Catalogue Entry: OTHE00022

Chapter 5: 'The Curious Itinerary.'

Author: David Boyd Haycock

Source: William Stukeley: Science, Religion and Archaeology in Eighteenth-Century England (2002).

[Normalized Text] [Diplomatic Text]

[1] Stukeley, diary, 19 October 1754, in SS 3, p. 140.

[2] Black (1985) p. 7.

[3] Bod. MS Eng. misc. c. 533 f. 16v.

[4] Ibid. f. 21v.

[5] Ibid. f. 16v.

[6] Johnson to Stukeley, 6 April 1714, Bod. MS Eng. misc. c. 113, f. 225.

[7] The book is dated 1724 Old Style. Centuria II was published posthumously in 1776.

[8] Stukeley (1724) pp. 2-3.

[9] James Robertson, Monthly Review 37 (1767) quoted in Batten (1978) p. 94. See also Black (1985) p. 242.

[10] Thomas Pennant London Magazine 47 (1778) p.179, quoted in Batten (1978) p. 94.

[11] Stukeley (1724) p. 3.

[12] Brome (1700) p. ii.

[13] Ibid. p. viii.

[14] Ibid. p. ix.

[15] Defoe (1724) pp. iii, vi

[16] Furbank and Owens (1993) p. 285. But as we saw in the introduction, later editions of the book did include references to antiquities.

[17] Ibid. 'introduction' p. x.

[18] Parry (1995) pp. 4-5, 44.

[19] Ibid. p. 139.

[20] Rowlands (1723) p. 136

[21] Ibid. pp. 136-7.

[22] See Whiston (1712).

[23] Bede, A History of the English Church and People, chapter 30 (London, 1968), pp. 86-87.

[24] Quoted in Force (1985) p. 127.

[25] Stukeley (1980) p. 89.

[26] Breval (1726) unpaginated preface.

[27] Stukeley Bod. MS Eng. misc. c. 323 f. 81.

[28] Gordon (1726) unpaginated preface.

[29] See Zwicker, (1988) pp. 37-64; on 'the Augustans' see Weinbrot (1978).

[30] Stukeley BM Lans. MSS 688 f. 16.

[31] St John (1752) 'Letter II' p.31.

[32] Hume (1760) vol. 3, p. 130

[33] Ibid. vol. 1, p. 67.

[34] Bod. MS Eng. misc. c. 401 f. 16.

[35] Ibid. f. 17.

[36] Ibid. ff. 8-9.

[37] Ibid. f. 15.

[38] Ibid. f. 19.

[39] Ibid. f. 9, 11 November 1724.

[40] Ibid. f. 22.

[41] Ibid. f. 17.

[42] DNB.

[43] Humfrey Wanley to Arthur Charlett, 19 December 1700, Bod MS Ballard 13, f. 91.

[44] Bod. MS Top. Wilts. e. 6 f. ii.

[45] Bod. MS Eng. misc. c. 401 f. 23.

[46] Ibid. f. 22.

[47] Sir John Clerk to Roger Gale, 2 June 1726, SS 1, p. 184.

[48] Roger Gale to Sir John Clerk, 24 June 1726, SS 3, pp. 87-8.

[49] Stukeley (1776) p. 81.

[50] Stukeley (1757) pp. 14, 19, 17. Stukeley expressed this belief in 1732, in CCCC MS 617, where he also suggested that St Paul had come to Britain: 'the clouds of barbarism were broke by the Roman eagles, & made pervious to the meek rays of the Gospel.'.

[51] Stukeley CCCC MS 617 f. 9.

[52] Ibid. f. 29; Stukeley (1757) p. 18.

[53] Stukeley, diary 19 March 1741, quoted in SS 2, p. 351.

[54] Stukeley (1742) pp. 19-22.

[55] Bod. MS Eng. misc. e. 390 f. 7.

[56] For a full elaboration of the influence of eighteenth-century landscape gardens on Stukeley's archaeology see Haycock (1999). Stonehenge was certainly intended by its builders to be a focal point in what was very probably a complex ritual landscape; see Burl (2000) 349-55.

[57] Stukeley (1740) p. 35.

[58] Derham to Stukeley, 22 February 1726, in Nichols (1817) p. 799.

[59] SS 3, pp. 242-3.

[60] Ibid.

[61] Daniel Defoe, Works (1871) vol. 5, p. 437.

[62] Stukeley FM MS Stu (1) ff. 4-5; on ideas of British nationality and self-definition in this period see Colley (1992), Lesley (1991), Miller (1995), Newman (1987), and Withers (1995a and 1995b).

[63] The Romans never actually conquered the whole of Britannia, Hadrian's Wall being a testament to both their strength and failure. The 'German Fortitude' refers of course to the Hanovarian king George I, who had succeeded Queen Anne in 1714.

[64] See Hearne (1906-1921) vol. 7, pp. 89-90, 20 June 1723.

[65] Stukeley Bod. MS Eng. misc. c. 323 f. 93.

[66] Hearne (1906-1921) vol. 7, p. 350.

[67] Stukeley Cardiff MS 4.253 ff. 2-3.

[68] Stukeley (1740) p. 57.

[69] Halley (1692) p. 565.

[70] Stukeley (1740) p. 5 and (1743) p. 53. It is unclear whether Halley argued for the antiquity of Stonehenge solely from the wear of its stones, or from some other argument as well. The most recent archaeological report on the site indicate that Stonehenge had a construction period spanning approximately from 3200 BC to 1600 BC. Using radiocarbon dating, the first wooden henge has been dated to c. 3100 BC, whilst the main Sarsen circle and trilithons are dated to the third phase of rebuilding, roughly in the period around 2400 BC, and was possibly never finished; see Burl (2000) pp. 351-2 and Cleal et al (1995) pp. 6-8. Avebury likewise had a prolonged sequence of development, from the first coves built around 3400-3200 BC to the bank, ditch and main megalithic ring constructed c. 2600 BC; see Burl (2000) p. 319. The long barrows that ring both sites are older still, dating from the Early Neolithic.

[71] Newton Yahuda MS 41, ff. 3r--3v, quoted in Iliffe (1989) p. 82. This passage has been heavily erased by Newton, and is almost illegible.

[72] Stukeley Bod. MS Eng. misc. e. 390 ff. 5-6. A paper on an a stone structure called 'Ras Sem' located '17 days journey south east from Tripoli, by the caravan', Stukeley Bod. MS Eng. misc. e.389 f. 14

[73] John Aubrey, 'Monumenta Britannica or a Miscellanie of British Antiquities', vol. 1, Bod. MS Top. Gen. c. 24 f. 23. John Leland and William Camden both mentioned Avebury in passing. On Aubrey see Ucko et al (1991) pp. 8-35, and Hunter (1975). The spelling of place names was quite flexible at this date, and noting its closeness to his own name Aubrey used an eponymous spelling. Stukeley used both 'Abury', 'Aubrey' and 'Avebury'.

[74] Robert Boyle, Works edited by Thomas Birch (5 vols, London 1744), quoted in Ucko et al (1991) p. 17.

[75] Charleton (1663) pp. 29-30.

[76] The Diary of Samuel Pepys, Volume 9, edited by Robert Latham and William Matthews (London 1976) pp. 226, 240.

[77] Ucko et al (1991) pp. 35-6. Stukeley had read Thomas Gales' notes, made from Aubrey's manuscript, in 1718, and Ucko et al (1991) p. 47 point out Stukeley's 'lack of generosity' in crediting Aubrey for his earlier ideas on Avebury, and that he 'almost certainly perceived Aubrey as a threat to his own role as the discoverer of the significance of the site'.

[78] Quoted in Piggott (1989) p. 115.

[79] Royal Society JBC Vol. XI f. 400.

[80] Browne (1725). Sammes' Britannia Antiqua Illustrata had been published in 1676: see Chapter 7. Bishop Nicholson is perhaps William Nicholson (1591-1672), bishop of Gloucester. Thomas Hearne asked the antiquary James West to try and locate Gibbon's alleged manuscript in February 1725, but it transpired to be a fruitless search. West informed Hearne that there was 'nothing relating to Stonehenge' among Gibbon's manuscripts, 'except a Leaf at the end of Dr Charlton's printed Book, which is, indeed, wrote by Mr Gibbon, but contains only extracts from Charlton, without any mention of its being British.' See Hearne (1906-21) vol. 8 pp. 329-39.

[81] Stukeley Cardiff MS 4.26 ff. 125-9. His sources for this nomenclature of 'Celt' included Strabo, Caesar, Tacitus, Aristotle, Plato and Pliny.

[82] Stukeley Bod. MS Eng. misc. c. 323 f. 21.

[83] Stukeley SS 3 pp. 153-4. Stukeley refers to this letter in Abury (1743) p. 11.

[84] Stukeley (1743) p. 12. Stukeley's 'long barrow' is actually a natural feature. Burl (2000), pp. 300-6, uses the circle's measurement, in 'Cumbrian Yards', to identify it as a Cumbrian circle.

[85] Stukeley Bod. MS Eng. misc. c. 323 f. 37.

[86] Ibid. f. 84.

[87] Ibid. f. 93.

[88] Ibid. f. 79

[89] Stukeley 'Common place book' (1717-1748) Devizes MS ff. 21, 24.

[90] Stukeley Bod. MS Eng. misc. c. 323 ff. 47-9.

[91] Hercules Ayleway to Stukeley, 28 March 1722, quoted in SS 2, pp. 225-7.

[92] Stukeley Bod. MS Eng. misc. c. 323 f. 173.

[93] See Ucko et al (1991), pp. 80-1.

[94] Stukeley (1740) p. 6.

[95] Owen (1962) p. 110.

[96] Martin (1703) p. 365. See also Philosophical Transactions no. 254, p. 231 for Fraser's account of Scottish stones which Stukeley read: he 'acquaints us that the Pagan Temples or high places of Idolatry are still very numerous'. Stukeley Bod. MS Eng. misc. c. 323 ff. 23-59.

[97] Stukeley Bod. MS Eng. misc. c. 323 f. 75.

[98] Ibid.

[99] Cooke (1712) vol. 1 pp. 220, 268-9; Stukeley refers in his MS notes to 'V. Cokes voyages p. 255 Vol. I the works at Tiahanues. Stones 30. foot long 15. broad & his description of the temple of the sun p. 219.' In comparing the edition I have used, Stukeley's p. 219 refers to p. 220, and his p. 255 refers to Cooke's pp. 268-9.

[100] Stukeley Bod. MS Eng. misc. e. 124 f. 85.

[101] Ibid. ff. 92-3.

[102] Stukeley, Bod. MS Eng. misc. e. 125, f. 40.

[103] Stukeley to Borlase, 17 October 1749, quoted in Pool (1966) pp. 11-2.

[104] Borlase (1754) 'To the Reader'.

[105] Anon. (1776) pp. 1-2.

[106] Parry (1995) p. 289.

[107] Hunter (1975) p. 159.

[108] Ibid. p. 160.

[109] 'Stanfordia Illustrata Vol. II', CCCC MS 618, ff. 43-7. The MS is written in classical style as a dialogue between Stukeley ('Palaephatus') and Warburton ('Panagius'): see Bod. MS Eng. misc. e. 121 f. 132.

[110] Ibid. ff. 47-8.

[111] Rowlands (1723) unpaginated preface.

[112] Stukeley (1743) p. 48.

[113] Woodward (1713) p. 217.

© 2022 The Newton Project

Professor Rob Iliffe
Director, AHRC Newton Papers Project

Scott Mandelbrote,
Fellow & Perne librarian, Peterhouse, Cambridge

Faculty of History, George Street, Oxford, OX1 2RL - newtonproject@history.ox.ac.uk

Privacy Statement

  • University of Oxford
  • Arts and Humanities Research Council
  • JISC