1872.] The Amorpholithic Monuments of Brittany. 449 
either in the forms of the lovely and tiny Sheogues, the fair 
and perfect Lianhaun-shee, or the quaint cobbler Lepfrechawn. 
The banshee’s wail is heard by the solitary gullaune pillar- 
stone ; whilst if we wish to find the mischievous cluricaune, 
we would search the sites of the carnail or carns, the murs, 
rutams or cumots, and for warlocks on the Slieve na Calliagh or 
witches’ hill. As may well be supposed, archeologists and 
travellers, both native and foreign, have advanced from 
time to time innumerable theories more or less ingenious or 
absurd, and mostly paradoxical as to the origin and destina- 
tion of the circles and alignments of amorpholiths. Indeed, 
as many, if not more, strange and opposite conclusions have 
been drawn by various writers in respect to these monuments 
in Brittany as has been the case with Stonehenge in our 
own country.* Innumerable purposes have been proposed 
for their construction, such as covenants, altars, boundaries, 
deliverances, sepulchres, and victories, &c., whilst others 
are in favour of the Epicurean hypothesis of zapéyxkd\wous or 
arbitrary deflection. The peasantry of the neighbourhood 
firmly believe that these ranks of stones are the effect of a 
miracle ; the tradition is as follows:—St. Cornely, Pope, 
and patron saint of Cattle, being pursued by an army of 
pagan soldiers, and unable to escape, exercised’ his saintly 
power, and converted the army into stone; hence these 
stones are called in Breton Saint Cornili soudared. It is 
evident that this tradition has only originated since the 
arrival of Christian missionaries in Armorica, where semi- 
pagan stone worship has yet some hold among the most 
ignorant folk in the whole of France. The parish church 
of Carnac is dedicated to Saint Cornely, and a figure of 
him stands outside the tower, with some rather comical 
sheep and oxen at his feet. Unfortunately, when this church 
was built (A.D. 1639), some of the pagan soldiers were 
broken up in order to supply building material, and there 
are many gaps in the ranks in consequence. M. de la 
Sauvagere, officier du génie, appears to have had curious 
notions of Roman castrametation; he supposes that these 
stones were erected “‘pour servir d’appuis aux tentes et le mettre 
*« Mr, Samms, in his “ Britannia,’ will have the struéture to have been 
Phenician ; Mr. Jones and Mr. Webb believe it to be Roman; Mr. Aubrey 
thinks it was British; and Dr. Charleton derives it from the Danes. And 
yet if the true old writing of the name be STAN-HENGEST, as the Monasticon 
seems to tell us, I cannot see, says Bishop Nicholson, why the Saxons may 
not have as just a title as any to the honour of it. There is a manuscript 
treatise said to have been written upon this subjeé& by one Mr. John Gibbons, 
and ’tis possible this gentlemen may have a different notion from all the rest.” 
—(Preface to “* The Most Notable Antiquity of Great Britain, vulgarly called 
Stone-heng on Salisbury Plain.”’) 
VOL; Jt. 4N-S.) 3M 
