_The admeasurement of the ground-plot; and outer circle of the
temple, and imposts over it. Of the principal line of the work,
running down the avenue, and single entrance, into the_ area,
_or court. The imposts are jointed exquisitely by mortaise and
tenon. The temple at_ Persepolis _a building of this sort._
Let us now set about an examination of the measures of the temple
itself. Take a staff 10 foot 4 inches and ¾ long. Divide it into six
equal parts. These are the cubits of the ancients. Each cubit is
divided into six parts. These are palms. Thus have we the original
measure of the founders of _Stonehenge_. We will take Mr. _Webb_’s
measures, and compare ’em herewith. TAB. XI. the ground-plot.
Mr. _Webb_ says, p. 55. that the whole work of _Stonehenge_ being of
a circular form, is 110 foot in diameter. But to be precise, ’tis
108 and somewhat more, and his own scale in his ground-plot shows
the same. This is the diameter from outside to outside, which in our
ground-plot is the principal diameter. The thickness of the stones
of the outward circle, he says, p. 59. are 3 foot and an half. Hence
the inner diameter becomes almost 102 feet _English_. If the reader
pleases to measure 102 feet upon the comparative scales, which I gave
of the _English_ foot and _Hebrew_ cubit, being the measure us’d by
the Druids, or in the scales at the bottom of the ground-plot, he
will find that it amounts exactly to 60 cubits. 30 cubits being the
_radius_ wherewith they struck the circle upon the turf, which is the
inner circumference of that work. _That_ sufficiently defin’d their
ground-plot. For tho’ they intended in general, that the thickness of
the stones of this outer circle should be 3 foot and a half; but to
speak more properly, 2 cubits (which is the same measure) yet they
were more careful of one side only, of that dimension. And the chief
business being withinside this temple, they set the best face of the
stones inwards, upon that ground-line; the other face was suited as
well as the scantlings they could get, best answer’d. _Webb_’s 3 foot
and a half is precisely 3 foot 5 inches, and somewhat more, making
compleatly 2 Druid cubits, as you find by the scales. They that
carefully view _Stonehenge_, will easily see, that the stones of the
inside both of the outward circle and of the cell, are the smoothest,
best wrought, and have the handsomest appearance. For so the polite
architects of the eastern part of the world, bestow’d more elegance
within their temples than without. Not as our modern _London_ builders,
who carve every moulding, and crowd every ornament, which they borrow
out of books, on the outside of our publick structures, that they may
more commodiously gather the dust and smoke. The truth is, good sense
and observation of nature, produces the same ideas in all ages and all
nations. Our Druids observ’d, that God almighty in forming the body of
a man, made all the external parts great, bold, round, with ornament
sufficient; but where the beauty chiefly consisted in the fitness of
the proportions, in symmetry and plainness. In the inside, he has
display’d all the _minutiæ_ of divine skill. They have done the like,
according to their way, in _Stonehenge_. So even as to the outward
appearance, I find they took care to set those stones that had the
best outward face, toward the front or entrance. And to embarrass the
general scheme of the work, they made use of two centers instead of
one, but 2 cubits distance from one another; perhaps to make the thing
intricate and as magical: besides the advantage it gives to the oval
form of the included cell.
Observe, in laying down the ground-plot and projecting this outer
circle, we said it was 110 feet, (gross measure) in diameter. We
remember what is before-mention’d, that the learned _Greaves_ measur’d
two galleries in the greater pyramid, in like manner, each 110 feet. So
the bishop of _London_ says, from the grand entrance of _Stonehenge_,
to the work is 35 yards: so he says the diameter of the circle at
_Rowldrich_ in _Oxfordshire_, is 35 yards: all this while 60 Druid or
_Egyptian_ cubits are meant. So the length of _Solomon_’s temple was 60
cubits, whereof the _Ædes_ 40 cubits, the _sanctum sanctorum_ 20.
The intention of the founders of _Stonehenge_ was this. The whole
circle was to consist of 30 stones, each stone was to be 4 cubits
broad, each interval 2 cubits. 30 times 4 cubits is twice 60: 30 times
2 cubits is 60. So that thrice 60 cubits compleats a circle whose
diameter is 60. A stone being 4 cubits broad, and 2 cubits thick is
double the interval, which is a square of 2 cubits. Change the places
between the stones and their intervals, and it will make a good
ground-plot for a circular portico of _Greek_ or _Roman_ work. For
supposing these intervals to be square plinths of 2 cubits each side,
and columns properly set upon them: it will admit of 3 diameters for
the intercolumniation, which is the diastyle manner in architecture.
But to talk of pycnostyle with Mr. _Webb_, and call these stones of
ours pillars or pillasters, where they are twice as broad as the space
between them, and to call this an order, is monstrous.
Thus a stone and an interval in this outward circle of _Stonehenge_,
makes 3 squares; 2 allotted to the stone, 1 to the interval; which
for stability and beauty withal, in such a work as ours, is a good
proportion. The curiosity of the work, and the general orthography
of the outward circle, I have design’d in _Plate_ XII. and it may be
seen in the seven stones now remaining at the grand entrance. Which
show what strictly was the intent of the founders, and where they
took the liberty to relax of that strictness, and that with judgment;
so as to produce a good effect. I shall explain it from Mr. _Webb_’s
own measures, that I may give the truth its full advantage. P. 59. he
says, the stones which made the outward circle are 7 foot in breadth.
Observe that 7 foot makes 4 cubits of the Druids. He says, they are 15
foot and a half high. You find that exactly 9 cubits. P. 61. he says,
the architraves lying round about upon them, are 2 foot and a half
high, _i. e._ our cubit and half. He mentions their breadth to be 3
foot and half, equal to the thickness of the upright, _i. e._ our two
cubits. They are jointed in the middle of each perpendicular stone.
Hence tho’ he has not mention’d the length of these architraves, we
gather them to be 6 cubits long. This is spoke of their inward length,
for outwardly they must needs be somewhat longer, as being an ark of a
larger circle. I must observe about these architraves, as Mr. _Webb_
calls them, that they are more properly call’d imposts or cornishes;
for they are not made to support any thing above them, as is the nature
of an architrave, but for the stability and ornament of what supports
them, which is the nature of imposts and cornishes. Tho’ these bodies
of stone here, never had or were intended to have, any mouldings upon
them, like _Greek_ and _Roman_ works; they are wrought perfectly plain,
and suitable to the stones that support them. I observe further, the
chizeling of our upright stones, is only above ground. For the 4 or
5 foot in length below ground, is left in the original natural form.
And that the upright stones are made very judiciously to diminish a
little, every way; so that at top they are but 3 cubits and a half
broad, and so much narrower as to suffer their imposts, to hang over a
little, or project (in properer terms) over the heads of the uprights,
both within side and without. By this means these uprights are in much
less danger of falling or swerving any way: and the imposts, which are
not broader than the thickness of the stones at bottom, which support
them, have a graceful effect, by projecting a little, without danger
of surcharging them. We see here plain, natural, easy geometry, what
we may call the first rudiment of art, deduc’d from common reason:
but they that can find any _Roman_ delicacy herein, must, I freely own,
have a much nicer eye and taste, than I can pretend to. The Druids
had, from patriarchal times, made their altars or temples of rude
unpolish’d stones. But now hearing, probably from _Phœnician_ traders,
of the glories of _Solomon_’s temple, at least of other temples made
artfully in imitation of it; such as those of _Sesostris_ in _Egypt_,
and others about _Phœnicia_: they thus made a small approach to square
scantlings and stones wrought. And this seems to have been the first
and the last work of theirs of this kind, that I can hear of, either
in the _Britanic_ isles, or on the continent. And no doubt but it
must give them so high a reputation, that even the people of _Gaul_
themselves could not help owning to _Cæsar_, that the discipline of
these men was first begun here, and carry’d on with such success, that
they sent their youth from the continent hither, as to an academy, to
be initiated in their learning. We are not to suppose these words are
to be strictly taken, as if the Druids here began their institution:
but that being an oriental manner of religion, and much different from
that on the _Gallic_ continent, what they had of it there, was deriv’d
from _Britain_. It appear’d as much new to them, who were chiefly
idolaters, as in many ages preceding, _Abraham_’s religion appear’d new
to the inhabitants of _Phœnicia_ and _Egypt_: who were then not much
tinctur’d with idolatry. Nor, probably, had the Druids much opportunity
of building another such work, as _Stonehenge_, between its foundation
and the _Roman_ times. Because, I apprehend, the encroachments of
the _Gallic_ nations from the continent, seating themselves in
_Britain_, about 200 years before _Cæsar_’s invasion, had molested the
Druids much, in these southern counties: and drove them with the old
_Britons_, farther northward and westward. But of this we will treat
more particularly afterwards, when we offer our opinion, of the time
when it was made.
[Illustration: _P. 16_ TAB. IX.
_Southwest Prospect from Stonehenge_
_Stukeley delin_ _Smith sculp_
A. _the barrow L^d. Pembroke open’d_ B.B. _those I open’d_ C.
_Bushbarrow_ D. _a cavity in the vallum_.]
In the orthographic plate, TAB. XII. we may see the strict geometry of
the work of this outward circle, and the artful variation therefrom, in
order to make the aperture of the grand entrance somewhat wider than
the rest. Mr. _Webb_ does not take notice of this particular; and he
might have triumph’d in it. For ’tis no less than a _Vitruvian_ rule,
to relax the intercolumniation just in the middle of the portico, in
the front of a temple, and over-against the door. He speaks of it in
_Lib._ III. 2. when talking of the _Eustyle ratio_, the best for use,
appearance and strength: he directs the intercolumniation to be of two
diameters and ¼; but the middle intercolumniation of three diameters.
By which means the approach to the door will be much more commodious,
and nothing diminish’d of beauty in aspect. And this is the reality of
the case before us.
But alas, our _British_ priests knew nothing of _Vitruvius_; they
deduc’d this knack from an authority much ancienter than him, _viz._,
from pure natural reason, and good sense. Nor does this hurt the whole
of the work. The aperture ought strictly to have been two cubits equal
to the rest, but they advanc’d it to two cubits and a half. This
only crowds the next intervals on each side a small matter nearer,
the rest preserving their true distance quite round. And in the work
itself, ’tis obvious enough to the naked eye. Again, there is another
remarkable particular observ’d by our priests. Because the aperture of
the principal entrance we are speaking of, is wider than the rest: they
have made the impost over it thicker than the rest, and ’tis equally
obvious to the naked eye. This was the more effectually to secure it
from breaking. But this additional thickness they have put below. They
were sensible it would have produc’d an ill effect at top, by breaking
the line of that noble cincture. It must be own’d this was extremely
well adjusted. And the breadth of the stone that hangs over head in
this place is astonishing. See _Plate_ VII. call’d a peep into the
_sanctum sanctorum_. I had the greatest pleasure imaginable, in the
year 1723, _July_, in being here for several days together, with the
learned _Heneage_ Lord _Winchelsea_. I have just reason to boast of
that intimacy he indulg’d me in; and his memory must for ever be dear
to me, for his noble qualities. My Lord and I were very careful in
taking the measures of _Stonehenge_; and with great grief we observ’d,
the stones here represented in that _Plate_, and TAB. V. the front
view, to be much deviated forwards from their true perpendicular, and
in the utmost danger of falling. ’Tis to be fear’d some indiscreet
people have been digging about the great entrance, with ridiculous
hopes of finding treasure, and loosen’d thereby the chalky foundation.
We found by measure, that the upper edge of the impost overhangs no
less than 2 foot 7 inches, which is very considerable in a height of
18. The whole breadth at the foundation is but 3 foot and a half. And
this noble front is now chiefly kept up by the masonry of the mortaise
and tenon of the imposts.
Thro’ the middle of the principal entrance, runs the principal line of
the whole work; the diameter from north-east to south-west. This line
cuts the middle of the altar, length of the cell, the entrance, the
entrance into the court, and so runs down the middle of the avenue, to
the bottom of the valley for almost 2000 feet together. This is very
apparent to any one at first sight, and determines this for the only
principal entrance of the temple. All the other intervals of the stones
of the outer circle, have no preheminence in any respect. There is no
such thing as three entrances, which Mr. _Webb’s_ scheme suggests. He
might as well have pretended there are 6, for so many points of his
triangles meet in intervals, at the verge of the outer circle. Upon
this line are all the principal centers that compose the work, it
varies a small matter from true north-east.
The contrivance of our artificers in making mortaises and tenons,
between the upright stones and the imposts is admirable, but so
contrary to any practice of the _Romans_, that it alone is enough to
disqualify their claim to the work. Much judgment and good sense is
shewn in the management of them. The centers of the tenons are 2 cubits
distant from each other, upon each upright. By this means there is
4 cubits distance from the center of the tenon of one stone, to the
center of the tenon of its next neighbour, across the intervals, or in
one impost. Divide the upper face of an upright into its 2 squares, the
center of a tenon is in the center of that square. Divide the under
face of an impost, into its 3 squares, the correspondent mortaises are
in the centers of the two outermost squares, and this was the strict
geometrical method us’d by the founders: so that the stones fitted, as
soon as plac’d in their true situations. These tenons and mortaises
of this outer circle are round, and fit one another very aptly. The
tenons and mortaises, are 10 inches and a half in diameter, which is
3 palms, or half a cubit. They rather resemble half an egg, than an
hemisphere. These most effectually keep both uprights and imposts from
luxation, and they must have used great labour that threw them down.
Sir _Robert Sibbald_ speaks of a rocking stone in _Ireland_, contriv’d
with mortaise and tenon like ours: of which Mr. _Toland_ gives us an
account, with other like, the works of the Druids.
The whole height of upright and impost is 10 cubits and a half. The
uprights 9 cubits, the impost 1 cubit and a half, so that the impost is
a 6th part of the height of the upright. If we measure on the outside,
the collective breadth of two upright stones, and the interval between
them, ’tis 10 cubits and a half equal to the whole height; and the
interval is half the breadth of a stone, the thickness of a stone is
half its breadth. That impost which lies over the grand entrance,
we said, was deeper and longer than the rest. _Abraham Sturges_ an
architect, and myself measured it, in presence of Lord _Winchelsea_.
Its middle length is 11 feet 10 inches, which is 6 cubits 4 palms;
2 foot 11 inches high, which is 1 cubit 4 palms. They have likewise
added a little to its breadth, more than the rest, being 3 foot 9
inches, which is 2 cubits and a palm. _N. B._ The scale of my drawing
is adapted for the inside of the circle, upon which the proportions in
geometry are built: so that the outward breadths of the uprights and
lengths of the imposts are somewhat more, than by the scale appears
there. The intelligent reader knows this must be the consequence, in
arks of a larger circle.
[Illustration: _P. 18._ TAB. X.
_South-East Prospect from Stonehenge_
_Stukeley delin._ _Smith sculp_]
Nothing in nature could be of a more simple idea than this vast circle
of stones, and its crown-work or _corona_ at top; and yet its effect
is truly majestic and venerable, which is the main requisite in sacred
structures. A single stone is a thing worthy of admiration, but the
boldness and great relievo of the whole _compages_, can only be rightly
apprehended, from view of the original. On the outside, the imposts
are rounded a little to humour the curvity of the circle, and within
they are strait, tho’ they ought to be a little curv’d. This makes
them somewhat broader in the middle, than at the end, and broader
than the 2 cubits, which is the thickness of the upright stones, upon
an ichnography. So that within, the crown-work makes a polygon of 30
sides. But this little artifice without debasing the beauty of the
work in the least, adds much strength to the whole, and to the imposts
in particular. We may guess their proportions are well chose, when so
many of them are thrown down by violence, and not broke in the fall.
And their greater breadth in the middle, or that part that covers the
intervals, adds to the solemnity of the place, by the shadow they
present at the bottom. The whole affair of jointing in this building
is very curious, and seems to be the oldest and only specimen of this
kind of work in the world. There is nothing, that I know of, comes
in competition with it, but the celebrated ruins at _Persepolis_.
TAB. XXXV. It is compos’d of great stones laid across one another, as
_Stonehenge_: but not with mortaise and tenon. The vulgar and learned
too, generally take it for the remains of the palace of the _Persian_
monarchs, burnt by _Alexander_ the great; but it is really an open
temple like ours, and made much in the same manner. But the stones are
well squar’d, ornamented with mouldings and carvings, and the whole of
them are squares, not round works as here. _Persepolis_ is a mixture,
between the ancient patriarchal round form of open temples, and the
square form introduc’d under the _Jewish_ dispensation, in opposition
to the former, which were generally degenerated into idolatrous
purposes. But of this I shall speak more perhaps hereafter, when I
treat of the most ancient temples.
Of the outer circle at _Stonehenge_ which in its perfection consisted
of 60 stones, 30 uprights and 30 imposts, there are more than half
the uprights, _viz._ 17 left standing. 11 of these uprights remain,
continuous, by the grand entrance, five imposts upon them. One upright
at the back of the temple or on the south-west, leans upon a stone of
the inner circle. There are six more lying upon the ground, whole or
in pieces. So that 24 out of 30 are still visible at the place. There
is but one impost more in its proper place. And but two lying upon the
ground, so that 22 are carried off. Hence I infer, this temple was not
defac’d when christianity prevailed. But some rude and sacrilegious
hands carried the stones away for other uses. However it cannot but be
the highest pleasure imaginable to a regular mind, to walk round and
contemplate the stately ruins which I have endeavour’d to preserve in
the outside views, such as TAB. XIII. from the south-west, and so of
the rest. But we may say with _Lucan_,
_Jam magis atque magis præceps agit omnia fatum._