By JFilliam Long, Esq. 63 



those present mounted it, including Mr. Alexander, J. P., and Mr. 

 Stallard, the son of the incumbent of West Grafton. I was assured 

 by all that the surface was quite plain and had no hollows." Dr. 

 Thurnam adds, " it is curious that on the upper surface of the im- 

 post of the largest trilithon there are two superficial round holes as 

 if incipient mortices. I take this to have been commenced as the 

 under surface, and the mortices afterwards formed in the present 

 lower surface or at least that finally adopted, as being the most level 

 and suitable for the purpose." Any one who would understand the 

 meaning of Henry of Huntingdon's expression, should walk for a 

 little distance outside the vallum in a south-easterly direction, and 

 he would see the inner trilithons towering over the outer circle and 

 giving the idea of " portae portis superpositse." 



As the inner circle and ellipse are of a difierent kind of stone to 

 the large external and internal trilithons, questions have arisen 

 respecting the periods at which these several groups of stones have 

 been erected ; some supposing that the smaller groups were the first 

 set up, and that the larger stones were arranged around them at a 

 subsequent period; while others have maintained that the larger 

 groups of stone were placed in their positions before the smaller 

 ones had been brought from Wales or Cornwall. Mr. Cunnington, 

 (of Heytesbury,) was led to suppose that the original work consisted 

 of the outward circle, and its imposts, and the inner oval or large 

 trilithons; and that the smaller circle, and oval of inferior stones, 

 were raised at a later period, for they add nothing to the grandeur 

 of the temple, but rather give a littleness to the whole. The Rev. 

 W. Lisle Bowles considered that the very reverse of Mr. Cunning- 

 ton's conclusions would be the most natural, namely, that the inner 

 circles were ^e first work, and the outward, more elaborate, the 

 last work, and this opinion was also that of the Rev. Mr. Leman, 

 Sir Richard Hoare's friend. But Mr. Bowles would not give up 

 the idea that the monument was Druidical although he held that it 

 was in part the work of the Belgae ; " No ! I consider it originally 

 Druidical, Druidical in its early state ; " and that " the last, more 

 lofty and more elaborate circle, accords, not only with a later period, 

 but with the idea that this part, and this part only, was the work of 



