Part 3

With this relation of the _Saxons_ treachery, _Mathew Westminster_ (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 Authors 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_) 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.

[Sidenote: _Thomas. Procachio fo. 46._]

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, 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.

[Sidenote: _Math. West. fo. 92._]

[Sidenote: _G. Mon. li. 8._]

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, _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_, 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_.

[Sidenote: _Cam. fo._ 254.]

[Sidenote: _G. Monm. lib. 6. & 8._]

That the Monastery of three hundred Monks, 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, _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,

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: _Leyl. de assert. Arth._]

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, 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.

[Sidenote: _Speed lib. 7._]

[Sidenote: _Stow fo. 53._]

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: namely, that the _Britans_ erected this _Antiquity_ for _A. Ambrosius_ his Sepulchre.

[Sidenote: _Polyd. Virg. lib. 3._]

_Polydore Virgill_ 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.

[Sidenote: _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.

[Sidenote: _G. Monm. M. Westm. Polychron. Caxton. Leyland._]

[Sidenote: _Knolls in vit. Ba._]

[Sidenote: _Ped. Mexia in vit. Con._]

[Sidenote: _Plutarch in vit. Pyrr._]

_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, 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, the _Turkish_ Emperour _Bajazet_ the second, under pretence of Physick poysoned by a Jew: also _Conrad_ third of that name Emperour of _Germany_, by an _Italian_: and, in times of old, under the same pretence, _Pyrrhus_ that famous Epirot 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.

[Sidenote: _Ma. West. fo. 94._]

Amongst other, who relate this disaster of _A. Ambrosius_, _Matthew Westminster_ 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._

[Sidenote: _G. Monm. lib. 8._]

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. _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_.

[Sidenote: _Cam. fo. 254._]

Furthermore, at _Ambresbury_, that is, _Ambrose_ his Town, (_Camden_ tels us) _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.

[Sidenote: _Leyland. de assert. Art. fol. 25._]