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.

Thus Englished by Arthur Golding.

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. 4^to. 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.

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 4^o. 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.

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.