lated to mislead your readers, I am induced to make my observations on, and, I hope, to confute them. I forbear to trouble you with any theory of my own, as to the origin of Stonehenge, but merely answer what I deem the errors of your Correspondent, as they occur in his letter. I shall pass over without comment the extract given by him from the letter of Mr. Greetheed, referring the era of Stonehenge to the Romans; I do this, considering him not answerable for the errors of Mr. G., but there are assuredly no tenable grounds for attributing this curious structure to that people. A. H. then proceeds to speak of, and to reason on, the number of stones, as they are at present in situ; he says, there are seventy-four, and that on this point he was corroborated on reference to another person; whereas in reality their number is ninetytwo, which I have been enabled to ascertain from repeated opportunities of investigation, as I reside within two miles, and from reference also to a very accurate model in my possession; but amongst these stones, as thus erroneously numbered by A. H. many are fragments, two of the largest for instance, an upright of one of the trilithons of the outer oval, and its im post, are fallen, and each broken into three pieces; and I must farther acquaint him, that this grand and venerable ruin presents in many different parts a deplorable hiatus, the original situation of many stones in succession, which were essentially necessary for the completion of the structure, not retaining even a fragment, etiam ipse ruinæ periere. From the great difficulty of numbering these stones and fragments of stones, arising from their apparently confused state, such an attempt is often made a common amusement, the result of idle and futile curiosity, but is not often succeeded in; it presents however no difficulty to one acquainted with the original ground-plan; thus, whether the stones, as at present in situ, are seventy-four, or ninety-two in number, is perfectly immaterial as a fact in itself, since no inference can be drawn from it, and it is unnecessary to refer to "temples of either Jewish, Greek, Roman, or British architecture."

A. H. next enters on the subject of the substance of the stones, which, I can inform him, consist of five distinct species; all the larger stones, being

509

those of the outer circle, and outer oval, with their imposts, are alike a coarse grained sand-stone, granular quartz, provincially called sarsens, and of a similar nature with those of which the other wonder of our county, the Temple of Abury, near Marlborough, was constructed, and which are scattered over the downs of North Wilts in great numbers, and are also thus plentifully found on the Berkshire Downs near Lambourne. I think it most probable that the larger stones were brought from the North Wiltshire Downs, a distance of about 30 miles, but by what means I cannot suggest, as we know not the extent of mechanical knowledge amongst the ancients; however, I do not think I go too far in advancing that the same mechanical knowledge which enabled the Romans to poise aloft the weighty stones of Trajan's Pillar, and which at a far more remote date, qualified the then inhabitants of Egypt to raise and pile on each other the ponderous masses of the Pyramids, would with ease enable the perhaps contemporary inhabitants of these isles, endowed, we may suppose, with equal knowledge, to effect the far less wonderful transportation of these stones from the North Wiltshire Downs.

A. H. will probably say, that the superior size of the stones at Stonehenge militates against the opinion that they were brought from thence, the scattered bowlders of those Downs being of so much smaller size. In answer to this we may aver, that the largest were selected for the admirable structures of Stonehenge and Abury, the latter of which consisted of many hundred stones; and thus the stones now lying on those Downs are in general of a much smaller size than what were used for the above two temples.

Your Correspondent next asserts, that the architects of Stonehenge, although he admits that they possessed skill in the construction of the circles, yet "that they had no skill in sculpture, either for ornament, beauty, or use;" that none of the stones" discover the slightest impression of the chisel;" that they are all in fact "shapeless, and are such as might be supposed to have been set up in the state in which they were FOUND*, "without order,

*Notwithstanding this expression, your Correspondent subsequently argues that they are the production of art.

510

of the earliest era of architecture, with out roof, and without inscription."

Now, Mr. Urban, my opinion is, that the plan of Stonehenge embraces in its whole the greatest order, the nicest symmetry and proportion; that it presents an admirable union of grandeur and simplicity; and that in all these characteristics I much doubt whether any architect of the present day would be able to raise even on paper, the elevation of a structure of a like nature, essentially different in all its relative parts, and which yet would compete with the plan of Stonehenge in its perfect and original state.

A. H. is certainly incorrect in saying that the several stones are "shapeless," and without the mark of a tool, when on the most cursory inspection, it will be evident that one and all the larger stones (except the single stone at a distance from the body of the temple) are reduced by art to a parallelogram. In a small groupe of barrows, very near Stonehenge, chippings of the granular quartz or sand-stone were abundantly found, and they are also to be met with on digging within the scite of the temple; all the smaller stones were also evidently shaped, and that by tools of very superior temper, as they consist of granite of extreme hardness. As to the want of roof, may we not suppose that those who raised this temple disdained the thought, that their orisons and the smoke of their altar should be interrupted in their ascent to the "King of kings.' And as to inscription, A.H. must recollect that it is improbable the inhabitants of these isles at that time possessed the knowledge of letters. In the numerous barrows on the plains around, opened by my friend Sir Richard Hoare (and at the opening of which I was present), which evidently bear a relative connexion with the temple, and are probably the sepulchres of the families of the chieftains of the surrounding hordes, not a coin, not an article has ever been found, which tends even to the presumption that they were a lettered people.

The writer of the letter then goes on to say, that it is not clear to him that it was a Druidical temple, as it does not correspond with others so called; that such were usually fixed in the obscurity and retirement of deep cells, &c. So far from such assertions being correct, Stonehenge does corre

[June,

spond with all other structures in Eng land, usually considered Druidical; it corresponds, for instance, with the temples and cirques of Abury, Rowl wright, Stanton Drew, Boscawen, Winterborne Abbas, &c. &c. in be ing situated in an open and campaign country, and it peculiarly corresponds with the temple of Rowlwright both in its diameter, and in its having a single stone at a distance with the same bear

ing from the body of the temple. The antient authors certainly represent the Druids as resorting to woods and groves; and I must confess, I know not how to reconcile such representation with the fact, that the structures of stone, usually denominated Druidical Temples, are ever found in the most open and campaign countries.

A. H. finally closes his letter with the conclusion that the stones are factitious; but in such conclusion he is certainly erroneous: and when I assert that I could show him veins în different stones, conviction of his error will doubtless flash upon his mind. Factitious stones would be homoge neous in their substance; they would not present veins to the eye; and in addition to this argument, if any other need be urged, I must again remind him, that all the large stones are granular quartz, exactly similar in substance with those of the North Wiltshire and Berkshire Downs. It is indeed highly singular that those Downs should be thus scattered with such enormous and detached blocks of sarsen, coarse sand-stone, or granular quartz, which has never yet been found in a continuous bed; and I believe I am correct, in informing A. H. that there is no quarry of stone at Marlborough, as asserted by him. These immense detached masses of sandstone have been frequently found in the sub-stratum of the vale of Pewsey in that neighbourhood, at the depth of twenty feet.

A. H. may possibly object that de tached stones of no kind are to be found inland of the size of the large stones of Stonehenge; but I can inform him, that I have seen covering a valley in the parish of Luxilian in Cornwall, innumerable detached blocks of granite of a much larger size. The chain of reasoning adopted by him to prove the stones to be factitious, is most inconclusive, and contrary to existing facts; and were it yet possible

to

1823]

to entertain any doubt on the question, he may rest assured he will find no sand on the surrounding plain, affording, as he conjectures, a ready material for his factitious stone. In this discussion, A. H. alludes to the compages of stones or trilithon, which fell in the year 1797, and which he states to have been particularly examined by him; this is the only change which has occurred within the memory of man, and he speaks of one of these stones as being commonly called the high altar; but it so happens there never was a stone thus contra-distinguished; the altar-stone ever lay on the ground in the inmost recess of the inner oval, being the portion of the temple elegantly and emphatically denominated by Stukeley, the sanctum

sanctorum.

I have thus, Mr. Urban, endeavoured to refute in order the errors of A.H. and have refrained, as I before said, from giving any opinion of my own as to the origin of Stonehenge; it is a question on which we may "talk about it and about it," but it must ever remain a mystery for developement, an ignis futuus for Antiquaries, an inexplicable riddle for the enquiring mind of man. Nevertheless, Mr. Urban, there is no reason why the curious and the learned should not pursue their enquiries; the collision of opinion ever tends to elicit learning, and increase knowledge. Truth," said the ancients, lies in the bottom of a well;" let not, therefore, the learned and the able sit down in apathy, but Let them act vigorously, and however deep the well, make their best endeavours to draw her forth.

66

Although I refrain at present from even declaring my predilection for any one of the many hypotheses as to the æra, and founders, and purpose, of this admirable and venerable structure, yet I must beg leave to be the precursor of a novel hypothesis entertained by Mr. Henry Brown of Amesbury, and which he is about to impart to the world by a work which is now in the press. In his opinion, a too modern æra has been hitherto assigned by all parties to the Temple of Stonehenge and Abury, and in his publication he is about to advance his arguments, that they are of antediluvian structure. It is not for me to anticipate them, and I refrain from stating whether they have

511

an

made any impression on my mind; doubtless every hypothesis deserves impartial consideration, and I dare say the literary world will look forward with interest to the production of his intended work, and do it every justice which it may merit. I must beg also, Mr. Urban, to mention, that the ingenious talents of the above gentleman have enabled him to make models of Stonehenge, both in its present and original state, which are very superior in their execution and accuracy.

Yours, &c.

Mr. URBAN,

EDWARD DUKE.

April 19.

IN N an article which you have been pleased to insert in March, p.218, et seq. I have said that there is a great decline of taste and erudition in our modern Literature. If you are disposed to insert them, I will send you a series of papers, illustrative of this subject, under the name of THE EVER

GREEN.

It is now a favourite doctrine, which I hear through the Continent, as well as in England, that we live in an age of comparative illumination. The foolish world repeat it, believing it but it is set afloat by those, who have the deepest design in it, not because they believe it to be true (for many of them know better), but because it is intended to conceal those sources of ancient wisdom which would detect their false doctrines.

Upon the mention of the recovery of the fragment of CICERO De Republica, as matter of exultation, a literary man, whose opinions hold a sway in Europe, said to me, "I cannot think it of any interest!The greatest genius in the time of Cicero could have but a very imperfect idea of politics! It is not till the present day that we have known any thing upon those subjects!"

Let interest and ignorance clamour against the laudator temporis acti as much as they will, the superiority of the past ages to the present, in point of taste and erudition, is quite incontestible: and a main part of it is owing to false criticism. Every one remembers what Gray wrote to Muson about Reviewers. It is ten times more applicable to the present day.

Then as to Politics, it is a noble sub

512

subject, when properly discussed: but it ought not to supersede, or pervert the character of every other branch of Literature.

In that powerful and profound article in the Edinb. Rev. upon PARTITIONS, which cannot be too much praised, it is openly professed that the main object of the establishment of that Review was as an instrument of a great political purpose:-a legitimate purpose, no doubt:-but of this I am doubtful, whether it was right to introduce it under the veil of a work in tended to guide Literary opinion.

But there is no branch of composition, in which the practice of authors, and the taste of the publick, has become so corrupt, as in Poetry. That which was intended for the vehicle of the highest display of native eloquence, is become an artificial and heartless exhibition of mock splendour.

We have a great many temporary favourites among the living: but we have scarcely any genuine Poets. Imagination, without judgment, is the character of insanity. The insane make the most powerful and vivid combinations of extravagant images.

Genuine Poetry is an embodied re presentation of abstract truth; conveyed with all the fervour of actual presence; and under all the agitation and inspiration of extreme moral sensibility. Examine if all poems of universallyadmitted excellence do not answer this definition. Take, for instance, POPE'S Eloisa to Abelard; take his Address to Parnell and his Elegy on an Unfortunate Lady! Take every thing of Shakspeare, and Milton, and Gray! Take the solemn and affecting Elegy of Tickell upon Addison!

What the fancy, or the imagination represents, and the heart, under the guidance of reason, melts at when represented, is that which flows from the real spring of Helicon. To produce this is

"To wake the soul by tender strokes of art; To raise the fancy, and to mend the heart!"

What creates mere wonder by its novelty and extravagance, certainly neither raises the fancy nor mends the heart.

It is the faculty of the intellectual vision of things absent, which it is the duty of Poetry to encourage and invigorate:-but certainly not of things which neither exist, nor can exist.

(June,

There is no merit in that which gives no light to some one of the prime qualities of the mind. Surely no such light is afforded by a forced and monstrous combination of discordant materials. What a sound fancy cannot believe, it revolts at: it will not be coerced it will only follow in directions that are in unison with those na tive dreams, of which there seems to be some common principle implanted in our mental composition.

The stringing together a series of lifeless flowers, culled and stolen from poetical phraseology, is another disgusting attempt at a substitute more offensive than the dullest prose. Life, nature, pathos, touches of eloquence, which go home to the moral feelings bursts of fire, which rouse the slumbering understanding,-these are the irresistible ingredients, which will at last work their way in defiance of criticism and fashion. But feeble powers working by art; adorning, polishing, patching, joining, borrowing, imitating, may exalt themselves in their own eyes, and delight a few amateur friends, or mechanical judges, who think the more art, the more inerit:-to vigorous apprehensions, which look for impulse to their faculties, or glow to their bosoms, they will be like sickly sweets,

nauseous and contemptible.

In being thus the advocate of good sense as a necessary ingredient of good poetry, let me not be misunderstood. There is a quality called common sense, which is generally applied to a steady judgment in the little every-day affairs of life. This is not what I mean by good sense applied to poetry.—I mean a strong, sound, and elevated understanding and judgment operating on a vivid and active fancy: an understand ing exercised in great truths: a sagacious and philosophic reason! Ideas merely in the state in which they are received by the perception of the senses are liable to violent and repeated error; understanding and the heart; and asthey must be corrected both by the sociated with the previously-acquired riches of the mind: I believe that this is a position laid down in some similar manner by Descartes: to whom, though superseded by Locke, metaphysics owe much.

As good Poetry is the noblest and most instructive of all human compositions; so bad Poetry is the most în

tole