverthelesse, wherein the British Histories would have it erected, because nothing by me hath yet been spoken, I will therefore adde, ’tis not probable such a work as Stoneheng could be then built. For, although our Britans, in ancient time possessed, together with the Roman civility, all good Arts, it is evident during the reign of A. Ambrosius (about the first coming in of the Saxons here, and towards the later end of the fifth Century, as Historians and Chronologists compute it) in the last declining of the Roman Empire, the Arts of Design, of which Architecture chief, were utterly lost even in Rome it self, much more in Britain, being then but a Tempest-beaten Province, and utterly abandoned by the Romans. Britain, therefore, being over-run with enemies, and the knowledge of Arts then lost amongst them: none, questionlesse, can reasonably apprehend so notable a work as Stoneheng could in such times be built.

That, amongst the Romans and Britans both, A. Ambrosius governing here, all Sciences were utterly perished, is evidently manifest. For, the Goths had then invaded Italy; and that vast Empire drooping with extreme Age, by the fatall irruption of strange Nations, was not only torn in peeces, but Barbarisme having trod learning under foot, and the sword bearing more sway then letters, or learned men, all Sciences were neglected; and particularly that of Building fell into such decay, that till of late about the year one thousand five hundred and ten, it lay swallowed up, and (as I may so say) buried in oblivion. When one Bramante of the Dutchy of Urbin,Serl. lib. 3. attaining admirable perfection in Architecture, restored to the world again, the true rules of building, according to those Orders, by the ancient Romans in their most flourishing times observed. Furthermore, not onely liberall Sciences and Architecture, but Art military also, about the time of A. Ambrosius, was so far lost amongst the Romans, that they were ignorant, yea, in the very rudiments of War. Insomuch, (as Procopius in his second Book of the Gothick Wars relate) Barbarism had bereft them of the skill, even in what manner to sound a retreat.

With us here also, the Saxons domineer’d over all, and A. Ambrosius with the Britans had enough to do, in endeavouring the recovery of their lost Countrey from a mighty prevailing Enemy, that in few years afterwards (maugre all the ways which force or policy could invent) conquered the whole Nation. Among other calamities attending that miserable Age, Camden (from William of Malmsbury) directly to the purpose in hand tels us.W. Malmes. fol. 8.
Camden fo. 87. Cum Tyranni nullum in agris præter semibarbaros, nullum in urbibus præter ventri deditos reliquissent: Britannia omni patrocinio juvenilis vigoris viduata, omni Artium exercitio exinanita, conterminarum gentium inhiationi diu obnoxia fuit. When the Tyrants (to wit, the Romans) had left none in the Countrey but half Barbarians, none in the Cities and Towns, but such as wholly gave themselves to belly-cheer; Britain, destitute of all protection, by her vigorous young men, bereaved of all exercise, and practice of good Arts, became exposed for a long time to the greedy, and gaping jaws of Nations confining upon her.

Here you have it from an Author, more ancient then G. Monmouth a little, though both lived in one age, the times about A. Ambrosius government, whether before, during his reign, or after, were so full of miseries, that he complains, none then employed, or exercised in any whatever works belonging to Art. They had somthing else (as appears by divers Writers) to think upon, all their abilities being insufficient to defend their Countrey from forein servitude, their Cities and Towns from ruine, and destruction, and their habitations from rage of cruell and insolent enemies, robbing, spoiling, burning, wasting, all before them: to which,Gildas. plague, pestilence, and famine being joyned, the inland part of the Island, even to the Western Ocean was welnear totally consumed.

Besides, the Countrey was so oppress’d, what with outward hostile miseries, what with intestine tumults and troubles: that, had they not lost the practice of all Arts (as the former Historian saith they had) so far were they from erecting any work of this kind, that they were compelled to abandon their Towns, and houses, built in times foregoing by their Auncestors, and betake themselves to mountains, caves, and woods for shelter. Now, if the calamities of those times hung over the Britans heads, in so generall manner, that not one amongst them had leisure to put pen to paper, (as from Leyland before remembred) much lesse able were they, without all peradventure, to undertake so great a work as Stoneheng, wherein, as all rationall men must grant, numbers of men employed, and many years taken up, before brought to its absolute perfection.

But, nothing can better expresse the ignorance of that Age, then the barbarous manner of inscription upon the Tomb of the British Hector King Arthur, nephew to A. Ambrosius, found long since in the Churchyard of the Abbey at Glastenbury, the letters whereof, being exactly represented to our view by Camden,Cam. fo. 228. do, as by demonstration, fully discover to us the Barbarism of those times. As, barbarous in those characters, so were they ignorant in, and had lost the use of all other Arts. Nor exercise nor practice of good Arts, was then amongst them, saith the Historiographer of Malmsbury. And well he might so deliver himself, not withstanding Matthew Westminster tels us, A. Ambrosius repaired Churches, which the rage of Saxons, enemies to Christian Religion, spoiled. For, besides, the vast difference betwixt such works as Stoneheng, where Art overmasters the common skill of man, and making up the decaies of ruinated buildings, is apprehensive even to the meanest capacities: Gildas and Bede (whose Antiquity and learning the greater it is, the more is their authority acceptable) affirm, the Britans in those times knew not in what manner to bring up bare wals of stone. When, the Roman Legion sent to aid the Britans by Valentinian the third, under the conduct of Gallio of Ravenna, was remanded hence, for defence of France; before departing, they exhorted the Britans to make a wall overthwart the Island, to secure themselves from the Barbarians, Picts, and Scots: which wall, Bede tels us, was made not so much with stone, as turffes, considering they had no workmen to bring up such works of stone; and so, (saith the venerable Historian) they did set up one, good for nothing. ’Twas made by the rude, and unskilfull common multitude, not so much of stone, as turffes (saith Gildas also) none being found able to give direction for building works of stone. This was about thirty six years preceding A. Ambrosius government. In which time, the Romans abandoning Britain, Vortigern usurped; call’d in the Saxons to his aid; was deposed by his Nobility; and Vortimer his son set up. Whom Rowena having made away; Vortigern was re-enthronis’d. Him A. Ambrosius invades, and having burnt him, together with Rowena in Wales, assumes the Crown as his; holding continuall war with the Saxons, untill poysoned by Pascentius as aforesaid.

It being thus, that nothing but universall confusion, and destructive broyls of war, appeared then in all parts; more ancient, and far more propitious times, must be sought out for designing a structure, so exquisite in the composure as this: even such a flourishing Age, as when Architecture in rare perfection, and such People lookt upon, as by continuall successe, attaining unto the sole power over Arts, as well as Empires, commanded all. I say, such Times, and Persons, because those things, which accord not with the course of time, which by a generall consent of Authors agree not; which by the approved customes of ancient Ages, and votes of learned men, are not received and allowed, and consequently no ways probable; I easily admit not of.

Another fiction there is concerning Stoneheng, not to be past over; and though the cause upon which it’s grounded, be far more ancient then the government of Ambrosius, or aforesaid slaughter of the Britains: neverthelesse, in respect it is a new conceit, not thirty years being past since hatch’t, I suppose this the most proper place to discourse thereof, having ended with Geffrey Monmouth, Polydore Virgill, and their followers.

The Author thereof is Anonymus, unlesse known in being Translator of Lucius Florus. His opinion, (in his Nero Cæsar) Stoneheng the Tomb of Boadicia (formerly remembred) Queen of the Iceni.Ner. Cæs. fo. 181. His reasons, first, because that memorable battell betwixt her, and Suetonius Paulinus fought upon a Plain. Secondly, in respect the Britans buried her magnificently. For confirming this, he tels us, Had the pretieus volumes of the Cornelian Annals, and Dio Cassius, and John Xiphiline been within the spheare of Geffrey Monmouths studies, not Aurelus Ambrosius, nor those four hundred and sixty Noblemen of Britain, murthered in Vortigerns reign, should have carried away with him the fame of this materiall wonder, but magnanimous Boadicia. It seems, he would not be behinde-hand with Monmouth; for, as the one finding no story more famous then of A. Ambrosius and the slaughtered Britans, fathered Stoneheng upon them: so, to make the inventive faculty, as apparently predominant in himself; this other, respecting Boadicia’s heroicall actions, would as willingly make the world beleeve this Antiquity her Monument.

His principall argument I delivered before; to wit, the battell betwixt Her and the Romans, wherein Boadicia utterly overthrown too, being fought upon a Plain. Was there in old time (did he think) no Plain in Britain to fight a battell on but Salisbury Plain? How came Boadicia and her Army thither? I find indeed, Boadicia leading one hundred and twenty thousand fighting men out of the Icenian Countries, and like a terrible tempest, falling upon Camalodunum, that famous Roman Colony of old, (where the first fury of the War was felt) she surprised it and razed it to the ground; Suetonius Paulinus then in Anglesey: Intercepting Petilius Cerealis, who advanced with the ninth legion to relieve that Colony, she cut all his Infantry in peeces: Putting to the sword all those, which imbecillity of sex, tediousnesse of age, or pleasure of the place detained from following Suetonius in his march from London: And taking Verulamium, sackt and burnt it down to ashes. But, how she marcht from thence to Salisbury Plain is neither apparent nor probable; not the least inkling being left in the world, what hostile acts she committed, which way she moved, or what done by her, after the ruine of Verulam, till utterly overthrown.

Can it be imagined, she that destroyed so great a Colony, together with a free-borough of the Romans, slain seventy or eighty thousand persons in such horrid manner as scarce credible; reserving not one Prisoner alive, but killing, hanging, crucifying, and burning whatsoever Romane, or to that party enclined: that was yet victorious, and her Army encreasing daily; can it be imagined, I say, she marcht to Salisbury Plain with so huge an Army invisibly? or stole from Verulam thither by night, lest notice should be taken of her proceedings? Anonymus self cannot think so unworthily of his Boadicia, yet certainly after such manner she went, if ever went thither at all: Otherwise, Boadicia marching in the height of glory, and bearing down all before her till rancountred by Suetonius. Those faithfull Historians Tacitus, and Dion, (both so sedulous in delivering her Fame to posterity) would never have omitted so notable a march, through such a large tract of enemies Countrey, as of necessity she was to make from Verulam, to Salisbury Plain; but would have prosecuted her War, by recording the spoyls, rapines, burnings, and devastations made therein; as particularly, as from the first fomenting the rebellion, till her advance to Verulam, they have done. Upon which Town, and the aforementioned places only, the aforesaid Historians directly tell us the whole burden of the War fell.Tacit. Ann. lib. 14. Ad Septuaginta millia civium & sociorum iis quæ memoravi locis occidisse constitit, saith Tacitus. It was manifest, there were slain in the places, I have remembred, the number of seventy thousand Citizens and Allies. Bunduica duas urbes (saith Xiphilines DionDion. Cas. lib. 62. also) populi Romani expugnavit atque diripuit, in iísque cædem infinitam, ut supradixi, fecit. Bunduica took and razed to the ground two Towns of the Romans, and in them made that infinite slaughter, I have mentioned before, of fourscore thousand persons. At Verulam then, it fully appears, the course of her Victories stopt, the inhumane butchery of the Romans, and their confederates, ended with the massacre in that Town; which could not possibly have hapned, if with such a firm resolution to extirpate the Roman name in Britain, and such a numerous Army to effect it, she had gone on victoriously unfought with, so far as where this Antiquity stands. And therefore the Plain of Salisbury could not be the place of battell, as Anonymus would fain enforce it. Who having so largely, and with so good advice, discoursed the motions, and actions of this rebellion, with all the circumstances thereof, from the first rise, till she destroyed Verulam, should either have found some warrantable authority for Boadicia’s so great an undertaking afterwards, else never engaged her so far within the Roman Province; otherwise, some may imagine, he framed it, only out of ambition for a meer pretence, rather, then stated it, from a reall endeavour, to make discovery for what cause Stoneheng at first erected.

Furthermore, Suetonius Paulinus was too well skilled in the discipline of war, to make the seat thereof in a Countrey so absolutely Roman, as betwixt the British Ocean and the River Thames. He had it’s true (being return’d from Anglesey) abandoned London, no colony. But upon what result? finding his accesse of strength disproportionable to the War in hand, and thereforeTacit. Ann. lib. 14. determined with the losse of one Town to preserve the rest whole, (whether London or Camalodunum is not to the purpose) and, by attending the motions of the enemy, wait all fair occasions to give Boadicia battell,Dion. Cass. lib. 62. being unwilling to try his fortune too suddenly, multitude and successe making the Britans outrageously daring. In the interim neverthelesse, raising what forces, the exigency of so important affairs would permit.

Which way Suetonius marched from London is altogether omitted, yet if lawfull to conjecture, why not? to draw off the Forces of Catus Decianus Procurator, (not long before fled into Gaul, for fear of this War) together with the remains of Petilius Cerealis troops; quartered, as Anonymus confesseth,Ner. Cæs. fo. 105. in those very camps yet appearing about Gildsbrough and Daintry in Northamptonshire, then, confining the Icenian Dominion to the Westward. Which Troops therefore, lay doubtlesse, in very great danger if not timely relieved; especially in case Boadicia should conduct her Army that way; as, ere long afterwards she did so far as Verulam; this course being taken by her, not improbably, in pursuit of Suetonius. Neither was it very dangerous for the Roman Generall to lead his Forces that way, the Enemies main strength lying about Camalodunum. Howsoever, whether he marched up to them or no, concluded it is, he made his retreat towards Pœnius Posthumus encamped with the second Legion in the borders of the Silures, (now Herefordshire, Radnorshire &c.) for which Legion, Suetonius sending to have it brought up to his Rendezvouz, his commands being slighted, that strength failed him. The way which Suetonius took,Ner. Cæs. fo. 154. after his departure, was in mine opinion (saith Anonymus) towards Severn, where Pœnius Posthumus encamped with the second Legion among the Silures. So also Spencer our famous English Poet finds it. Whereby it appears, Suetonius retreat was not Westward to Salisbury Plains, but Northerly towards that second Legion. In this retreat, I may not omit, Anonymus conducts him over the Thames at London;Ner. Cæs. fo. 155. which if granted, and, that he kept the river upon his right hand still, untill engaging Boadicia, as Anonymus saith he did: then was Suetonius march far away indeed from Salisbury Plain. The course of that River winding, as we all know, through Barkshire out of Oxfordshire, where Tame from the County Buckingham, and Isis from the edge of Glocester Province, make their conjunction a little beneath Dorchester. And, if keeping this course still by the Rivers side, Suetonius marcht alongst the banks of Cherwell also, then must Anonymus, whether he will or no, bring him up close to Gildsbrough and Daintry, as aforesaid;Ner. Cæs. fo. 166. and thereby (for it is admitted Cerealis horse-troops were at the fight) reconciling all opinions, upon his direct way towards the second Legion.

How far on, neverthelesse, toward Pœnius Posthumus Camp Suetonius advanced is uncertain; but, that the battell might be fought in some Plain about Verulam, or upon that rode, is not altogether improbable. (Especially considering part of Suetonius strength consisted of Londoners, who, as Auxiliaries followed him in this War, and would not stay behind). For, the Roman Generall when marshalling his Army for fight, had with him (saith Tacitus) the aids of the places adjoyning. What places were these? the last place named by him was Verulam, the next place before it London; and, if the Historian intends either of these two, by the places adjoyning to the field, where the battell fought; then, may Anonymus prove the desarts in Africa, as soon as the Plains of Salisbury, to be the place of Battell.

Spencer saith,Cant. 10. the battell was fought near Severn:

Which seeing stout Bunduca up arose,

And taking arms, the Britons to her drew;

With whom she marched straight against her foes,

And them vnwares besides the Seuerne did enclose.

Suetonius, when resolving for fight,Tacit. Ann. lib. 14. deligit locum artis faucibus, & à tergo silvâ clausum, satis cognito, nihil hostium nisi in fronte, & apertam planitiem esse sine metu insidiarum. Choosed a place with a narrow entrance, enclosed behind with a wood, being well assured, he had no enemies but before him, and the Plain being open was without fear of Ambush. Thus Tacitus describes the field, the Roman Army consisting of scarce ten thousand armed men. In what part of Britan soever this Plain lay, it was, for certain, of no great extent, being hardly able to contain the vast multitudes of Boadicia’s Army; computed two hundred and thirty thousand fighting men, by Dion, and therefore could not possibly be Salisbury Plain. For, the Britans placing their carts and wagons supra extremum ambitium campi, in the utmost borders of the field, had so environed their Army therewith, that upon the rout given, they could hardly flee away, quia circumjecta vehicula sepserant abitus, by reason the carts (saith Tacitus) hedged in the passages on every side, and (to use Anonymus own words)Ner. Cæs. fo. 179. were like a wall against evasion. Now, if the Britans had so surrounded the utmost borders of Salisbury Plain, and in such manner barricado’d up all the passages thereof, their numbers should rather have been millions then thousands, as every man knowing those Plains must needs confesse. Besides, Anonymus self tels us,Ner. Cæs. fo. 178. after the Britans in the head of their battel began to shrink and turn, that alone was a blow to all behind, who being many score of thousands, remain’d untoucht, during the fight, because they could never come up to handy-strokes, for want of room in the narrowings of the field. He told us even now there was scope enough. Whereabout in these parts of Britain, (saith he)Ner. Cæs. fo. 161. that very place was, unlesse it were upon Salisbury Plain, where there is a black heath, and scope enough, is not for me to imagine. Now, on the contrary, when coming to the issue, he tels us the Plain was narrow, and they wanted room. Did the Britans want room in the field, and were on Salisbury Plain? Surely, in the heat of his describing the Battel Anonymus forgot his own invention; the fury of the Romans, in beating down the British squadrons, therewith dasht the main force of his conceit to peeces. Suspicious and jealous men had need of good memories. Upon the aforesaid situation he might rather have observed, the great experience of the Romane Generall in martiall affairs, then from thence suggested, the Britans in point of honour erected Stoneheng to the memory of Boadicia, Suetonius not onely choosing to make good a straight enclosed behinde with a wood, for securing his own small Troops, but such a straight also, where the Plain, or field before it, was not of sufficient extent for Boadicia to marshall her great Army in. Furthermore, Anonymus determining (it seems) to parcell out his ground proportionable to the numbers, undertakes to give posterity an exact survey of this Plain, telling us, it was a Plain of five or six miles over: This makes it more apparent ’twas not Salisbury Plain, which far and wide so expatiates it self through the middle of Wiltshire, that it is not onely five or six miles, but (as I may say) five times six miles over. This famous battell then, being struck upon a Plain hardly capable of Boadicia’s Army, was not fought upon Salisbury Plain; but, on some other, which Suetonius Paulinus found best for his own advantage, and therefore Stoneheng (as Anonymus would fain have it) could not be the Sepulchre of Boadicia.

Dion. Cass. lib. 62.

Concerning Boadicia’s magnificent obsequies; a mighty Prince may be buried with great solemnity, yet no materiall Monument dedicated to his memory. Examples of this kinde are so frequent, there needs no mention of them. Humaverunt magnificè, (they are Dions words) the Britans laid her into the earth magnificently, with as much pomp, happily, and honour, attending her to the grave, as their barbarous customs for their glorious Chieftain would admit; but, that they raised any Monument, or erected whatsoever kinde of Sepulchre for her, much lesse so notable a structure as Stoneheng, he no where tels us. Which had the Britans done, the Historian could not avoid, taking more knowledge thereof, then of her bare enterment, and would undoubtedly have recorded it. Again, grant Salisbury Plain the place of Battell, yet, Dion saith not, they buried her magnificently where the battell fought, only, Humaverunt magnificè: adding withall, those, that escaped the field, prepared to re-enforce themselves for a new triall, in the mean while a disease seizing on Bunduica, she died. Now then, after so terrible an overthrow, wherein ’tis reported she lost fourscore thousand Britans; Boadicia, in all likelihood, endevoured to recover the Icenian Countreys, her principall strength; having in her speech before the Battell insinuated the fenny parts thereof, as a refuge if the worst should happen. In what Countreys else could they recruit? where falling sick she died, (whether by violent or naturall death is not materiall) and as ever observed among all Nations, was, no doubt, buried in her own territories, among the graves of her renowned Ancestors.

That the Britans, untill Julius Agricolas time,Ner. Cæs. fo. 117. had learned nothing (as Anonymus takes speciall notice) but to fight, and were no handicraftsmen, whereby they might be capable of erecting such works as Stoneheng, being already fully proved from Tacitus, I will adde, the ringleaders or heads of commotions against Empires and Commonwealths were anciently, (in many Countreys at this day) not only themselves punishable by the Laws with death, but their whole families and kindred though guiltlesse, suffered in like manner; their very houses also, being razed to the ground, lest any knowledge of such pernicious undertakings should remain visible to posterity: and a capitall crime it was, in whomsoever that restor’d them. How comes it then, Boadicia the principall promoter,Sueton. in Ner. and Head of an insurrection so fatall, as accounted by Suetonius Tranquillus, among the infortunate losses of the Roman Empire,Dion. Cas. lib. 62. and the more ignominious by a womans conduct, should be permitted by the conquering Romans, a monument to eternize her fame to succeeding Ages? Boadicia, that ript up the bellies of the Roman Legionaries, and cutting out their bowels impal’d their bodies upon burning stakes; that hanged up the most noble and honourable Roman Dames naked, and slicing off their paps, sowed them to their mouths, as in act of eating them; that in scalding water boiled the Roman infants, and young children to death; their Parents, Husbands, and Commanders unable to relieve them, but enforced to give way, and happy in so saving themselves from the cruell inhumanities of the Conqueresse. We fought for to live, saith Tacitus. Yet, when ere long afterwards, victoriously recovering Britain to Cæsar, by so memorable a battell as compared to their victories of old, should the Romans suffer the enthralled Britans to erect a Trophy to her memory, whose purpose was absolutely to root out all that was Roman here? what greater infamy to the Roman name, except the permission of it? They, who rased and broke in peeces whatever titles and inscriptions, bearing the names of their Cæsars; pulled down and demolished the royall Ensigns, Trophies, Statues, Temples, or whatever else sacred, to their own Emperors, when actively administring to the prejudice of the Romane State; would they permit any publick monuments be erected to the memory of a conquered Prince, of an Enemy so barbarously cruell as Boadicia? That she lives in History, they could not prevent; so live their worst of Emperors. Moreover, publick Monuments were in all ages set up in honour of the Vanquishers, not vanquished; respecting which, Anonymus should also, either have made Boadicia Victresse, or never supposed Stoneheng her Sepulchre.

The time assigned by Anonymus,Ner. Cæs. fo. 182. for erecting these orderly irregular, and formlesse uniform heaps of massive marble, (as he cals them) to the everlasting remembrance of Boadicia, is much above fifteen hundred years since: Petronius Turpilianus succeeding Suetonius Paulinus in the Leivtenancy of Britain; who by his idle and lazy life, making the world beleeve there was peace here: Anonymus will have it a proper time, for permitting such an office to the Britans, in Boadicia’s honour. Times of peace, ’tis confest, when Arts flourish under nobly minded Governours, are chiefly proper for erecting magnificent buildings. The Government under Petronius was guilty of none of these. As for the State of Britain in generall, Tacitus in the life of Agricola tels us, Petronius had composed the former troubles; but in what sort, the fourteenth book of his Annals declares; non irritato hoste, neque lacessitus, neither the Enemy, incensed him; nor he, provoked the Enemy: otherwise Petronius durst not do. And, if peace setled, why doth the Historian call them Enemies? Concerning his own person in particular, Petronius gave himself over to an unprofitable life, disguising it under the honourable name of peace. Honestum pacis nomen segni otio imposuit, saith Tacitus. And, the Britans (as said before) were not then civilized, nor friends to such Arts as either nourish or are nourished by peace, therefore such a work of wonder as this Antiquity famed, not to be expected from them. For, as through the malignities of the Age, wherein Aurelius Ambrosius lived, the Britans had utterly lost the practice of all those Sciences, in times foregoing, learned by their Auncestors from the Romans: so, through the neglect of civil policy in the preceding Roman Governours, in this Leivtenancy of Petronius, the Britans had not attained the knowledge of any those Arts, not many years afterwards, taught their posterity by the Romans. Whole imperiall Eagles took not wing in Britain with such lofty speed, as over other Countreys; The Britans being a fierce Nation, slowly giving ear to any peace,Tacit. Ann. lib. 14. the Romans had work enough in subduing them. Julius Cæsar rather shewed the Island to his successors, then left them possession of it: Augustus and Tiberius held it policy to neglect it: Caligula intending to invade Britain, was diverted by his Wars in Germany: Claudius first prosecuting the conquest with effect, established the colony at Camalodunum, and his Leivtenants Aulus Plautius, Flavius Vespasianus, Ostorius Scapula, and Didius Gallus by little and little, after much contest, and various successe, subdued certain Countries; and reducing the nearest part of the Island to the form of a Province, built also, or rather cast up some few fortifications further within the land: Nero’s Generals had much to do in keeping, what their predecessors gained; Suetonius Paulinus (under him) struck that fortunate battell with Boadicia, else the Romans beaten out of all. So that, in the time of Petronius, the Romans having obtained no such assured dominion over the Britans, as might make them, themselves confident to undertake great and stately buildings here, for their own either publick, or private accommodations; (the ruine of Camalodunum being too fresh in memory) occasion was not offered, nor the time yet come, to let the Britans know by what Arts all civill Nations of the world, did erect their excessive, rather then not magnificent structures, for eternizing their names to succeeding generations. And therefore, the Leivtenancy of Petronius Turpilianus, not proper for building this stony marvell, as Anonymus suspects. For, beside what’s delivered, whensoever Stoneheng built, the preparation only of materials for the work, and bringing them to the place, what Engines or Arts soever used, necessarily, spent more time, then Petronius consumed in the whole continuance of his government here. What tumults succeeded him, let others declare.

Furthermore, if those times of Petronius would not, yet (saith Anonymus) other ensuing seasons might permit such an office to the Britans, her name for ever glorious among them. The hainousnesse of her Rebellion, horridnesse of her cruelties, and inveterate hatred Boadicia bore to the Romans, whereby her name for ever infamous among them, clearly manifest all other ensuing seasons, equally improper for those ancient inhabitants of this Island, to erect Stoneheng. If the Britans, once attaining the Romane manner of Architecture, in any succeeding times had expelled the Romans, and been triumphant; some probable reason, at least, Anonymus might have alledged, towards advancing his opinion. But Boadicia and her Complices overthrown, the Roman Power in this Island encreasing dayly, and the liberty of the Britans as fast declining, no following season could be opportunely favourable, for undertaking such a work by them; the erecting whereof, yea the sole endeavouring to commemorate by such publick means, so mortall an enemy to the Romans as Boadicia: nothing but the dearest lives of the bold attempters, could, certainly, expiate. The Temple upon Mount Cœlius at Rome, begun to ClaudiusSuet. in Vespas. sacred memory by Agrippina, was destroyed to the very foundations by Nero. If then, insulting Agrippina might not erect a memorable structure, to the glory of her deceased Cæsar; whom the Senate and People of Rome, in all solemne manner deified: What oppressed Britan, durst undertake the raising a publick Monument to the honour of vanquished Boadicia, whom the State (in all reason) for ever declared enemy to the Roman Empire? And though, after a long succession of years, the Romans abandoned this Island, yet, when departed, the Britans were left in such deplorable condition, (at large declared before) that, albeit her name never so glorious among them, they had much more to do, in saving their own miserable lives from plague, famine, and the sword, then any opportunity, or ability to erect whatever Monument to the glory of Boadicia. But, of this enough; the invalidity of Anonymus opinion especially respected. The discovering the originall foundation of an Antiquity so famous, being not to be enforced by jealous suspicions, raised upon bare and groundlesse conjectures.

THIS Antiquity (call’d by Henry Huntingdon, The second: by Poly-olbion
——First wonder of the land)

because the Architraves are set upon the heads of the upright stones, and hang (as it were) in the air, is generally known by the name of Stone-heng. It is sited upon the Plain in the County of Wiltshire in England, not far from Ambresbury (the foundations of whose ancient buildings, frequently digged up, render it to have been in times past a Town of no small fame) six miles at least from new Salisbury northwards.

The whole work, in generall, being of a circular form, is one hundred and ten foot diameter, double winged about without a roof, anciently environed with a deep Trench, still appearing about thirty foot broad. So that, betwixt it, and the work it self, a large and void space of ground being left, it had, from the Plain, three open entrances, the most conspicuous thereof lying North-east. At each of which, was raised, on the outside of the Trench aforesaid, two huge stones gate-wise, parallel whereunto, on the inside two others of lesse proportion. The inner part of the work, consisting of an Exagonall figure, was raised, by due symmetry, upon the bases of four equilaterall triangles, (which formed the whole structure) this inner part likewise was double, having, within it also, another Exagon raised, and all that part within the Trench sited upon a commanding ground, eminent, and higher by much, then any of the Plain lying without, and, in the midst thereof, upon a foundation of hard chalk, the work it self was placed. Insomuch, from what part soever they came unto it, they rose by an easie ascending hill.

Which, that it may be the more clearly demonstrated, (being by me, with no little pains, and charge measured, and the foundations thereof diligently searched) I have reduced into Design, not onely as the ruine thereof now appears, but as (in my judgement) it was in its pristine perfection. And that the groundplot, with the uprights, and profyle of the whole work may the more distinctly be understood, I have purposely countersigned each Design of them with Numbers, and the particular parts thereof with Letters.

Nu. 1

Signifies the Plant of the whole work in generall, with the Trench round about it, drawn by a small scale, that it may be seen all at one view.

A

The Trench.

B

The Intervall betwixt the Trench and Work.

C

The Work it self; in the inmost part whereof, there is a stone appearing not much above the surface of the earth, (and lying towards the East) four foot broad, and sixteen foot in length. Which, whether it might be an Altar or no, I leave to the judgement of others, because so overwhelmed with the ruines of the Work, that I could make no search after it, but even with much difficulty, took the aforesaid proportion thereof. Yet for my part, I can apprehend no valid reason to the contrary, except that the whole constructure being circular in form, the Altar should rather have been placed upon the center of the Circle, then enclining to the circumference. Neverthelesse it cannot be denied, but being so sited, the Cell (as I may call it) was thereby left more free, for the due performance of those severall superstitious rites, which their Idolatry led them to. Besides, though the Altare amongst the Ancients was exalted and raised somwhat high above the earth; yet, their Ara was made quadrangular, not very high, and as some will have it close to the ground, being consecrated as well to the supernall as infernall Deities:Rosin. lib. 2. and therefore in respect of the form, it may hold well enough it was anciently an Altar.

D

The supposed Altar.

E

The great stones which made the entrances from the outside of the Trench, seven foot broad, three foot thick, and twenty foot high.

F

The parallel stones, on the inside of the Trench, four foot broad, and three foot thick; but they lie so broken, and ruined by time, that their proportion in height cannot be distinguisht, much lesse exactly measured.

G

The scale of fifty foot.

The Design follows.

Nu. 2

The Groundplot of the work, as when first built, in a greater form, with the foure equilaterall triangles making the Scheame, by which the whole work was composed.

H

The six principall entrances, three whereof directly opposite to those of the Trench.

I

The stones which made the outward Circle, seven foot in breadth; three foot and an half thick, and fifteen foot and an half high: each stone having two tenons mortaised into the Architrave, continuing upon them, throughout the whole circumference. For, these Architraves, being joynted directly in the middle of each of the perpendicular stones that their weight might have an equall bearing, and upon each side of the joynt a tenon wrought, (as remains yet to be seen) it may positively be concluded thereby, the Architrave continued round about this outward circle.

K

The smaller stones of the inner circle, one foot and an half in bredth, one foot thick, and six foot high. These had no Architraves upon them, but were raised perpendicular, of a pyramidall form. That, there was no Architrave upon these, may be hence concluded, the stones being too small to carry such a weight, the spaces being also too wide, to admit of an Architrave upon them without danger of breaking, and being but six foot high, there could not, possibly, be a convenient head-height remaining for a passage underneath, especially, considering fully the greatnesse of the whole work.

L

The stones of the greater Hexagon, seven foot and an half in breadth, three foot nine inches thick, and twenty foot high, each stone having one tenon in the middle.

M

The stones of the Hexagon within, two foot six inches in breadth, one foot and an half thick, and eight foot high, in form pyramidall, like those of the inner circle.

The Scale which hath this mark, X, is of thirty foot, by which likewise all the ensuing Designs are drawn.

The Design follows.

Nu. 3

The upright of the work, as when entire, in which the perpendicular stones of the outward circle, are countersigned with the Letter I, as in the groundplot.

N

The Architrave lying round about upon them, being mortaised into them, and joynted in the middle of each of the perpendicular stones. This Architrave is three foot and an half broad, and two foot and an half high.

O

The Architrave lying on the top of the great stones of the Hexagon, and mortaised also into them, sixteen foot long, three foot nine inches broad, and three foot four inches high. This Architrave continuing onely from stone to stone, left betwixt every two and two, a void space free to the Air uncovered. For, if they had been continued throughout the whole Hexagon, then necessarily there must have been two tenons upon each of the said stones, as those of the outward circle had, but being disposed as aforesaid, that one, which was in the middle, and yet remains apparent, was sufficient for the thing intended.

Nu. 4

The Profyle, or cut, through the middle of the work, as entire, countersigned with the Letters of the Groundplot.

The Designs follow.

Nu. 5

The whole work in Prospective, as when entire, whereby the generall composure of the particular parts of the uprights, are together all seen: and, by which also, the stately Aspect, and magnificent greatnesse thereof, are fully, and more apparently conspicuous.

Nu. 6

The Groundplot of the work, as it now stands, countersigned with the same Letters by which the Plant marked Nu. 2 is described. The stones of the greater Hexagon, and outward circle, after so long contest with the violence of time, and injury of weather, are for the most part standing at this day; which, though not all at their full height, as when first set up, yet the Footsteps neverthelesse, of so many of them as exprest in the Design, are still remaining in their proper places. Those of the inner circle, and lesser Hexagon, not only exposed to the fury of all devouring Age, but to the rage of men likewise, have been more subject to ruine. For, being of no extraordinary proportions, they might easily be beaten down, or digged up, and at pleasure, made use of for other occasions. Which, I am the rather enduced to beleeve, because, since my first measuring the work, not one fragment of some then standing, are now to be found.

Nu. 7

The Ruine yet remaining drawn in Prospective.

P

The manner of the tenons, of a round form, mortaised into the Architrave of the outward Circle.

Q

The tenons of like form in the middle of the stones of the greater Hexagon.

R

The English foot (by which the work it self was measured) divided into twelve inches, and each inch subdivided into four parts.

The Designs follow.

Hitherto, upon what occasion Stoneheng built (you may easily perceive) is very doubtfull, the true History of those times, when first erected, and by which the memory of things especially made over to succeeding Ages, being either not written, or if written, utterly lost. Likewise, as for what use set up, not yet known; so, by whom also founded, is equally uncertain.

You cannot but remember, in what manner the ancient Inhabitants of this Island lived, before reduced to civility by the Romans I have formerly delivered: also, how they were first instructed by them, in severall Arts and Sciences, whereof the Britans wholly ignorant, before the Romans arrivall here, and teaching them. I have given you in like manner, a full description of this Antiquity, whereby doubtlesse it appears to you, as in truth it is, a work built with much Art, Order and Proportion. That the ancient Britans, before the discovery of this Island by the Romans, could not be the Founders thereof, by the former reasons, I suppose, is clearly manifested. For, where Art is not, nothing can be performed by Art. As, for that which concerns the British Nobility, Aurelius Ambrosius, or Boadicia, enough already.

It rests now, to endeavor the discovering by whom Stoneheng built; in what time, and, for what use anciently erected. But, it is not expected (I hope) any absolute resolution should be given by me, in so doubtfull a matter; for, as it hath been always lawfull for every man in such like matters (saith Camden) both to think what he will, and relate what others have thought: So pardon me, if I take upon me, what others have done before me, and interpose mine own opinion also, grounded neverthelesse upon such Authorities, customes, and concurrence of time, as very probably may satisfie judicious and impartiall Readers.

Touching the Founders of Stoneheng. Among the Ægyptian Antiquities, or those Eastern Nations from whom the Græcians deduced their learning, I find not any such composure ever used: or with the Greeks themselves, mention made of any work conformable to this, in point of Order, (as the mod conversant in those Histories cannot contradict) I read neverthelesse, in Pausanias,Pausan. fo. 392. of a Temple amongst the Eleans erected without walls: novam quandam in Eleorum foro templi formam vidi. I saw (saith he) in the market place of the Eleans, a Temple of a new form. Modicæ est ædes altitudinis, sine parietibus, tectum è quercu dolatis fulcientibus tibicinibus. A low thing, without walls, having the roof supported with props of oaken timber (instead, it seems, of Columnes) neatly wrought. He remembers a Temple also in AtticaIdem fo. 75: sacred to Jove without a roof. The Thracians (as I read likewise) used to build Temples dedicated to Sol, of a round form, open in the middle, and also without a roof: by the form, or roundnesse thereof, they signified the Suns figure; by making them open, and rooflesse, they expressed his surmounting, and dilating light equally to all things. Thraces soli rotunda templa faciebant (saith Daniel Barbaro)In Vitr. lib. 4. in medio sub divo, & aperta erant: hac forma Solis figuram innuebant: quòd autem aperta essent, & sine tecto, innuebant Solem supra omnia esse, & lumen suum diffundere.

Howsoever, considering what magnificence the Romans in prosperous times anciently used in all works, both publick, and private: their knowledge and experience in all Arts and Sciences: their powerfull means for effecting great works: together with their Order in building, and manner of workmanship accustomed amongst them: Stoneheng in my judgement was a work, built by the Romans, and they the sole Founders thereof. For, if look upon this Antiquity, as an admired and magnificent building, who more magnificent then the Romans?Scamoz. lib. 1. fo. 9. Essi soli frà i populi dell’ vniverso, con ogni termine di magnificenza edificarono tutti i generi d’edifici. They only amongst all the Nations of the Universe, erecting all sorts of buildings, with all kinds of magnificence, saith Scamozzo in the first Book of his Architecture. If consider the Art, and elegant disposition thereof, all Arts and Sciences (we must know) were in full perfection with them, and Architecture, which amongst the Greeks was youthfull only, and vigorous; under the Romans their Empire grown to the full height became manly and perfect, not in inventions, and elegancy of forms alone, but also in exquisitenesse of Art, and excellency of materials. Salito al colmo l’imperio Romano, ella pure divenne virile e perfetta: non solo nelle inventioni, e nella elleganza delle forme, mà parimente nell’ esquisitezza dell’ artificio, e nella singolarità della materia. As the same Author hath it. If take notice of their power and ways by which they effected such goodly structures, their means were not ordinary according to the common custome of other People; and why? because, besides particular Artisans practised in severall Arts, they employed in those their works whole bodies of their own Armies, and whatever Nations subdued by them. The Romans were wont to exercise therein (saith Camden)Camden fo. 64. their Souldiers, and the common multitude, upon great policy doing the same, left being idle they should grow factious, and affect alteration in the State. The Britans complained (saith Tacitus likewise) corpora & manus contrivisse, that their bodies and hands were worn out, and consumed by the Romans, in bringing to effect their great and admired undertakings: in that kind employing their slaves and prisoners also, as holding it, rather then by violent deaths to cut them off; more profitable for the Commonwealth, more exemplary for others, and far greater punishment for their Prisoners, to enjoyn them continuall labour.

If observe their Order in building; the only Order of Architecture, which Italy may truly glory in the invention of, is the Tuscane Order, so called, because first found out by the Tuscans, that in a more then ordinary manner they might reverence their Deities in Temples composed thereof.Choul. fo. 5. (Janus their first King, according to the common opinion of divers ancient Historians, being the first of all others, that built Temples to the Gods) Which Order, though first used by the Tuscans, certain it is, the Romans took from them, and brought it in use with other Arts, in severall parts of the world, as their conquests led them on. Now of this Tuscan Order, a plain, grave, and humble manner of Building, very solid and strong Stoneheng principally consists. So that, observing the Order whereof Stoneheng built, there being no such Elements known in this Island as distinct Orders of Architecture, untill the Romans introduced them, the very work it self, of so great Antiquity, declares the Romans Founders thereof. Who, that hath right judgement in Architecture, knows not the difference, and by the manner of their works how to distinguish Ægyptian, Greek, and Roman structures of old, also Italian, French and Dutch buildings in these modern times? Is not our Shipping by the mould thereof, known throughout the world English built? Who did not by the very Order of the work, assure himself, the body of the Church of S. Paul London, from its Tower to the West end anciently built by the Saxons: as the Quire thereof, from the said Tower to the East end by the Normans, it being Gothick work? yet that there might be a Roman Temple in old time standing in that place, I will not deny, the numbers of Oxeheads digged up and anciently sacrificed there, setting all other reasons aside, so probably manifesting the same. And in all likelihood, the Romans for so notable a structure as Stoneheng, made choice of the Tuscane rather then any other Order, not only as best agreeing with the rude, plain, simple nature of those they intended to instruct, and use for which erected; but also, because presuming to challenge a certain kind of propriety therein, they might take occasion thereby, to magnifie to those then living the virtue of their Auncestors for so noble an invention, and make themselves the more renowned to posterity, for erecting thereof, so well ordred a building.

Besides, the Order is not only Roman, but the Scheam also (consisting of four equilaterall triangles, inscribed within the circumference of a Circle) by which this work Stoneheng formed, was an Architectonicall ScheamVitr. lib. 5. used by the Romans. Whereof, I shall have more occasion to speak, when I come to set down, for what use this Antiquity at first erected.

Again, the Portico at Stoneheng, is made double, as in structures of great magnificence the ancient Romans used; so at the foot of the Capitol the Temple to Jove the Thunderer, built by Augustus Cæsar; so the Pantheon at Athens, royally adorned with one hundred and twenty vast columnes of rich Phrygian marble, by the Emperour Adrian. But, some may alledge, the Romans made the Pillars of their double Portico’s, of one and the same symmetry, or very little different, which in this Antiquity otherwise appearing, cannot be a Roman work. To as much purpose it may be alledged the Temple of Diana at Magnesia, was no Greek work, because the Pillars of the inner Portico were wholly left out. Yet it’s true, the Romans usually made them as is objected, and the reason was, because of the weight the inner Pillars carried: now, in this work, no roof being to be sustained, nor any manner of weight born up, though the judgement of the Architect, thereby to save labour and expence, ordered the stones making the Portico within, of a far lesse proportion then those of the outward circle, it retains neverthelesse the proper Aspect (principally aim’d at by the ancient Architects) in use amongst the Romans, and consequently for ought alledged to the contrary by them built.

In this Antiquity, there is a Portico also (as I may rightly term it) within the Cell, or greater Hexagon, reduced likewise into the same figure. Now, that the Romans used to make Portico’s on the inside of their buildings, as well sacred as secular, by the ruines of their Basilicaes or Courts of Judicature; by that Temple without a roof anciently dedicated to Jove in Mount Quirinalis, now the Horse Mount in Rome; by the Temple of Bacchus there of a round form, at this day consecrate to S. Agnes without the gate Viminalis, manifestly appears. But in what ever structures else the Romans used them, certain it is, within their most stately Temples which lay uncovered, and had no roofs, they always made such Portico’s; and though in other Temples they sometimes dispos’d them, yet from Vitruvius it may be gathered, they properly belonged to the Aspect Hypæthros, which was uncovered and rooflesse as this Antiquity Stoneheng, he peremptorily assigning Portico’s to be made on the inside of no kind of Temples,Vitr. lib. 3. cap. 1. but those; His words are, Hypæthros in interiore parte habet columnas, remotas à parietibus ad circuitionem (ut porticus) peristyliorum. Temples open to the air, and without roofs, have columnes on the inside, distant from the walls, as Courts Portico’s about them. Even, after the same decorum as at Stoneheng.

Furthermore, if cast an eye upon their artifice and manner of workmanship, Stoneheng appears built directly agreeable to those rules, which the Romans observed in great works. For, the Roman Architects, in distinguishing the manner of their Temples, always observed (as Vitruvius in his third book teacheth us) the greater the Columnes were, the closer they set them together; so in this Antiquity, the stones being great, the spaces betwixt them are likewise narrow.

The Architraves also, in this work were all of them set without morter, and fixed upon the upright stones by tenons (as formerly described) in the very same manner, as in great structures, where the stones solid, and of more then ordinary greatnesse, the Romans were wont to doe.Leo Bap. Alber. lib. 3. They laid them without any unctuous incorporating matter, nullo fulta glutino, saith Leo Baptista Albertus. And divers examples of this kind might be brought, I my self amongst other Antiquities have seen the ruines of an Aquaeduct, built by the Romans in Provynce, running through a deep valley, and raised in height equall to the adjacent Mountains, upon huge Arches fifty eight foot wide, the stones whereof, being of extraordinary scantlings, were laid without any cement or morter, to incorporate them with the rest of the work. And, where occasion guided their judgements to the observance of this rule, they united and compared the stones together, by certain ligatures or holdfasts, (the Italians call them Perni, pegs or tops, for such they resemble, and we, from the verb tenere to hold, not improperly calling them tenons) quæ inferiores, & unà superiores in lapides infixæ, cavatæ fuere, ne quid fortè protrusi ordines alteri ab alteris distrahantur. Which (saith Albertus)Leo Bap. Alber. lib. 3. being formed in the inferiour stones, were hollowed or mortaised into those above, left by any chance they should start one from another, and break the order of the work. Here the Florentine Architect gives us the self same manner of banding stones, when the Romans laid them without morter, as if he had seen this very Antiquity Stoneheng.

Moreover, what ever footsteps of the Romans found in other places of this Island, it’s not inconsiderately to be past over, that in Wiltshire, the County (as is said before) where our Stoneheng remains, Roman Antiquities are most perspicuous, not only, by the apparent testimonies of the coyns of their Emperors in divers places digged up, but by severall their encamping places yet to be seen, as Leckham,Camden. in times of yore a seat of the Romans: the place also where old Salisbury now sheweth it self, within six miles of Stoneheng: and within three miles thereof Yanesbury Castle, supposed a work of Vespasians when he conquered, and after kept in subjection the Belgæ, ancient inhabitants of that tract. Likewise the mines nearer yet to Stoneheng,Speed. of a fortresse our Historians hold anciently a garrison of the Romans, and in many other forts of that Shire (both by their form and manner of making well known to have been Roman) the tract of their footing is yet left.

But it is objected, If Stoneheng a Roman work, how comes it, no Roman Author makes mention of it? I answer, their Historians used not to commit to writing every particular work, or action the Romans performed: if so, how vast would their volumes have been? Stoneheng ’tis granted, is much admired by us, yet, how far more admirable works were the Romans Founders of, not mentioned in any of their ancient stories? That notable bridge invented and built by Cæsar, for passing his Army over the Rhine, himself at large describes, remembring little or nothing neverthelesse concerning divers other as great works in Gaul and Batavia, suppos’d to be performed by him also. Dion, Herodian, Eutropius and other their Historians tell us, the Romans built the so famed wall, commonly by us called the Picts wall, extending crosseover our Island from the Irish Sea to the German Ocean, above fourscore Italian miles in length, with many towers and fortresses erected upon it; when works of as great admiration in Britain they have past in silence: those wonderfull causeys made throughout the land, by dreining and drying up Fens, levelling hils, raising valleys, and paving them with stones of such breadth, that Wains might without danger passe one by another, not any ancient Roman Author (for ought appears) directly mentioning. Yet, who doubts them Roman works?Cam. fo. 64. I dare confidently avouch, the Romans by little and little founded and raised them up, saith Camden. And why? mark I pray, because, whilst Agricola governed Britain, Tacitus tels us, severall ways were enjoyned. If then, because Tacitus affirms in generall terms only, severall ways enjoyned, Camden confidently concludes them Roman works, no Roman History otherwise remembring them; Why may it not, the same Tacitus telling us in like manner, Agicola exhorted the Britans in private, and helpt them in common, to build Temples, Houses, and Places of publick resort, as peremptorily be inferr’d, Stoneheng was a work built by the Romans, though not particularly remembred by them in their stories? In a word, Temples and places of publick resort,Tacitus.
Beda. the Romans built here, and were the first that did so, leaving it to after ages to find out by their Manner of building, Order in building, and Power and Means for building, such lofty ruines, as appears in this Antiquity, could be remains of none but Roman building.

The next thing to be enquired after, is, in what time Stoneheng built. Happily, about those times, when the Romans having setled the Country here under their own Empire, and, together with bringing over Colonies reduced the naturall inhabitants of this Island unto the society of civill life, by training them up in the liberall Sciences. For, then also (saith Camden)Camden fo. 63. did they furnish the Britans, with goodly houses, and stately buildings, in such sort, that the reliques and rubbish of their ruines, cause the beholders now, exceedingly to admire the same, and the common sort of People plainly say, those Roman works were made by Giants, of such exceeding great admiration, and sumptuous magnificence they are.

This relation of Camdens, reflects chiefly upon the time of Agricola; neverthelesse, that Stoneheng (though fabled Giants work) was then built, I dare not affirm: the great works of the Romans, brought to perfection in this Island, being not the work of a day. It hath been the invention of wise Romans of old, affecting civility, to raise goodly buildings here: but the precise times when, in things so far from all knowledge, cannot be with any certainty avouched. For my part, I should choose to assign those times for building thereof, when the Romans in their chief prosperity most flourished here, and refer the first erection to the time betwixt Agricolas government formerly mentioned, and the reign of Constantine the Great: in order to which, the times rather somwhat after Agricola, if not during his own Lievtenancy, then next preceding Constantine. For, long before Constantine acquired the Soveraignty (which was not till the year of our Lord three hundred and ten) the magnificent splendor of that mighty Empire began sensibly to wane, and the ambition of the great Captains of Rome, (some few excepted) tended rather to make parties for obtaining the Purple Robe, then (after the manner of their ancestors) to eternise their names by great and admirable works, or patronizing good Arts, for want whereof they began likewise to decay apace; Serly in his third Book speaking of those times, telling us, that id temporis Architecti, si cum superioribus conferantur, rudiores & ineptiores extitisse videntur. In those days although there were many Architects, yet, compared with such as lived in the preceding Ages, they were very rude and unskilfull. Besides, the condition wherein this Island was, divers years preceding Constantine, would not admit such undertakings. For, by the civil discord of the Romans, the Britans taking occasion to make frequent revolts, in hope to recover their lost liberty, the Romans were put upon other manner of Councels then to think of building; namely to reduce the Britans to their wonted obedience, and keep the Province in some reasonable quiet, by expelling the Scots and Picts (savage and perfidious People even from times of old) making daily inroads and incursions thereunto.

Now, as for these reasons, it’s not likely Stoneheng could be built in the times next before Constantine, so, by what follows, it will manifestly appear, it was not erected after his Reign. For, after his transplanting the seat of the Empire into the East, and the government of the then known world, under the Romans, distinguished by East and Western Emperours, a deluge of barbarous Nations (like so many Locusts) swarmed over all. Who, as with their vast multitudes they oft had formerly attempted it, so, thence forward, till bringing that mighty Empire unto its finall and fatall period; and thereby utterly destroying in like manner all Arts and Sciences, together with Architecture, (not restored again, even in Italy it self, untill, as formerly remembred) they never desisted. Moreover, in the times after Constantine, no Temples to Heathen Deities (such as I shall make appear this Antiquity Stoneheng was) were erected here, they being times of defacing, rather then erecting idolatrous places. For, most of the succeeding Emperors becoming Christians, the tempestuous storms of perfection were over, and the thick clouds of superstition beginning to be dissolved by the bright beams of the Gospel, and true light of CHRIST, every where Temples were shut up against false Gods, and set open to the true GOD. According to that of Gildas,Gildas. No sooner was the blustering tempest, and storm of persecution blown over, but the faithfull Christians, who in the time of trouble and danger had hidden themselves in woods, deserts, and secret caves, being come abroad in open sight, renovant Ecclesias ad solum usque destructas, basilicas sanctorum martyrum fundant, construunt, perficiunt &c. Churches ruinate to the very ground they reedifie, Temples of holy Martyrs they found, build, and finish &c. So that, in stead of idolatrous Temples, built in the Ages preceding Constantine, during his reign and after, whilst the Romans continued in any prosperous state here, by erecting Christian Churches, they began generally to neglect, and suffer fall to decay, rather then new build Temples to their Pagan Gods.

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.

Again, after giving the proportion of the Architrave over the columnes of the Monopteros, he saith, Zophorus & reliqua quæ insuper imponuntur, ita uti in tertio volumine de symmetriis scripsit. The Freese and other ornaments laid upon them, are as in his third Book of symmetries made mention of. Now, in his third Book, he only treats of proportions, and not one word is so much as mentioned by him of any manner of roofs at all, only in the close of the said Book, he gives the proportion of frontispices belonging to quadrangular Temples: the same referment in like manner he makes for the ornaments of the Peripteros, and withall proceeds to a full description, in what manner the roof of its Cell was made, which questionlesse, he would likewise have done in the other form, if it had been covered. For, he saith, whatever is to be laid above the Freese of the Monopteros, is, as set down in his third Book: but, in his third Book, there is not One word mentioned of any roofs; the conclusion then follows the Monopteros was without a roof.

Lastly, he positively tels us it was sine Cella, without a Cell: now the Cell (and which for distinction sake I have so called in describing this Antiquity, because it was applied to the same use, to perform their sacred rites in) was indeed properly, the inner,Bern. Baldo. or chief part of the Temple, quam nos corpus Templi vulgò dicimus, we commonly call it the body of the Church, which enclosed with wals, was covered with a roof, as Vitruvius declares in the form Peripteros, tecti ratio ita habeatur &c. The manner of a roof (saith he) was thus &c. But, the Monopteros was without a Cell, and consequently without a roof also, as having no walls to bear it. For, in regard of the manner of the Architecture, the pillars standing in Island (as we say) the work could not securely bear a roof, if made of any great capacity: either therefore, they made Temples of this form very little (in which respect only, Palladio supposeth it might be vaulted) inconsistent with the Roman greatnesse, or else, like Stoneheng they were wholly uncovered and rooflesse. Howsoever, it is manifest, the Aspect was just the same. And if I should say, the ruines of one after the same form also, remains yet in Oxfordshire, which the common people usually call Rolle-rich-stones, take it but as my conjecture only, as likewise one or two built after the like manner in Scotland, no man unlesse Hector Boetius knowing by what Kings.

Moreover, the proportions appearing in this Antiquity Stoneheng, are much conformable to those, assigned by Vitruvius to the parts of the Monopteros: He tels us, Tribunal habent & ascensum ex suæ diametri tertia parte: they had the Tribunal, (by which is understood that levell upon which the Temple placed) and the ascent, consisting of one third part of the Diameter. So at Stoneheng, the work it self is one third part of the Diameter of the circumvallation: And, acording to the proportion allowed by him to the Ascent, it seems those Temples were sited more stately then others, (by consequence great also) and certain it is, whosoever views this Antiquity attentively with judgement, upon the place where remaining (for the Folio being too little I could not expresse it in Design) and doth allow a proportionate depth to the Trench surrounding it; considering also, together therewith, the levell of the plain lying without, he will then finde it standing upon such a rising ground, that the Ascent unto it, was not much lesse magnificent, then what Vitruvius hath declared.

Furthermore, besides the aforementioned round Temples, Vitruvius in the same Chapter tels us, that, generibus aliis constituuntur ædes, ex iisdem symmetriis ordinatæ, & alio genere dispositiones habentes. The Romans built them after other manner of inventions, following the same proportions, and having their disposures after another kinde. Of which, if vouchsafed to posterity the descriptions, some of them might have been found, not only agreeable in Aspect, but happily of the very self same form also, as this Temple Stoneheng doth appear.

Now considering this discourse may happen into the hands of those, who cannot by words so easily apprehend things of this Art, I have for their satisfaction brought into Design, the plants of both the aforesaid Temples mentioned by Vitruvius, whereby their conformity with Stoneheng, and the invention thereof taken from them, is more clearly manifested.

A

The Plant of the Monopteros.

B

The Order of Pillars which continued round about it, to which the outward circle (of Pillasters) in this Antiquity Stoneheng, directly corresponds, as will appear in the second Figure thereof, formerly described by the Letter I.

The Design follows.

C

The Plant of the Peripteros.

D

The Portico continuing about the Cell.

E

The Circular Cell enclosed with a wall, which in the Temple Stoneheng, to vary the invention, was converted into an Hexagonall form, and in stead of walling it round about, the Architect as said before, left it wholly open, as most agreeing with the nature of the Deity to whom consecrate.

The Design follows.

By the Plants of which said Roman Temples, although it is plainly manifest, from whence the invention of Stoneheng was taken: yet, that it may more clearly be understood, I have, unto the Order of pillars which makes the Portico of the last of those Temples, applied the Architectonicall Scheam by which our Antiquity was formed; whereby the intersection of the severall triangles fully demonstrates after what manner the greater Hexagon made open at Stoneheng, was raised from the solid wall environing the Cell of the Peripteros.

F

The Rank of Pillars which made the Portico of the Peripteros.

G

The Architectonicall Scheam by which Stoneheng formed.

H

The circular wall environing the Cell of the Peripteros.

I

After what manner the stones of the greater Hexagon at Stoneheng, were raised from the circumference of the said wall.

The Design follows.

But, before deliver my judgment, unto which of their Deities this Temple Stoneheng was anciently dedicated by the Romans, I shall give you some customs in force amongst the Ancients, relating the Decorum used by them, in building their particular Temples: whereby, those several opinions seemingly conclusive to whom Stoneheng sacred, may more evidently appear invalid, and my own more apparently probable. Those therefore that endevour the searching out Antiquities of Architecture, must amongst others, especially prescribe to themselves five things to be guided by. viz. The Situation, Aspect, Manner, Form, and Order of the work as in use amongst the Ancients. For, inventing the severall ornaments of Architecture, at first for honour and distinction onely of their Deities, they appropriated to each of them particular situations, precise forms, peculiar Orders, according to the severall qualities, in regard whereof adored by them.

The situation of the Temples to Venus, Mars, Vulcan, they ordained to be chosen without their Cities, as those which moved mens minds to lasciviousnesse, wars, and devastations. Within their Cities they placed the Temples of the Patrons of Chastity, Peace, good Arts: and of such Gods also, to whom the Protection of their Cities committed. To Pallas, Mercury, and Isis the chief Presidents of Artificers, and Merchants, they built Temples near the Market places, or upon the Market places themselves. To Apollo and Bacchus near the Theater. To Hercules near the Cirque or Amphitheater. Unto Æsculapius and Salus, in places most of all others healthfull, and near to pure streams, and waters; because the infirm people, coming out of a pestilent and contagious Aire, to that which was good and healthfull, by drinking those waters might the sooner, and with lesse difficulty be recovered, whereby zeal to those supposed Deities encreased.

The Aspect Hypæthros, mentioned before, of which Stoneheng appears built, was proper only to some of their Gods, as shall be remembred in due time: the other five (needlesse here to name) were indifferently disposed, sometime to one, and sometime to another Deity, as the magnificence of the Temples to be built required, and, as to be made with Portico’s or without.

The Manner, which Vitruvius distinguishes into five kinds, according as the intercolumnes are of five severall proportions, was only so far forth peculiarly appropriated to their Deities, as it was agreeable to the proper Order, otherwise they followed the greatnesse of the Work.

But, to each of them appropriating particular forms of Temples; to some of their Gods, they made them of a round form, to others quadrangular, to others of many angles: some of them having their Temples covered, with roofs over them; others again built uncovered, without any manner of roofs at all: As, our Antiquity Stoneheng.

Lastly, the Order of which they built them, was so diligently observed, according to the peculiar qualities of their Deities, that seldom or never they varied: as in fit place I shall remember. These aforesaid rules also were so firmly observed by the Ancients, that even at first sight the Roman Architects of old were able to judge, to what Deity, this, or that Temple sacred: and the modern Italian Architects, by the ruines of them at this day, give such notable testimonies towards the discovery of them, as are very hardly to be contradicted. Whosoever desires more of this, may read Vitruvius, Leo Baptista Albertus, and other Authors writing of Architecture. That then we may arrive to a degree of certainty unto whom our Stoneheng anciently dedicated; some such Deitie of the Romans is to be found out, in whose honour they built Temples, not only in such situations as this at Stoneheng; but with whole nature or quality the Form and Aspect thereof may be agreeable also; and the Order proper. For, whosoever goes about to enforce other reasons, do as I conceive but beat the air, neither can they reduce this Antiquity to any probable Originall.

To which of the Roman Deities Stoneheng consecrated, are, as I said before, severall opinions. Some presume it sacred to Diana, but upon what ground their conjecture is raised, considering both the Aspect and Manner of this Temple utterly different from those the Ancients used to dedicate to Her, I cannot conceive;Vitr. lib. 3. cap. 1 & 2. for, the Manner of the Temples erected to Diana, was Diastylos, i.e. columnis ampliùs patentibus, made with large and void spaces: the Aspect of that at Ephesus was Dipteros; that at Magnesia Pseudodipteros: which Manner Hermogenes inventing to save expence and labour, though he left out the Order of pillars within, and thereby the Portico came to be more large, yet the Aspect continued still the same. And, as in the Aspect and Manner, so likewise in the Order and Form it’s different: that, at Ephesus aforesaid being of the Ionick Order, the Order peculiarly appropriated to Diana, and quadrangular: of the same Form also, was that at Magnesia aforesaid, and so likewise the Romans built them, as by the now Church of S. John Evangelist at the Latian, or Latine Port, anciently the Temple of Diana; and that in Mount Aventine also,Fab. Cal. the chief of her Temples in Rome, fully appears. The situation of the Temples dedicated to her, was in groves, whence Vitruvius calsVitr. lib. 4. cap. 7. her grovy Diana.

Ecce suburbanæ templum nemorale Dianæ, saith Ovid.

See where Diana’s grovy Temple stands.

In which sort Virgil, Pliny, and other Authors also tell us her Temples were always sited. The Architecture therefore of the Temples to Diana, and this at Stoneheng being so far different, there is no probable reason Stoneheng should be suppos’d dedicated to her.

Moreover, whether or no this opinion maybe consistent with any of those qualities, the Ancients endowed this Goddesse with, let us examine further the Nature of the Deity it self. Is StonehengNat. Com. lib. 3. cap. 18. consecrated to Diana because she presided over ways? what publick roads then, or common high-ways are to be read of, which anciently led over the Downs near this Antiquity? The most ancient ways we meet with, and which the Romans first made in this Island, as CamdenCamden fo. 64. sets them down, are four, Watling-street, Ikemild-street, Ermin-street, and the Fosse. Watling-street led through Verolamium directly as it were by a streight line to the West side of Leicestershire,Camden fo. 517. and from thence through the Northerly Counties into Wales. Ikemild-street began in the Countrey of the Iceni, tending Eastward. Ermin-street in the same quarter, running through Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, and so on towards Lincolnshire led the right way into the Northern Countreys on that side: (this street-way, happly, may be that which among the inhabitants passeth now by the name of High Dike.) The Fosse passing through Warwickshire,Ibid. fo. 366. came down to Stow on the Would, thence to Cirncester, from Cirncester continuing on towards Bath and beyond it to Somerton into the Western Provinces: the ridge whereof is yet to be seen in divers places of that tract. All of them lying so far from Stoneheng that none of them are remembred to come nearer then Cirncester to any part of the Plains whereon it stands, and therefore in this respect there can be no cause to imagine this Antiquity should be dedicated to her. Or, is Stoneheng sacred to Diana, because she was the Patronesse of Gates? for which reason the Ancients built her Temples, either near to them within their Cities, or not far from them in the pleasant suburbs. But what Cities, or places having any such Gates, were ever found anciently so near Stoneheng, as might cause the dedication of so great a work to her? surely none. Or, is Stoneheng hallowed to Diana because she had the tutelage of Mountains? if so, then where are those Mountains to be found near this Antiquity on Salisbury Plains? which Plains, North, South, East and Westward through the midst of Wiltshire are so open, that they terminate the Horizon. If any such Mountains there, why do all Historians call them Plains? But admit Mountains somtimes on Salisbury Plain, what then became of them? were they removed by Earthquakes, swallowed into the ground by an Hiatus of the earth, or levell’d by inundations? then let it be made apparent when such like accidents fell out. Or is Stoneheng dedicated to Diana, because she delighted to bath her self in fountains and fresh springs? where are those fountains and fresh springs to be found? haply, in the utmost borders they may be had, none certainly in the body of the Plains, or any thing near Stoneheng: spring veins being not there to be found, unlesse by sinking wells or pits very deep, which the inhabitants are enforced to make in severall places for watering their sheep, and as glad they are there, as the Patriarchs of old in the deserts of Canaan to come by them. Or is Stoneheng sacred to Diana, because reputed Goddesse of hunting? then, who ever desirous of a Temple for her, may finde it in Daphne, the anciently famous suburbs of Antiochia, where was not onely a Temple dedicated to her,Strab. li. 16. but an Asylum also, as Strabo witnesseth: such places only being held proper for her mysteries, where interven’d variety of pleasures, goodly shadowy groves, delicate walks, and pleasant springs of most cool and fresh waters. In the midst of these delights the Ancients sited her Temples, not in wilde Downs, or vast Plains, so wide and open that hardly see from one side of them to another, affording neither shelter for travellers against canicular heats, nor succour for cattell against the boisterous blasts of blustering Boreas. Lastly, is Stoneheng dedicated to Diana, because the supposed guardian of woods? then remains it to be made apparent by them, those Plains in ancient times bore another countenance then at present. That they were full of Forrests, woods and groves, with variety of lawns, replenished and stored with such sorts of game, and wilde beasts in chase whereof Diana and her companions are said to recreate themselves: from whence some are of opinion she was called Diana, as much to sayRosin. lib. 2. cap. 7. Deviana, quoniam venantes per devia & silvas deviare solent, captantes feras. Because of huntsmens deviating, or wandring out of the way, through uncouth paths and woods in pursuit of their game. That those Plains afforded as much pleasure and delights as the Thessalian Tempe, the Syrian Daphne, or what place else as famous where her Temples anciently stood: and, in what unknown age they were disafforrested and laid wast. Which, if ever so, certainly some signs thereof would remain, or at least be found there, as well as in other parts of the Island, in times past overgrown with woods. As in Anglesey formerly mentioned; in Cheshire, where, in digging their marlepits are often found huge trees, demonstrating to posterity the forrests there anciently growing; in the Isle of Axholm in Lincolnshire, where the inhabitants have hardly any fewell, but what such trees afford so digged out of the earth; in Somersetshire, where I my self have seen trunks of trees lying under ground, and expressing the places in times past overgrown with trees, very few or none being in those places now standing. Besides, some remembrance of the aforesaid forrests and woods History questionlesse would yeeld; now what occasion soever Historians take for mentioning this tract, not one word is delivered by them to that purpose, all unanimously consenting ’twas never other then at present an open and champion Countrey. A Theater on which Bellona often displayed her bloody ensigns, and acted severall tragedies in times of old: A field of Mars, where Romans, Saxons and after Danes for obtaining the dominion of this Island decided their ambitious controversies. Of which actions we have visible testimony unto this day, witnesse those burrows, and places where they cast the bodies of their slain, over all quarters of the plain dispersed, which in long time are so shrowded by nature with ever growing grasse, that their memory will remain by their sepulchres to all posterity; that which consumes all works of Art, making them still more fresh and flourishing: witnesse spoils of war there frequently digged up, as formerly remembred: severall encamping places of those severall Nations in all parts of the plain even yet appearing, no place in the whole Island, respecting the circuit, having more remains of them: Also that huge Trench, mentioned before by the name of Wansdike, running through the very bowels of them, such manner of trenches appearing no where in any part of England beside, saving where the like plains interveen; so at Newmarket Heath the like trench vulgarly called Devils Dike, as if made by Devils not by men, is to be seen; though in ancient times it was the limits of the Kingdome of the East Angles,Camden fo. 490. and it took end, as Camden very well observes, where the passages by reason of woods grew cumbersome: Which, if the like be granted for Wansdike (as is very probable, it ending also with the Plains) then without controversie there were no more woods in times of old on Salisbury Plains then at this day; it running overthwart them, as in a direct line from East to West. And who knows not, that other manner of fortifications then running trenches upon direct lines are to be cast up for defence of woody situations? But why urge more Authorities, when the Inhabitants of the Countrey tell us, the soil or ground being hot, dry, and chalky is altogether improper for the growth of trees. Thus then the situation of the place, so antipathizing in all respects with the nature and qualities anciently attributed to Diana, and the Manner, Form, and Order of this Antiquity, so contrary to the custome used by the Ancients in erecting her Temples, no reason wherefore this Temple Stoneheng should be conceiv’d as erected for celebration of the superstitious ceremonies anciently ascribed unto her Worship.

Some, again, would have Stoneheng consecrated to Pan; because Pan a Greek word signifying the Universe, under him the whole frame of Nature was adored. And therefore, the Ancients made his statues with horns, saith Servius, expressing thereby the beams of the Sun, and horns of the Moon; those issuing from his forehead, and turning upwards towards Heaven, as Boccace will have it, signified the Celestiall bodies: feigning also, as the world moves with extraordinary swiftnesse, he excelled likewise in speed of running. By the purple, ruddy, and enflamed face, attributed to Pan, that pure fire, above all other Elements holding his place in the confines of the Celestiall Sphears was demonstrated: by his large long beard descending down upon his breast, the two superiour Elements Aire and Fire of a masculine nature, sending down their impressions upon the other two naturally feminine was shewed: by the spotted skin covering his breast and shoulders, the eighth sphear wholly embelished with glorious stars; inveloping in like manner all appertaining to the nature of sublunary creatures was represented: by the sheep-hook which he held in one hand, Natures dominion over all things (according to Boccace) was signified: and as Servius saith, because this staffe, or rod was crooked, the year revolving into it self, was thereby expressed: in the other hand holding a Pipe, consisting of seven reeds, whereby, the Celestiall harmony conceived by some to have seven sounds, and seven different tunes, according to the number of the Planets, and their Sphears which are seven, was so set forth.

After this manner Mythologists discourse of Pan, with various opinions, according to the subtile niceties of their severall fancies: and in these respects as having relation to the Heavens, this Antiquity Stoneheng is imagined sacred to Him. ’Tis true, if Mythologie, and not demonstrative reasons were to be fixt upon in matters of Architecture, the former conceptions might be some ground to frame conjectures Stoneheng sacred to Pan. But, Architecture depending upon demonstration, not fancy, the fictions of Mythologists are no further to be embraced, then as not impertinently conducing to prove reall truths. Wherefore, the aforesaid ancient rules for building Temples considered, and comparing the Order, Form, Aspect and Situation of the Temples to Pan, with the like in this Antiquity, so much contrariety is found betwixt them, as may convince any reasonable judgement Stoneheng not dedicated to Him.

Pan pastorum, venatorum, & universæ vitæ rusticanæ præsidem crediderunt Antiqui, saithNat. Com. lib. 5. Natalis Comes. Pan was the reputed God amongst the Ancients, of Shepherds, Huntsmen, and all those that led an agrestick life. The same Author also calling him Piscatorum Deum, the God of Fishermen as well as Shepherds. Arcadibus Deorum antiquissimus & honoratissimus est Pan, saith Dionysius.Dion. Hali. lib. 1.
Rosin. lib. 2. Pan is the most ancient, and most honoured Deity of the Arcadians. And in Arcadia itself where he was principally adored, they built his Temples for the most part in Towns of the same Form and Order as to Juno: In the Town of Heræa, habet Pan templum suum (saith PausaniasPausan. fo. 496. in his description of Arcadia) quod olim Junoni dicatum fuit, Pan had his Temple which anciently was dedicated to Juno. Now, the Order appropriated to Juno by the Romans, was the Ionick, as is manifest from Vitruvius, who tels us, To Juno, Diana, and Bacchus, and to the other DeitiesVitr. lib. 1. cap. 2. of the same quality, they built Temples of the Ionick Order. The Form in like manner of her sacred structures was quadrangular, as in Mount Aventine, in foro Olitorio (or the herb Market) in Mount Quirinal, and elswhere amongst the Romans theAlexan.
Don.
Pomp. Totti. ruines of her Temples do evidently witnesse: as also, her Temples anciently at Argos, and amongst the Elians in Greece, built of the like Form, and of the Dorick Order. But this AntiquityPausan. fo. 114. & 317. is of the severe Tuscane work, and of a round figure. The Temples to Pan had a Portico onely in front, at Stoneheng it continues round about the Cell. The Temples to Pan were not exposed to the open Aire, and built uncovered as Stoneheng was, but had roofs upon them. For, Ignis ei perpetuus ardebat, therein they kept perpetuall fire,Ibid. fo. 516. as at Acacesium a Town also of Arcadians; all Temples wherein they kept such fires being covered, as the Temple to Apollo at Delphos amongst the Greeks, and to Vesta at Rome amongst the Romans. But, if at any time they did erect them distant from a Town, reserving always the Form and Order, they chose such situations as wholly environed with trees; for example, the Temple to Pan in Mount Lycæus, was compassed in with a thick wood, condenso circumseptum luco, as Pausanias hath it: so likewise, that Temple sacred to Him in the Parthenian Forrest, according to the said Author. Now, this Temple Stoneheng is sited in an open champion Countrey, where scarce a bush or tree, much lesse thick woods, or forrests to be seen throughout the whole Plain; nor was there ever any in times of old as History remembers, and the nature of the soil, as I am informed, is no wise prosperous for their growing there, as is sufficiently before declared.

But Pan (say they) being the God of Shepherds, why might not Stoneheng to gratifie them be erected, and consequently by the Romans dedicated to their God Pan? no place in the whole Island more abounding with sheep, then the circumadjacent Plains; the almost innumerable flocks whereof, not only most plentifully satisfying the bordering inhabitants for food; but, from their delicate fleeces, a great part of the known universe are clad also. I answer, amongst the Romans (declared at large before to be Founders of Stoneheng) I do not finde any one Temple, Holy House, Sanctuary, Grove, Altar, or any such like sacred structure consecrated to Pan in their own Country; much lesse any Temple dedicated unto Him by them in Britain: and therefore, utterly improbable this Temple Stoneheng should be erected by the Romans unto Pan.

There was a Temple indeed,Dion. Hal. lib. 1.
Rosin. lib. 2. cap. 20. built to Pan Lycæus on Mount Palatine, by those Arcadians which accompanied Evander into Italy; in which, though the Romans in succeeding times performed the same rites, as the Arcadians anciently had instituted; yet, He passed with the Romans under the name of Lupercus,Justin. lib. 43. and in honour of Him, as some Authors of opinion, certain festivals or games called Lupercalia, at Rome onely, not in Provinces conquered by them, were solemnized by the Romans; Noblemens sons running in those games,Plutarch. in Rom.
Rosin. lib. 3. cap. 2. according to the primitive institution setting forth and beginning their course at Mount Palatine, and so round about the City to the same place again. I may not omit, neverthelesse, that severall Authors deliver the Lupercalia were instituted in thankfulnesse to Lupa, or the wolf that gave Romulus suck, and the course of those games beginning at Mount Palatine (not so much in remembrance it seems of Pans Temple there, as) from the Lupercal or the very place they say wherePlut. in Rom. Romulus was cast out.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus tels usDion. lib. 1. the Arcadians built the aforesaid Temple to Pan, idoneo invento loco &c. when they had found out a convenient place for it adjoyning to their habitations: the condition or nature of which place is not unworthy your observation; for by his description thereof we shall easily perceive what manner of situation was by the Arcadian Shepherds held proper for performing the ceremonies of their God Pan. His words are, Erat tum, ut fertur, spelunca sub tumulo magna, denso querceto contecta, & sub petris profundi fonticuli, solúmque rupibus contiguum nemorosum, & frequentibus ac proceris opacum arboribus: ibi ara deo extructa, more patrio sacra fecerunt. Under the Hill (to wit, Mount Palatine) was anciently, as report goes (saith he) a great cave or den, covered over by a thick grove, deep wells or riverets running amongst the stones of the cave, and round about it a wood, by the many and tall trees growing therein very dark and obscure: there the Altar of the God was placed, and his Sacrifices after their Country manner performed. Now is Stoneheng thus sited, or was there ever any such like place near this Antiquity? of all the places in England that I know, none comes nearer that cave, then Ochy-hole in Somersetshire: And if the Ancients held such dismall situations only proper for Pans Temples, then without peradventure Stoneheng was never erected in honour of him, they being no innovators in their superstitions.

A further observation may be made to our purpose, upon the aforesaid description, Erat tum antrum magnum, it was anciently (saith Dionysius)Dion. lib. 1. a great cave. But in his own time, which was under Augustus, the Romans had so choked up the place with building, that the manner how Pans Temple in old time stood, was hardly to be discovered: nunc quidem ædificiis (saith he) fanum circumquaque sepientibus, difficilis conjectura est qualis olim loci natura fuerit. At this present, verily, the Temple being every way environed with buildings, it is hardly to be conjectured in what manner of place it anciently stood. This was the cause which enforced him to deliver to posterity the former description meerly upon report. Certainly then, the Romans employing the place to profaner uses, Pans Deity was little esteemed by them; otherwise, they would never have polluted it, by setting up private houses upon the place consecrated to him. Now the Romans slighting him after this manner at home, little reason appears so magnificent a structure as Stoneheng, should be erected by them for adoration of Pan in other Countreys.

Furthermore, the Sacrifices in times of old offered to Pan were milk and honey, offered up in simple Shepherds crocks or earthen pitchers: quare non ritè sacrificabant, qui tauros illi immolabant, aut qui in aureis poculis lac aut vinum offerebant &c.Nat. Com. lib. 5. Wherefore, they sacrificed not aright, saith Natalis Comes, who immolated Buls or Oxen unto him, or out of golden cups poured forth milk or wine upon his Altars; for goblets of that metall were proper onely for the supernall and celestiall Deities, not to terrestriall, and such as had care of Heardsmen or Shepherd Swains. To which purpose also, the same Author out of Apollonius Smyrnæus remembers Pan, thus speaking of himself.

Sum Deus agrestis, cur his sunt aurea sacris

Pocula? quo vinum funditis Italicum?

Ad petram cur stat taurus cervice ligatus?

Parcite: non hæc est victima grata mihi.

Pan montanus ego sum, ligneus, ipsáque vestis

Pellicea est: mustum è fictilibúsque bibo.

In English thus:

A rurall God am I, in golden cup

The Falern wine, why then d’yee offer up?

Why at mine Altar, stands the stern Bull bound,

Or Oxe that’s fat, with laurell girland crown’d?

Spare ye such cost: no gratefull victimes these

Are unto me, others lesse costly please.

A Mountaineer, a wood-man clad in skin

Am I: your wine in earthen vessels bring.

But the Sacrifices anciently offered at Stoneheng (already remembred) were Buls or Oxen, and severall sorts of beasts, as appears by the heads of divers kinds of them, not many years since there digged up.

As for that of the Pantheon, it is very well known the Ancients so called it, not in any relation to Pan, but because it was sacred to Jove the Revenger, and according to others to Cibele, and all Gods. For which reason, Boniface the fourth obtained licence from the Emperour Phocas,Platin. in Bon. to consecrate it to the Virgin Mary, and all Saints. And who knows not the Architecture thereof wholly different from this of Stoneheng? The Pantheon hath its Cell enclosed with a continued solid wall, and the Portico only in front, of the delicate Corinthian Order; of which Order the inner part consisted likewise, being vaulted in most admirable and magnificent manner. From whenceDion. lib. 53. Dion Cassius delivers his opinion, inde id nominis habere, quod forma convexa fastigiatum, cœli similitudinem ostenderet, it to be called the Pantheon, because by the form of that vault wherewith covered, it represented the concave of Heaven, or (as others will) the figure of the world; for the world being mans house, the firmament is as the vaulted roof thereof. At the crown of the vault it had an opening, by which only it received light and air. But, this Antiquity Stoneheng built of a grave and humble Order (as is said before) had a double Portico continuing round about it, the Cell thereof free and open, and every way exposed to the air, received light from all parts.

Wherefore leaving these, Stoneheng was dedicated, as I conceive, to the God Cœlus, by some Authors called Cœlum, by others Uranus, from whom the Ancients imagined all things took their beginning. My reasons are, First, in respect of the situation thereof; for it stands in a Plain, remote from any Town or Village, in a free and open air, without any groves or woods about it.

Secondly, in regard of the Aspect; for Stoneheng was never covered, but built without a roof. Which Decorum the Romans ever observed, both in the Situation and Aspect of the Temples dedicated to this their God, and to Jove the Lightner, the Sun, and the Moon.Vitr. li. 1. cap. 2. Jovi fulguratori, & Cœlo, & Soli, & Lunæ, ædificia sub divo Hypæthráque constituuntur. To Jove the Lightner, and to Cœlus, and to the Sun, and to the Moon, they erected buildings in the open air and uncovered, saith Vitruvius in the second Chapter of his first Book. Take with you also his reason. Horum enim Deorum & species & effectus in aperto mundo atque lucenti præsentes videmus, because both the forms and effects of these Deities, we behold present before our eyes, in a clear and open view. Another reason I find also why they built their Temples to Cœlus,Godw. Antiq. l. 1. cap. 20. and those other Deities uncovered as Stoneheng: because they counted it an hainous matter to see those Gods confined under a roof, whose doing good consisted in being abroad.

Thirdly, in regard of the Form of Stoneheng, which is circular.Pier. Valer.
Hier. lib. 39. This figure was proper to the Temples of Cœlus and Tellus, whom the Ancients called Vesta, as Valerianus (in his Hieroglyphicks) affirms. Non solamente la palla, ma una simplice piegatura di ruota, appresso gli Egizziani demostrava il Cielo. Not only (saith he) the circular form, but the meer segment of a circle amongst the Egyptians was an Hieroglyphick of Cœlus. And to this purpose also, Leo Baptista Albertus useth these words.Leo Bapt.
Alb. lib. 7. Ædem Vestæ, quam esse terram putarent, rotundam ad pilæ similitudinem, faciebant. Unto Vesta, whom they reputed to be the Earth, they built Temples of a round form globelike. Besides, observe what Philander commenting on Vitruvius tels us.Philand. in 4. lib. Vitr. cap. 7. Templorum quanquam alia fiant quadrata, alia multorum angulorum, Cœli naturam imitati veteres, imprimis rotundis sunt delectati: Although (saith he) the Ancients made some Temples square, some of six sides, others of many angles, they were especially delighted with making of them round, as representing thereby the Form or Figure of Cœlum, Heaven.

Fourthly, in respect of the Order whereof Stoneheng built. The severity of this Tuscane work, retaining in it a shew (as it were) of that first face of Antiquity (as A. Palladio terms it)An. Pal. li. 1. being most agreeable to the nature of this their God, reputed the ancientest of all their Deities, and Father of Saturn. For, it was the custome of the Ancients (as in part I remembred before) to appropriate the severall Orders of Architecture, according to the particular qualifications of those they deified.Vitr. lib. 1. cap. 2. Minervæ, & Marti, & Herculi, ædes Doricæ fient: his enim diis propter virtutem, sine deliciis ædificia constitui decet. To Minerva, and Mars, and Hercules, Temples of the Dorick Order were made; for, to these Deities in respect of their valiant actions, it was requisite to build without delicacy. Veneri, Floræ, Proserpinæ, Fontium Nymphis, Corinthio genere constitutæ, aptas videbuntur habere proprietates, quòd his diis propter teneritatem, graciliora & florida, foliísque & volutis ornata opera facta augere videbuntur justum decorem. To Venus, Flora, Proserpina, the Fountain Nymphs, the Corinthian Order was thought most proper: because unto these in regard of their tender natures, the work seemed to advance a just decorum, when made delicate and flourishing, and adorned with leaves and volutes. Junoni, Dianæ, Libero Patri cæterísque diis qui eadem sunt similitudine, si ædes Ionicæ construerentur, habita erat ratio mediocritatis, quod & ab severo more Doricorum, & à teneritate Corinthiorum, temperabitur earum institutio proprietatis. To Juno, Diana, Bacchus, and to the other Deities of the same quality, building Temples of the Ionick Order, they had regard unto the mean, that from the severe manner of the Dorick, and delicacy of the Corinthian, the condition of their indowments might be duly moderated, saith Vitruvius. To Jupiter, Sol, and Luna, though they made Temples sub divo open to the air and without roofs like this Antiquity; yet were they not built of severe and humble but most delicate Orders, and accordingly were adorned with costly ornaments, and beautified with various enrichments in severall sorts of sculpture, as by the ruines of them in divers parts of Italy remaining to this day, evidently appears. Respecting therefore, this Decorum used by the Ancients in building their Temples, and that this work Stoneheng is principally composed of a most grave Tuscane manner, by just proportions of an agreeable form; it is in mine opinion, as I said before, most agreeable to the quality and condition of that ancient Cœlus, whom Antiquity reputed the very stem whence all those Deities in the succeeding Ages proceeded. Cœlus ex eadem conjuge (scilicet Tellure) procreavit Oceanum, Cœlum, Hyperionem &c. & Apollod. lib. 1. novissimum omnium Saturnum suscepit. Cœlus, by the same wife (to wit Tellus) had Oceanus, Cœlum, Hyperion &c. and last of all begat Saturn. To which purpose also Lactantius, I finde Uranius by his wife Vesta had Saturn and Ops: Saturn attaining the government, called his father Uranius, Cœlus, and his mother Terra; that by this change of names, he might the more magnifie the splendor of his originall &c. Further, I conceive it will not be impertinent to our purpose in hand, to deliver what the Ancients have reported of Cœlus; and wherefore they ascribed divine Honours unto Him.

According to the Poets, Cœlus was not that huge machine adorned with stars, which Orpheus saith was composed for habitation of the Planets, and other Deities, and which we behold moving with continuall revolution: but a certain man so called, son to Æther and Dies, that, is della virtù ardente, & della luce famosa, of transcendent influence and resplendent brightness, as Boccace hath it.Boccace lib. 3.

By Historians, especially Diodorus Siculus,Diodor. lib. 4. it’s thus delivered. Scribunt primùm regnasse apud Atlantides Cœlum: Hominésque antea per agros dispersos, ad cœtum, condendásque urbes exhortatum, à fera eos agrestíque vita ad mitiorem cultum extitisse &c. They write, he which first reigned over the Atlantides was Cœlus, and that he invited men living dispersedly before throughout the fields, to convene, and dwell in companies together, exhorting them to build Towns, and reducing them from wild and savage to the conversation of civill life: Taught them also to sow corn and seeds, and divers other things belonging to the common use of mankind; Ruled likewise over a great part of the world from East to West; Was a diligent observer of the stars, and foretold men divers things to come: The year (before confus’d) bringing into Order, according to the course of the Sun, reducing it also into moneths after the Moons course, and appointing likewise the severall seasons of the year. Whereby many ignorant of the perpetuall course of the stars, and amazed at his future predictions, did verily believe he participated of Divine Nature, and therefore after his death, as well for benefits received from him, as great knowledge of the stars, they conferred on him immortall honours, and adored him as a God. And, as appears, called Cœlus in regard of his skill in the celestiall bodies, as also, for divers other causes eternall King of all the world. Thus Diodorus. It being an ordinary custome among the Heathens to deifie, and esteem for Gods, such excellent personages, as either had well ruled, or governed them, or done any notable thing among them to their especiall benefit, or good liking. Such, were they men, or women, remained with the name, reputation, and reverence of Gods or Goddesses after their deaths.

Furthermore, according to the Philosophers; Men (they knew not how) by nature soon wanting, and by instinct as soon seeking some God (in stead of apprehending better) deified the best to sense. Whereupon, out of all Entities as most glorious to the eye, they first made choice of Heaven, and Heavenly bodies; considering again, as the most beneficiall objects,Plut. Phil. opin. lib. 1. those living creatures, and fruits which the Earth beneath brought forth, to make compleat generations, they coupled Cœlus to Tellus, adoring Heaven as Father, and Earth as Mother to these; the pouring down of showers from Heaven seeming in stead of naturall seeds, and the Earth as a Mother to conceive, and bring forth the same.

Fifthly, the Sacrifices in times of old offered to Cœlus were Bulls or Oxen, their great God Jupiter himself, as I find in Rosinus, offering such Victimes unto him.Rosin. lib. 2. cap. 5. Ante pugnam, que cum Gigantibus in Creta habita est, Jovem sacrificasse dicunt Soli, Cœlo, ac Terræ bovem. Before the battell struck with the Giants in Crete, they say Jupiter sacrificed an Oxe to Sol, Cœlus, and Terra. Now that there hath oftentimes been digged out of the ground at Stoneheng, the heads of such beasts, in all probability anciently in that place sacrificed; I need not again remember, being it is so well known.

Sixthly, all the upright stones in this Antiquity are Pyramidall like flames, in imitation of those Ætheriall fires, wherewith the Heaven is adorned.Pier. Valer. Hier. lib. 60. Now, that Fire hath the form of a Pyramis is evident, percioche, essendo largo da basso, intorno alla materia & esca, da che si pasce, finisce in acuta fiammache riguardo al Cielo. Because, being large at the bottome, in respect of the matter and fewell, by which it is fed, it finishes in an acute flame tending upwards towards Heaven. And, that the Heavens are adorned with fires, Natalis Comes in his Mythology, out of Orpheus, makes apparent. Nihil aliud esse Cœlum existimans, nisi hunc æthera qui constat ex altissimis illis ignibus. Supposing the Heaven to be no other thing, but this Air which consisteth of those transcendent Fires.

Lastly, that Stoneheng was anciently dedicated to Cœlus I collect from the Conformation of the work. For the conformation of the Cell and Porticus in the Plant, was designed with four equilaterall Triangles, inscribed in a Circle, such as the Astrologers use in describing the twelve celestiall signs in musicall proportions. According to that of Vitruvius;Vitr. lib. 5. In ea conformatione quatuor scribantur trigona paribus lateribus & intervallis, quæ extremam lineam circinationis tangant; In the conformation thereof let four triangles be inscribed of equall sides and intervals, which may touch the extreme part of the circumference: quibus etiam in duodecim signorum cœlestium descriptione, Astrologi ex musica convenientia astrorum ratiocinantur; by which figures also, Astrologers from the musicall harmony of the stars ground their reasonings, as concerning the description of the twelve celestiall signs. Besides the Cell it self in the formation thereof, is cast into an Exagon, one of the three figures, likewise used by Astrologers in their aforesaid arguments of the sympathy of the stars. Figuris tribus (saith Philander) utuntur Astrologi, Trigono, Tetragono & Hexagono. The Astrologers make use of three sorts of figures; the Triangle, Tetragon, and Hexagon. Furthermore, the three entrances leading into the Temple from the Plain, were comparted by an equilaterall triangle; which was the figure whereby the Ancients expressed what appertained to Heaven, and divine mysteries also.Pier. Valer.
Hier. lib. 39. Aggiungono i Magi (saith Pierius Valerianus) che un triangolo semplice di lati uguali, è indizio di divinità, overo effigie di cose celesti. The Magi adde that a triangle of equall sides is a symbole of Divinity, or sign of celestiall matters. Now this Antiquity consisting of severall stones, orderly disposed into one entire work, in imitation, as it were, of those severall stars which appearing to us in the Heavens in form of a circle, are called the celestiall Crown; and wholly designed by those Scheams wherewith Astrologers use to describe celestiall bodies, which figures, usually applied by them to particular accidents onely, being all joyntly made use of by the Architect for conformation of this sacred structure, it is not improbable Stoneheng was so composed, because dedicated to Cœlum. Yea further, (if lawfull to compare an idolatrous place with so divine a work) was not the Temple at Hierusalem adorned with the figures of Cherubims; that thereby the Nations of the Earth might know it was the habitation of the living God? and, why not in like manner this Temple composed by Astrologicall figures, that after Ages might apprehend, it was anciently consecrated to Cœlus or Cœlum Heaven?

But in this conjuncture; concerning such kinde of Temples as this at Stoneheng, what saith the learned Patriarch of Aquileia?Dan. Barba. in lib. 4.
Vitr. cap. 7. in Ven. 1584. Io credo, che quel Tempio senza parete significava alcune cose del Cielo, gli effetti delle quali sono nelle scoperto. I beleeve that Temple without walls (speaking of the Monopteros aforesaid) had a relation to Cœlum (Heaven) because the effects thereof are openly displaied to the full view of all men.

Camden tels us he had heard, that in the time of King Henry the eighth, a table of metall was found, not far from this Antiquity, engraven with divers strange characters, which being not legible, was neglected and lost: had, indeed, that Table been found within the work it self it might happily have brought to light somwhat in relation to Stoneheng. And by all likelihood, in time some inscriptions may therein be found, it being the custome as well of Greeks as Romans, in times of greatest Antiquity, to lay inscriptions (usually) under the first stones set in what works soever; especially, those of any great magnificence. Wherefore, I advise mine honoured Friend Laurence Washington Esquire in whose demeasnes this Antiquity stands, to whom I am much obliged, for his friendly notice of what things have been there of late years digged up, that he would be solicitous upon any search made there, to enquire after them, and if any found not to neglect, or curiously conceal them, but preserve and willingly produce the same.

I suppose, I have now proved from Authentick Authors, and the rules of Art, Stoneheng anciently a Temple, dedicated to Cœlus, built by the Romans; either in, or not long after those times (by all likelihood) when the Roman Eagles spreading their commanding wings over this Island, the more to civilize the Natives, introduc’d the Art of Building amongst them, discovering their ambitious desire, by stupendious and prodigious works, to eternize the memory of their high minds to succeeding Ages. For, the magnificence of that stately Empire, is at this day clearly visible in nothing more, then in the ruines of their Temples, Palaces, Arch’s Triumphals, Aquæducts, Thermæ, Theaters, Amphitheaters, Cirques, and other secular, and sacred structures.

History affords only Contemplation, whereby their great Actions are made conceivable alone to reasoning: but the ruines of their buildings Demonstration, which obvious to sense, are even yet as so many eye-witnesses of their admir’d atchievements.

Roma quanta fuit, ipsa ruina docet,

How great Rome was, her ruines yet declare.

Opinions fancied to the contrary, I have rendred improbable, the Authors of them in respect of this Antiquity being not only modern; but also, what said by them Romance-like hatched out of their own brains,Camd. fo. 8. even as other fables invented by them, touching the Britains of old. Men possest neverthelesse, with a former conceit of things, endure not by any means new opinions, having not commonly patience to search long after the truth thereof. To them, ever the more generally received, the truer things seem, accounting all of their own time despicable; insomuch, as some are so far in love with vulgarly receiv’d reports, that it must be taken for truth, whatsoever related by them, though nor head, nor tail, nor foot, nor footstep in it oftentimes of reason or common sense. They that beleeve Geffrey Monmouths ipse dixit, may make themselves merry therewith; in pleasing their own fancy, they displease not mine. As I have delivered my own judgement freely, all reason they should enjoy theirs. But such as sail in the vast Ocean of time, amongst the craggy rocks of Antiquity, steering their course, betwixt anciently approved customs, and convincing arguments, guided by good Authority, and sound judgement, arrive much safer, and with better repute, in the secure Haven of undoubted Truth. For mine own part, I had rather erre happily with venerable Antiquity, then so much as trouble my thoughts with modern conceits. Whether, in this adventure, I have wasted my Barque into the wished Port of Truths discovery concerning Stoneheng, I leave to the judgement of skilfull Pilots. I have endevoured, at least, to give life to the attempt, trending perhaps, to such a degree, as either may invite others to undertake the Voyage anew, or prosecute the same in more ample manner, in which, I wish them their desired successe, and that with prosperous gales they may make a more full and certain discovery.

FINIS.

Errata.

Folio 10. line 6. These words,
[The Romans overthrew not the Temples, or razed to the Foundations, any of the sacred structures of the Druid’s and Britans made of stone, or other materials, which he might as readily have done, if they had used any such: but positively,] should have been printed in the ordinary letter.

Fo. | Line | Read

18

22

was

28

4

Cappa

38

19

Mercians

49

37

streit

50

1

streit

80

23

the roofe

Transcriber’s Notes:

- Blank pages have been removed.

- Special font used: “Old English Text MT”.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE MOST NOTABLE ANTIQUITY OF GREAT BRITAIN, VULGARLY CALLED STONE-HENG, ON SALISBURY PLAIN ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg

Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516, Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Table of Contents

- THE most notable ANTIQUITY OF GREAT BRITAIN, vulgarly called STONE-HENG ON SALISBURY PLAIN.

- TO THE FAVOURERS OF ANTIQUITY.

- STONEHENG RESTORED,

- Errata.

- THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE