fell down on the 3d of January, 1797, and the stones now encumber a flat one, of about fifteen feet in length, which lay at their base. Lastly, there appears to have been a fourth enclosure, formed originally (as Stukely thinks) of nineteen stones, but only eleven now remain entire or in fragments. These seem also to have been arranged in the shape of a half-oval, with the open part, as in the case of the other, to the northeast. Although greatly inferior in height to those last described, they are still taller than those of the second circle. The most perfect, according to Sir R. C. Hoare (see his History of South Wilts, London, 1812), is seven and one half feet high, and twenty-three inches wide at the base, and twelve at the top. Like the second circle, this row has never had any imposts.

A variety of absurd legends are connected with the origin and purposes of this erection; but it is now universally admitted, that the view taken of its origin by Stukely (1740) is the correct one, viz., that it is a druidical temple of the ancient Britons. It has also been the subject of wonder how the immense stones came there (this has been set at rest by Sir R. C. Hoare, who proves that those of the outer circle, and the five trilithons of the grand oval, are of the same kind with those which are found in different parts of the surface of the Wiltshire downs, and are there called Sarsen Stones, that is, stones taken from their native quarry in their rude state), they being a fine-grained species of silicious sandstone. Those forming the smaller circle and the smaller oval are again quite different. Some are an aggregate of quartz, feldspar, chlorite, and horneblende; one is a silicious schist; others are hornstone, intermixed with small specks of feldspar and pyrites. What is called the altar, being the stone now covered by the centre trilithon, is a micaceous fine-grained sandstone. It is still a matter of speculation by what mechanical power they were placed in their situations.

The druidical remains at Stanton Drew, in Somersetshire, deserve mention, though not equal in size and celebrity to those of Stonehenge and Abury, in Wiltshire. Stanton Drew is a small parish in the hundred of Keynsham, which was formerly called Stantone, and Stantune, from stean, a stone, and ton, a town. The present name is said to mean the Stone-town of the Druids. It is about seven miles south of Bristol, on the further side of Dundry hill (the site of an ancient beacon).

For what purpose this and similar monuments were erected, is a point that has been much discussed; but it is considered, from the name and other circumstances, to be almost certain that this ancient structure not only belonged to the Druids, but that the village of Stanton Drew was in some measure the metropolis or seat of government of the Hædui. Druidical circles are by some antiquaries supposed to have been used to contain assemblies for purposes of religion, legislation, and other national affairs; but great difference of opinion has arisen, as to what may have been the object of those rude, solitary stones which have no uniformity of size or structure, and which are found at irregular distances. The great antiquity of these monuments is unquestionable, some of them being intersected and injured by Roman ways, which sufficiently proves that their original use was lost before the construction of the roads. Druidism, which is said to have been first established in this country, flourished in the time of Nero, and subsisted for a considerable time afterward; and young men came from Gaul to Britain to be initiated in the mysteries.

It is asserted that Stanton Drew was constructed before Stonehenge; and Dr. Stukely, who visited the place about 1723, considers it to be even more ancient than Abury.

Beside some other stones, Stanton Drew consists of three circles, which, by the people in the neighborhood, are called the "Wedding," from a tradition that as a bride and her attendants were proceeding along, they were all converted to stone. The bride and bridegroom, the fiddler and the dancers, are fancifully pointed out, and it is considered wicked to attempt to count the stones. The measures given are principally taken from an account of this place, published by the Rev. S. Seyer in the year 1821; and on comparing his description with the existing state of the place in the year 1834, it was found correct. The great circle has a diameter of three hundred and forty-two feet; but as only five stones are standing in their places, the coup d'œil is not striking. How many stones there were originally, it is not easy to determine, those that remain being at unequal distances; and if the prostrate masses still lie where they fell, the stones could never have been regularly placed in the circle. Dr. Musgrave, who wrote in 1718, imagines that the number of stones in

this circle once amounted to thirty-two, and possibly there may have been more. They were not perfect in his time; and they are said to have been much injured and broken, upward of a century ago, for the purpose of mending the roads; and Dr. Stukely also mentions that they had suffered great dilapidation. Mr. Seyer thinks that there are certainly twenty-seven stones, which vary considerably in size and shape: one is sixteen feet high; another, which is prostrate, is eleven feet high and nine feet wide; others are not so large, but are of a remarkable form, as fig. 1, in the engraving. On the east side of this circle are five stones, which may have formed part of an avenue, as it is supposed that there were formerly four or five others. Still more to the east is a circle of eight stones, the circumference of which is one hundred and fifty feet distant from that of the large circle; the diameter of this circle is ninety-four or ninety-six feet. It appears by Musgrave, that the eight stones were all erect in his time, except one; at present four are prostrate, but they are high above the ground; and from the superior workmanship, this circle is possessed of considerable interest. Fig. 2 is twelve and a half feet high, perpendicularly; it inclines toward the north, in which position it is supposed to have been originally placed. Fig. 3 is square and massive, and this, as well as the stone opposite, is a little out of the exact circle. The largest stone (fig. 4, fifteen and a half feet in length) is prostrate, and another stone is broken in several pieces. Eastward of these eight stones are seven others, which, with the addition of three or four more, which are conjectural, are said to have been an avenue to the circle of eight. Musgrave considers that these extrinsic stones, and the five others before described, originally formed another circle, going round the circle of eight. Stukely supposes that this circle and the stones in question, were at first five concentric circles, but this appears improbable, from the number of stones required, and of which there are no traces which would justify such a conclusion. The centre of the southwest circle, called by Stukely the Luna temple, is seven hundred and fourteen feet from the centre of the great circle. This diameter is stated by Wood to be one hundred and forty feet, by Stukely, one hundred and twenty feet; and it consists of eleven or twelve stones, which are rude and irregular in appearance. Northwest of this circle, a little more

than one hundred yards distant, is a cove (fig, 5) at which the Druids are supposed to have sat for judicial purposes. It is formed of three large, flat stones, which are about nine hundred and ninety-two feet from the centre of the great circle, and it is not far from the church of Stanton Drew. North or northwest of the cove, and about two thirds of a mile from the great circle, are two large stones, lying flat; and beyond the river Chew, near the road on the approach to Stanton Drew, is a stone of large dimensions, called "Hackell's Quoit," which was formerly computed to weigh thirty tons, but it has been broken at different times, for materials to mend the roads. The local tradition is, that this immense stone was thrown into its present situation from Maes-knoll, by Sir John Hautville, or Hawkwell, a famous champion, the distance being about a mile. At Maes-knoll is a barrow, which it is probable may have reference to Stanton Drew.

Dr. Stukely supposes the original number of stones to have been one hundred and sixty; but Seyer, with more appearance of probability, considers that they did not exceed sixty; in addition to which, some few, hitherto unnoticed, are said to exist in unfrequented parts of the parish. The greater part of the stones are of magnesian limestone, but some are of red sandstone and breccia.

Trevethy stone also deserves notice. It is a fine cromlech in the parish of St. Cleer, near Liskeard, Cornwall. The term Trevedi is said to signify, in the British language, the place of graves, and its object was in all probability sepulchral. The stones are all of granite; six of them are upright, and one large slab covers them, in an inclined position, with another reclining under it. The dimensions of the uppermost stone are about twelve by eight and a half feet, and one foot in thickness. No tradition exists as to the time when this monument was erected, but its name at once designates it to have been the work of the ancient Britons. It stands on a barrow, upon the summit of a hill, as shown in engraving on the previous page. Roman remains in Great Britain are now rare and nearly obliterated. Coins and mosaics, however, are occasionally found. A recent excavation brought to light the mosaic here inserted. This, and other remains of a similar character, show that luxury had made great progress in Great Britain at an early period.

The Romans, like the Britons, erected barrows over their dead, which were invariably placed near their roads. Coins, urns, pateræ, weapons, armor, and articles of ornament, are frequently found in the Roman barrow. The annexed engraving shows the interior of a Roman barrow, discovered in Chatham Lines, in September, 1799.