Part 5

Somewhat more than 8 feet inward, from the inside of this exterior circle, is another circle of much lesser stones. In the measure of the Druids ’tis five cubits. This circle was made by a radius of 24 cubits, drawn from the common centers of the work. This struck in the chalk the line of the circumference wherein they set these stones. The stones that compose it are 40 in number, forming with the outward circle (as it were) a circular portico: a most beautiful walk, and of a pretty effect. Somewhat of the beauty of it may be seen in _Plate_ XVII. where, at present, ’tis most perfect. We are impos’d on, in Mr. _Webb_’s scheme, where he places only 30 stones equal to the number of the outer circle, the better to humour his fancy of the dipteric aspect, p. 76. He is for persuading us, this is a _Roman_ work compos’d from a mixture of the plainness and solidness of the Tuscan order, with the delicacy of the Corinthian. That in aspect ’tis _dipteros hypæthros_, that in manner ’tis _pycnostylos_; which when apply’d to our antiquity, is no better than playing with words. For suppose this inner circle consisted of only 30 stones, and they set as in his scheme, upon the same _radius_, as those of the outer: what conformity has this to a portico properly, to an order, _tuscan_, _corinthian_ or any other, what similitude is there between these stones and a column? where one sort is square oblong, the other opposite (by his own account) pyramidal. Of what order is a column, or rather a pilaster, where its height is little more than twice its diameter? Where is the base, the shaft, the capital, or any thing that belongs to a pillar, pillaster or portico? the truth and fact is this. The inner circle has 40 stones in it. Whence few or none but those two intervals upon the principal diameter, happen precisely to correspond with those of the outer circle. Whereby a much better effect is produc’d, than if the case had been as _Webb_ would have it. For a regularity there, would have been trifling and impertinent. Again, Mr. _Webb_ makes these stones pyramidal in shape, without reason. They are truly flat parallelograms, as those of the outer circle. He says, p. 59. they are one foot and a half in breadth, but they are twice as much. Their general and designed proportion is 2 cubits, or two cubits and a half, as they happen’d to find suitable stones. A radius of 23 cubits strikes the inner circumference: of 24 the outer. They are, as we said before, a cubit thick, and 4 cubits and a half in height, which is above 7 foot. This was their stated proportion, being every way the half of the outer uprights. Such seems to have been the original purpose of the founders, tho’ ’tis not very precise, neither in design, nor execution. In some places, the stones are broader than the intervals, in some otherwise: so that in the ground-plot I chose to mark them as equal, each 2 cubits and a half. There are scarce any of these intire, as to all these dimensions; but from all, and from the symmetry of these _Celtic_ kind of works, which I have been conversant in, I found this to be the intention of the authors. ’Tis easy for any one to satisfy themselves, they never were pyramidal; for behind the upper end of the _adytum_, there are three or four left, much broader than thick, above twice; and not the least semblance of a pyramid. I doubt not but he means an obelisk, to which they might some of them possibly be likened, but not at all to a pyramid. Nor indeed do I imagine any thing of an obelisk was in the founders view; but the stones diminish a little upward, as common reason dictates they ought to do. Nor need we bestow the pompous words of either pyramid, or obelisk upon them. For they cannot be said to imitate, either one or other, in shape, use, much less magnitude: the chief thing to be regarded, in a comparison of this sort. The central distance between these stones of the inner circle, measured upon their outward circumference, is 4 cubits. I observe further, that the two stones of the principal entrance of this circle, correspondent to that of the outer circle, are broader and taller, and set at a greater distance from each other, being rather more than that of the principal entrance in the outer circle. It is evident too, that they are set somewhat more inward than the rest; so as that their outward face stands on the line that marks the inner circumference of the inner circle. I know no reason for all this, unless it be, that the outside of these two stones, is the outside of the hither end of the ellipsis of the _adytum_: for so it corresponds by measure upon the ground-plot. This is apparent, that they eminently point out the principal entrance of that circle, which is also the entrance into the _adytum_. For five stones on this hand, and five on that, are as it were the _cancelli_ between the _sanctum_ and _sanctum sanctorum_, if we may use such expressions. ’Tis scarce worth mentioning to the reader, that there never were any imposts over the heads of these stones of the inner circle. They are sufficiently fasten’d into the ground. Such would have been no security to them, no ornament. They are of a harder kind of stone than the rest, as they are lesser; the better to resist violence.

There are but nineteen of the whole number left; but eleven of them are standing _in situ_. There are five in one place standing contiguous, three in another, two in another. The walk between these two circles, which is 300 foot in circumference, is very noble and very delightful. Probably it gave _Inigo Jones_ the idea of designing that fine circular portico, which is one great beauty, among many, in his drawings for _White-hall_, publish’d lately from the originals by my Lord _Burlington_; who has a true notion of the extraordinary merit of that great man: and very commendably has reviv’d his memory. Such a circular portico put in execution, would have a marvellous effect, much exceed a common gallery in use, because ’tis a perpetual walk, without turning back, and well becomes a royal residence. The best view of this sort, to be had from our work, is from the north, as in TAB. XVII. the reader cannot but observe, how little pretence here is for an imitation of _Greek_ or _Roman_ portico’s, notwithstanding the grand and agreeable curve of the outward circle. But when we see the disproportion of the inner circle in regard to any purpose of this sort, we must own the invention of _Hermogenes_ in contriving the _pseudo-dipteros_, is here apply’d with an ill grace. The founders of _Stonehenge_ cou’d have no need of make-shifts for want of room on _Salisbury_ plain. Or how could a concentric row of little stones, or pillars if he will so have it, bear any resemblance to the contrivance of _Hermogenes_, which consisted in having none; in taking away the whole inner row of pillars, so as to add to the convenience of room, and preserve the aspect, at the same time? Most undoubtedly the Druids had no further meaning in it, than to make use of the even numbers of 30 greater stones, and 40 lesser stones; and this was to produce a more perplexed variety, by the interstices having no regard to one another. So far were they from having a notion of _Grecian_ beauty, in the pillars of circular portico’s being set on the same _radius_; pillar answering to pillar, intercolumniation to intercolumniation. And this will be shown repeatedly in the progress of this work, to be the common practice of the Druids in other like instances.

But when we consider the cell, as Mr. _Webb_ names it, we find him guilty of great disingenuity, in ill conceiving the form of it, and in distorting his ground-plots, to colour it over the better. The minute you enter this _adytum_, as in TAB. XVIII. you discover ’tis not a hexagon, nor ever was intended for one, and there can be no greater absurdity than to imagine it one. It is in truth compos’d of certain _compages_ of stones, which I shall call _trilithons_, because made, each of two upright stones, with an impost at top: and there are manifestly 5 of these _trilithons_ remaining. But the naked eye easily discovers, they are very far from making 5 sides of a hexagon. They cannot be brought to any approach, of a truly circular polygon. 3 _trilithons_ of the 5 are remaining entire, 2 are ruin’d indeed, in some measure, but the stones remain _in situ_. And nothing is easier, than to take the ground-plot, from symmetry and correspondency. We see the two _trilithons_ on the wings or sides of the _adytum_, are set almost in a strait line, one of another; when in a hexagon form, they ought to make a considerable angle. If you examine them trigonometrically, the true angle of an hexagon is 120 degrees, but here is an angle of near 150. And by making it an hexagon, he supposes one _trilithon_ entirely gone, _that_ nearest the grand entrance, when there is not the least appearance that ever there were such stones there. No cavity in the earth, no stump or fragment visible, nor is it easy to imagine, how 3 stones of so vast a bulk could have been clean carried away, either whole or in pieces. There is no room for them to have been carried away whole, no traces of their having been thrown down, broke in pieces and so carried away. This outer side of the work being the most perfect of the whole. Of the ruins of the other _trilithons_, there is not the least part wanting. What has been thrown down and broke, remains upon the spot. But this _trilithon_ in dispute, must needs have been spirited away, by nothing less than _Merlin’s_ magic, which erected it, as the monks fable. Besides, if it were still standing, it would be very far from making this _adytum_ a regular hexagon, to which he has accommodated his _peripteros_ scheme: p. 87. Further, granting it was a regular hexagon, it would be very far from corresponding with that scheme, or have the least appearance, of its being taken from such a one. For our editor there, has converted the cell quite from the nature of that at _Stonehenge_. He has made the upper end of his cell at the letter H opposite to the grand entrance G, not a _trilithon_ as it is notoriously at _Stonehenge_, but an angular interval between 2 _trilithons_. It is not the side of the figure, but the angle. Whereas it is most notorious at _Stonehenge_, that the upper end of the _adytum_ opposite to the grand entrance, and to the whole length of the avenue and entrance between it and the _area_, is a _trilithon_; not an angle or interval. And that _trilithon_ is exceeding stately, tho’ in ruins, one of the upright stones being fallen, the other leaning. So that here, we have the cell converted full a 6th part of the whole compass, from its true and original situation, and so in all the schemes of Mr. _Webb’s_ book, not one excepted. In that, for instance, _Scheme_ I, p. 56, the high altar is plac’d at D not against a _trilithon_, as it ought to be, opposite to the grand entrance in the front of the temple, and to the (only) entrance below, into the _area_, but against an angle between two. If then you suppose that hexagon remov’d back a 6th part, so as that a _trilithon_ be set behind the high altar, as it is really in the thing its self, and upon the principal diameter of the whole work: then this absurd consequence follows, that the opposite _trilithon_ of the cell stands in the very midst of the entrance into the cell, upon the same principal ground-line or diameter of the work, and quite obstructs the view and entrance into it. It is altogether as ridiculous, as if a dead wall was built under St. _Paul’s_ organ-loft, which is and ought to be the chief entrance into the choir. Besides, by _Webb’s_ ground-plots and uprights, it seems as if, when you entered this _adytum_, there were 3 _trilithons_ on the right, and 3 on the left, whereas it is most obvious, there are but two on the right, and two on the left; when you advance into it, the orderly way, from the north-east grand entrance of the avenue; which he himself p. 55. owns to be the principal. But I am tired of so ungrateful a talk, which necessity alone could have extorted from me.

CHAP. V.

_Of the cell or_ adytum _of_ Stonehenge. _Of the_ Surgeons _amphitheater_, London.

Disputations become cloisters and porticoe’s. Let us now with minds free from passion, enter the _adytum_ with an intent to find out its true figure, to examine what it really was, and what it is. And that may easily be done, because (as I said before) as to the _trilithons_ of which it is chiefly compos’d, they are all remaining. Not a bit is lost, but what mischievous and silly people knock off with hammers, to see whether, as the wretched vulgar notion would have it, the stones be factitious. TAB. XVIII. is a design of it, which I made sitting in the center of the grand entrance in the inner circle. This point is properly the door-way or entrance into the _adytum_, as a wicket or little door, whilst the jambs of the hithermost _trilithons_ present themselves, as the greater door, of above 40 feet wide, 25 cubits. I observe in the old _Greek_ story, many footsteps of the primitive patriarchal way left in their sacred structures, which are parallels to this work before us, and others of our Druids. For instance, _Pausanias in atticis_ speaks of a temple dedicate to _Venus_, in the front of which, is a wall (as he calls it) built of rude stones. Nevertheless he concludes it to be a very famous work. One may very well imagine, this wall of rude stones is the remnant of some such old work as ours, left for the sacred regard the people had to it, even after art was risen to great height, together with superstition and idolatry. For that the most ancient _Greeks_ had very little of idolatry, any more than our Druids, I shall show when I discourse on that head. Again: the more sacred part of the temple at _Hierapolis_ answering to our _Adytum_, had no door, tho’ none enter’d therein but the chief priests. _Lucian de deâ Syria._ I suppose it was in imitation of the ancient usage, without doors to shut or open, as our temple here. For the ancients thought it wrong, to confine the deity, as it were, within any cover’d place: ’till _Moses_, by God’s direction, made a tabernacle cover’d with skins, which was to adumbrate the Messiah Son of God, who was to be cloathed with out nature. And _Solomon_’s temple was built in imitation of this tabernacle. But before that, the ancients meant no more by temples, or altars, as they were first call’d, than a certain known and conspicuous place, ornamented in a particular manner, that should mark out a _kebla_, or a place towards which we are to address the Deity, and that for uniformity sake. As the _Turks_ and _Arabians_ do now, who are the descendants of _Ishmael_, and had this custom from _Abraham_. Tho’ the supreme Being be omnipresent, yet for our convenience, where time, place, and such kind of circumstances are necessary to a public action, he would have, as it were, the place of his presence made notorious. As in the _Jewish_ dispensation he did in a most extraordinary manner, by the _shechinah_. And from _Solomon_’s temple, all the rest of the world borrow’d the fashion of temples, properly so call’d, built magnificently and with roofs. For the sacred houses mention’d in scripture before then, were only little chapels, shrines, like our Druids _kistvaens_, which sometime they carried about in a cart, sometime were fix’d in cities, for publick use; as _Beth Dagon_, and the like. These were but _kistvaens_ improv’d, niches turn’d into _sacella_, in imitation of two or three stones in _Abraham_’s altars, which we may well call the _kebla_, and find many of them among our Druid antiquities.

The cell is form’d by a radius of 12 cubits and a half, from the two centers _a_ and _b_, as to the inward curve; the outward takes a radius of 15 cubits; for these stones are two cubits and a half thick. The two circles are turn’d into an oval, by a radius of 30 cubits, (after the usual manner) set in the two centers _c_ and _d_, where the two circles intersect. The former centers are 12 cubits and a half distant from each other, the length of the radius. The same oval is obtain’d by a string of 60 cubits, the ends ty’d together, and turn’d round upon two centers, according to the gardiners method. An oval form’d as this is, upon two centers coinciding with each other’s circumference; or, which is the same thing, whose centers are distant from each other the length of their radius, is most natural and most beautiful, being the shape of an egg. Most probably these religious philosophers had a meaning, in thus including an egg-like figure, within a circle, more than mere affectation of variety. Whatever that was, we may reasonably conclude, that from the method in antiquity, of making the _kebla_ of a curved figure, the christians borrowed theirs of turning the east end of their churches in that manner; and that the Druids in the work before us, have produc’d the noblest _kistvaen_ or _kebla_ that is known.

My purpose in drawing many prickt lines upon the plate, is not difficult to be understood. Nor does it require particular explanations. To avoid affectation or tediousness, I leave them to the readers amusement: only observe, that Mr. _Webb’s_ equilateral triangles have no hand in forming the cell. The intent of it is very distant from a regular polygon. But that it is incomparably more beautiful; than such a one would have render’d it. It is as a magnificent niche 27 cubits long, and as much broad, measuring in the widest place.

This part is call’d Σηκος or _concha templi_ and _adytum_, into which, we may suppose, none but the upper order of priests, together with the high-priest, were commonly to enter, during the time of ministration, in religious rites. We may imagine the beauty of the appearance here upon those occasions, when an innumerable company of the Druids assisted, all in white surplices. The center of the excentricity of this oval is but three cubits nearer the entrance, than the center of the whole work. And they have cut off but one _trilithon_, which they make the opening of the _adytum_; meeting the eye to great advantage, from the grand entrance. By the aforesaid contrivance, there is left a space of five cubits between the jambs of the opening of the _adytum_, and the inner circle in front, just the same as is between the inner and outer circle. The inner circle there performing the office of _cancelli_ to it, as we observ’d before. If a choir of this form was put in practice, and executed by a masterly hand, it would have a very extraordinary effect, and perhaps excel the too similar concave of a cupola. Our Druids had undoubtedly such a notion, in placing this within a circle. And for the sake of this, they turn’d the two circles into a smaller species of an ellipsis.

There’s a Druid antiquity like our _adytum_ in shape, call’d _Eglwys Glominog_, on the top of _Arennig vaur_ in _Lhanykil_ parish, _Merionydhshire_, but made of a continued wall. The ancients thought the world of an egg-like shape, and as the world is the temple of the Deity, they judg’d it proper to form their temples, so as to have a resemblance thereto. The ancient hieroglyphic of the Deity is a circle, and I have reason to believe it more ancient than the flood. _Plato_, who learnt much from the ancestors of our Druids, says in _Diogenes Laertius_, that God is spherical, which he must mean hieroglyphically. So our Druids, as well as he, may mean the infinity of nature in the Deity, who made the world, by this scheme of _Stonehenge_; at least they understand by the circle, the seat and residence of the Deity, the heavens, which include all things.

It seems to me, that _Inigo Jones_ from this _adytum_ projected the plan of the _Surgeons_ theatre in _London_, a fabric for seeing and hearing much admired by all good judges. And which my Lord _Burlington_, out of a spirit truly noble, and a great love for the architect’s memory, has lately repair’d, with his own charges and excellent skill. I find the _Surgeons_ theatre (or rather amphitheatre) is form’d from the same proportion as our _adytum_, the transverse and conjugate diameters being as 4 to 3, _viz._ 40 foot and 30 foot. And this appears to me a strong presumption, that _Inigo Jones_ did not make the ground-plot of _Stonehenge_, publish’d under his name. The _Surgeons_ amphitheatre is a good deal less than our cell.

Such is the noble and easy geometry of the _adytum_ of _Stonehenge_. The stones that compose it, are really stupendous, their height, breadths and thickness are enormous, and to see so many of them plac’d together, in a nice and critical figure, with exactness; to consider, as it were, not a pillar of one stone, but a whole wall, a side, an end of a temple of one stone; to view them curiously, creates such a motion in the mind, which words can’t express. One very remarkable particular in the construction of this _adytum_, has escaped all observers: which is this. As this part is compos’d of _trilithons_ (as I before call them) sett two and two on each side, and one right before; they rise in height and beauty of the stones, from the lower end of the _adytum_, to the upper end. My meaning is this. The two hithermost _trilithons_ corresponding, or those next the grand entrance, on the right hand, and on the left are exceeded in height, by the two next in order; and those are exceeded by the _trilithon_ behind the altar, in the upper end of this choir. So that in laying down the measures of the parts, that compose this place, the reader must be content to take my word. Mr. _Webb’s_ measures cannot be precise in all of them, seeing he knew nothing of this particular; and that his notion of an hexagon, is contradicted by it, as well as by fact. “He says p. 60. the stones of the greater hexagon seven foot and a half in breadth, three foot nine inches thick, and twenty foot high, each stone having one tenon in the middle.” His measure of seven foot and a half in breadth, only shews the vastness of the stones, it is no precise measure, for the founders regarded not any preciseness in their breadth: because two together were design’d to make a _compages_, whereon to set the impost, and this I call a _trilithon_. Each _trilithon_ stands by its self, independant of its neighbour, not as the stones and imposts of the outer circle, link’d together in a continued _corona_, by the imposts carried quite round. Indeed the breadth of a stone at bottom is seven feet and a half, which is 4 cubits and a half. Two stones therefore amount to nine cubits, and there is a cubit of interval between them, making in the whole ten cubits. But they were not careful of the particulars, only of the whole, in one of these _compages_ or _trilithons_.