and raised upon it this remarkable structure; the other the (probably) long period during which it must have served as a "locus consecratus" to the surrounding people. What may have led to the choice of this particular site is not apparent; but we need no modern Merlin to tell us that the work which was here carried out was one which must have required much labour, and must have been the result of a very deep religious feeling. It could have been no light fancy nor passing impulse which operated as the motive power for the transport and setting up of these huge stones, and the conveyance hither of others from a great distance; but an earnest and deep-seated conviction on the part of the builders that it was their duty in this way, and at any cost of time and effort, to construct a fitting temple for the worship of their God. The same sanctity appears to have extended to the plain and hills around. Every elevation within a circuit of a mile-and-a-half is crowned with the grave-mounds of the distinguished dead, who would naturally wish to be buried near to the sacred precincts of this, their holy shrine. The building and its surroundings are in perfect harmony. They are as closely connected as a churchyard is with its church; and no traces exist, as far Saxons meant by it "stone hanging-places," or "stone-gallows," from the resemblance of the trilithons to such an instrument of punishment or torture. Mr. Herbert, who says that "hanging-stones" would have been expressed by the word "Hengestanas," believes that the word is properly" Stanhengest" as it is called by Simon of Abingdon, in his chronicle of the Abbots of that place, (Ussher's Brit. Eccles., p. 228, ed. ii.; Dugdale cit. Gibson's Camden, i., 207, Gough's i., 150,) and that it was so designated, not because Duke Hengest "there performed a desperate act, and was engaged in the bloody scuffles consequent upon it; but because he there ended his days, and was solemnly immolated to the vengeance of the successors of the Druids." Cyclop. Chris., p. 175. In this view, however, he would stand very much alone. Dr. Guest, (Philological Society's Transactions, vi., 1853,) combats Herbert's "stone of Hengest," and considers Simon of Abingdon's "Stone-Hengest" to be a clerical blunder for Stonehenges. He says "We find in many of the Gothic languages a word closely resembling henge, and signifying something suspended." "In the compound Stonehenge, the henge signifies the impost which is suspended on the two uprights." Sir John Lubbock, (Prehis. Res., p. 114,) would "derive the last syllable from the Anglo-Saxon word "ing," a field; as we have Keston, originally Kyst-staning the field of stone coffins."

The writer, in his younger days, used to play cricket with a father and son named Stonage, of Bishops Waltham, Hants; but this is the only occasion on which he has met with any form of the word as a man's name.

as the writer is aware, of any early human settlements nearer to this great necropolis, than High-Down or Durrington. Here must have been the Westminster Abbey, and possibly the Westminster Hall, of the people of that day, who occupied the vast down tracts of Southern Wilts. Here, at certain sacred seasons, must have been solemn gatherings for worship, for debate, and probably for amusement in the remarkable circus, which bounds Stonehenge to the north. And it would be difficult to believe that this place had not been so made use of for a considerable time. Years must have been spent in bringing hither and setting up the many and great stones of which it was composed, and it must have been a considerable period during which were being gathered around it the magnificent tumuli, which have been formed with so much care and labour. One might fairly fancy that, for two or three hundred years, at least, there may have been the peaceful use and enjoyment of this holy place. But upon these points men are not agreed. There is no "consensus" of Antiquaries about them. Every kind of theory has been proposed, and as regularly combated. And so it will be to the end of time. Each generation considers itself wiser than the preceding, and better able to explain those matters which to their fathers and grandfathers only appeared more difficult of explanation as they advanced in their enquiries. And thus it has come to pass that more books have been printed about the much-frequented Stonehenge than about all the other megalithic structures, collectively, which the world contains; and that the literature of this, the best known of them all, would fill the shelves of a small library. To the enquirer about Stonehenge it would be a work of time and trouble to seek out, in different places, and from many volumes, what he would be glad to know about it; and the present compilation1 is

The work which the writer, at the request of his Wiltshire Archæological friends, has taken in hand, would have been carried out, had he lived, by one, who, from long study of megalithic structures and tumuli, was eminently fitted for such a task. For many years Dr. Thurnam had contemplated a description of Stonehenge; and as he read, he jotted down references and made short extracts, which might be of use when he was in a position to undertake it. These memoranda, together with cuttings from newspapers, were most kindly given to the writer by Mrs. Thurnam, and they have been of material

an attempt to bring together for the benefit of the members of the Wiltshire Archæological and Natural History Society the more important notices, which are descriptive of the structure and its adjuncts, and of the views and theories which have been propounded respecting it. To one who has made Stonehenge his study it will possibly tell nothing with which he is not already familiar; but to others it may be convenient and useful to have in as concise a form as possible, a resumé of what the best authorities on this and on similar structures have written respecting it. A series of extracts, it is true, is not particularly pleasant reading; but a man's words are the dress of his thoughts, and no one can clothe the ideas of another in so suitable a drapery as the author himself, if only those ideas are clearly apprehended, and as clearly expressed.

While the much larger and much older megalithic structure at Abury has been in the shade, and comparatively disregarded, Stonehenge has been, for the last 700 years, written about, talked

service to him in the compilation of this paper. The subject in Dr. Thurnam's hands, could not fail of receiving a complete and masterly treatment; but it was not to be his work. He just lived to complete his valuable contribution to the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries, viz: his exhaustive account of "British Barrows, especially those of Wiltshire and the adjoining counties;" a work, which must henceforth be the text-book on the subject, and which exhibits in every line the scrupulous care and earnest striving after accuracy of statement which characterise all that Dr. Thurnam wrote. The writer cannot but think that the very great amount of research and close attention which this work required and received must have contributed, in no slight degree, to the sad and sudden termination of his valuable life. He told the writer shortly before his decease, that he would never have put his hand to it, had he, been aware of the immense amount of labour which it would entail upon him. By Dr. Thurnam's death, the writer lost a much-valued friend and correspondent of many years standing; who had given him important assistance in the preparation of his paper on Abury; and whose pleasant intercourse never left aught but agreeable recollections behind it. The work above mentioned, and his portion of the "Crania Britannica," are valuable and important contributions to archæological literature; while his scientific reports on the treatment of his insane patients in Yorkshire and Wiltshire are highly esteemed by his brethren of the medical profession. He will always live in the affectionate remembrance of the writer, who would fain place this stone upon the tomb of his departed friend :

"His saltem accumulem donis, et fungar inani
Munere,"

about, and visited. Poets have sung about its mysterious character and origin, and historians have rehearsed from generation to generation the fabulous narrative set afloat by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Stonehenge has been much indebted to its situation for its celebrity and popularity. Unlike Abury, and Stanton Drew, which are in decidedly out-of-the-way places, Stonehenge has had the advantage of being within a short distance of a cathedral-and-county-town, and it has thus acquired an amount of notoriety,' which, by comparison with its seniors, is not altogether deserved.

It is easier to describe Stonehenge than Abury; for Stonehenge, although a ruin, is a compact one; whereas Abury is not only of much greater area and circumference, but it was approached by a long stone avenue of more than a mile in length. Although Stonehenge has been much despoiled, it has not been, to anything like the same extent as Abury, regarded as the convenient quarry for the materials of neighbouring buildings. "There is as much of it undemolished," says Stukeley, "as enables us sufficiently to recover its form, when it was in its most perfect state; there is enough of every part to preserve the idea of the whole." At Abury, on the other hand, the stones comprising the circles and avenue have been continually broken up, even when not wanted for buildingpurposes, because they encumbered the pastures, or obstructed the plough. Fortunately the village Vandals omitted to fill up the holes in which the stones had stood, so that we are still able to assure ourselves that there were circles within the large outer one, as described by Aubrey and Stukeley. It is also certain from Aubrey's plan; from the stones which remain; and from the stones of whose removal we have reliable mention; that there was a continuous avenue from the large circle to the top of Kennet Hill. There must always, however, be uncertainty about the (so-called) Beckhampton avenue. Good Dr. Stukeley, to whom we owe so much, became unfortunately possessed with the ophite theory, and there is too much

1Stukeley (p. 10, reprint) speaks of the "infinite number of coaches and horses, that thro' so many centuries have been visiting the place every day."

reason to believe that but a few stones on that side of Abury were available for the vertebræ of his serpent's tail.1

Before proceeding to describe the plan of Stonehenge (for which, as Sir Richard Hoare says, the pen must call in the assistance of the pencil, for without a reference to plans and views, no perfect knowledge can be gained respecting this "Wonder of the West"), it will be best to give a somewhat detailed account of the different notices of Stonehenge in mediæval and later times.

Some persons are of opinion that Hecateus of Abdera, a contemporary of Alexander the Great, and of Ptolemy, made allusion

1 From a letter of Lord Winchelsea's, printed in "Nichols' Illustrations of the Literary History of the 18th century," ii., p. 771, and dated July 12th, 1723, it is evident that Stukeley had, at that early period, made up his mind about this Beck ampton avenue. In his common-place book, folio 1717–48, lately in the possession of Sir William Tite, at page 73, is " a rude general sketch of the wonderful relique of Aubury, Wiltshire, as it appeared to us May 19, 1719," and then follow Stukeley's first impressions of it, containing nothing noteworthy except the conclusion, viz: "I believe there was originally but one entrance to it." There is the plan of the Kennet avenue, but no indication of any other. It is perfectly clear that Stukeley was conversant with all that Aubrey had written before him, although, like many other archæologists, he would not acknowledge the obligations he was under to his predecessor. Thomas Hearne, who must have been a crusty man, speaks very disparagingly of Stukeley as an antiquary. At page 485 of the " Reliquiæ Hearnianæ," (Bliss' edition,) is the following entry: "1722. Oct. 9. Dr. Stukley, fellow of the Royal Society, is making searches about the Roman ways. He is a very fancifull man, and the things he hath published are built upon fancy. He is looked upon as a man of no great authority, and his reputation dwindles every. day as I have learnt from very good hands." And again, "1724. Sep. 10, Yesterday in the afternoon called upon me, William Stukeley, doctor of physick, whom I had never seen before. He told me he is about printing a little folio about curiosities. It is to be entitled Itinerarium Curiosum' This

Dr. Stukeley is a mighty conceited man, and 'tis observed by all that I have talked with that what he does hath no manner of likeness to the original. He does all by fancy." Hearne mentions Aubrey twice, but says nothing against him. Bishop Warburton considered Stukeley to have in him "a mixture of simplicity, drollery, absurdity, ingenuity, superstition, and antiquarianism." Malone says of Aubrey, that "his character for veracity has never been impeached, and as a very diligent antiquarian his testimony is worthy of attention." Toland says "that he was a very honest man, and most accurate in his accounts of matters of fact." That he was very credulous we shall find from the ready hearing which he gave to Mrs. Trotman's gossip at Stonehenge.