_Of the lesser circle of stones, without imposts. A disputation
against Mr._ Webb.
Many drawings have been made and publish’d, of _Stonehenge_. But
they are not done in a scientific way, so as may prove any point,
or improve our understanding in the work. I have therefore drawn
four architectonic orthographies: one, TAB. XII. is of the front and
outside: three are different sections upon the two principal diameters
of the work. These will for ever preserve the memory of the thing,
when the ruins even of these ruins are perish’d; because from them and
the ground-plot, at any time, an exact model may be made. TAB. XIV,
XV, XVI. these orthographies show the primary intent of the founders;
they are the designs, which the Druids made, before they put the work
in execution. And by comparing them with the drawings correspondent,
of the ruins, we gain a just idea of the place, when it was in its
perfection. But now as we are going to enter into the building, it
will be proper again to survey the ground-plot, TAB. XI. which is so
different from that publish’d by Mr. _Webb_. Instead of an imaginary
hexagon, we see a most noble and beautiful ellipsis, which composes the
cell, as he names it, I think _adytum_ a proper word. There is nothing
like it, to my knowledge, in all antiquity; and ’tis an original
invention of our Druids, an ingenious contrivance to relax the inner
and more sacred part, where they perform’d their religious offices.
The two outward circles do not hinder the sight, but add much to the
solemnity of the place and the duties, by the crebrity and variety of
their intervals. They that were within, when it was in perfection,
would see a most notable effect produc’d by this elliptical figure,
included in a circular _corona_, having a large hemisphere of the
heavens for its covering.
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.
[Illustration: _P. 20._ TAB. XI.
_The Geometrical Ground plot of STONEHENGE_
_Viro doctissimo et Britan̄icæ Antiquitatis peritissimo ROGERO GALE Ar̄.
Geometriæ CELTICÆ specimen dedicat W Stukeley 1723_
_W Stukeley delin_ _Harris sculp_]
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.
[Illustration: _P. 22._ TAB. XII.
_The Orthography of Stonehenge_]