death. Before his death, which was by decapitation, he was whipped, and had his flesh torn ferreis pectinibus, with iron combs. It is difficult to say from this account of the Saint, which yet is the best I can procure of him, how Blase, comes to be esteemed the patron of the wool-combers. And when he died, his prayer to our Lord was, as the Golden Legend has it in the English Version, "That whosomever desired hys helpe fro thyinfyrmyte of the throtet, or requyred ayde for any other sekenes or infyrmyte, that he wold here hym, and myght deserve to be guarisshyd and heled‡. And ther cam a voys fro Hevene to hym sayeng that hys peticion was graunted and shold be doon as he had prayd§." In which prayer, there is not a word, you observe, that concerns the wool-combers. The art, no doubt, had been invented long before the time of Bishop Blase; it is proba bly one of those very ancient ones, of which, on account of their great antiquity, the invention is at this day entirely unknown. And as to our bishop, I am of opinion, he was esteemed the patron of the wool-combers, merely because he was tortured with an instrument of the kind, with an iron comb. I can find no other reason for it; others may, perhaps, be more fortunate. 1773, August. Yours, T. Row MR. URBAN, LXXVI. Wild Cats in Britain, THE dog is thought to be an indigenous animal of this island, as we find mention made of British dogs in the most early accounts we have of the country; but it is not so with the cat, as appears from the laws of Hoel Dha, who died A. D. 948, where a considerable value is put upon them, and the property of them is secured by penalties.¶ * Annot. ad Bedæ Martyrologium. ↑ He had cured a boy that had got a fish-bone in his throat, Golden Legend; and was particularly invoked by the Papists in the squinancy or quinsy. Fabric. Bibliogr. Antiq. p. 267. So he was one of the 14 Saints for diseases in general, Fabric, Bibliogr. Antiq. p. 266. § Golden Legend, fol. 135. Mr. Pegge's Essay on Coins of Cunobelin, page 97. Mr. Pennant's British Zoology, I. p. 46. As the cat is a beast of prey, and particularly fond of birds, the creature is apt to stroll into the fields, and, if it meets with success there, will often become wild, without returning home. Hence came a breed of wild-cats here, which formerly were an object of sport to huntsmen. Thus, Gerard Camvile, 6 John, had special licence to hunt the hare, fox, and wild-cat, throughout all the king's forests ;* and 23 Henry III. William, Earl Warren, by giving Simon de Pierpont a goshawk, obtained leave to hunt the buck, doe, hart, hind, hare, fox, goat, cat, or any other wild beast, in certain lands of Simon'st. But it was not for diversion or sport alone, that this animal was pursued in chace; for the skin was of value, being much used by the nuns in their habits, as a fur. Hence in Archbishop William Corboyl's Canons, anno 1127, art. 10. it is ordained, "that no abbess or nun use more costly apparel than such as is made of lambs or cats skins." But their furs, I am told, are more valuable in North America. The wild-cat is now almost lost in England, but is described by Mr. Pennant, I. p. 47. And as no other part of the creature but the skin was ever of any use here, it grew into a proverb, that you can have nothing of a cat but her skin. 1774, April. T. Row. LXXVII. Observations on Stone-henge. THE inserting in your useful Miscellany the following remarks on Stone-henge will be esteemed a favour by your constant reader, J. J. STONE-HENGE is justly considered as one of the most surprising monuments of antiquity in England; and the great difficulty of bringing together and erecting the prodigious stones of which it is composed, has rendered it an object of much speculation to the curious. The late Dr. Stukely has obliged the world with the best and most accurate account Sir W. Dugdale's Baron. I. p. 627. Ibidem, II. p. 457. See also 1. p. 701. Blount's Tenures, p. 60, 104. Gunton's Hist. of Peterb. p. 151, 160, Mr, Pennant, I. p. 48. Mr. Johnson's Collection of Laws, Canous, &c. A, 1127. of it, I believe, that has ever appeared; and his conjectures carry with them as much weight and conviction as we can expect, considering the very remote antiquity of the fabric, and the rudeness of the times when it was erected. The Doctor is of opinion, that the stones were brought from those called the Grey-Weathers, on Marlborough Downs; that it was built by the Druids, before the arrival of the Romans in Britain; and that it was once perfect and complete, many of the stones having been since broken to pieces, and carried away for other uses. But some people, thinking the stones much too large for land-carriage, have endeavoured to account for their present appearance, by supposing them to be made on the spot, of a kind of cement. This opinion is adopted by Benjamin Martin, in his Natural History of England, Vol. I. p. 101, and seqq. who likewise dissents from the Doctor in some other particulars. His words are as follow: "As to the original of Stone-henge, it does not appear, from all that he has said, that it was certainly a finished temple at first, or ever built by the Druids; and we think he has not so much as made it probable that the stones which compose it are natural or not factitious." But, as Dr. Stukely's conjectures appear to me well founded, I beg leave to subjoin a few remarks in defence of them, against B. Martin's objections, which I shall consider separately. And, First, I shall endeavour to prove, that the temple was once in a perfect state, which opinion B. Martin attempts to refute. He says, that " he cannot see any reason to suppose that this temple was ever complete or finished, because it is confessed, that a great number of stones, and many of the largest size, are now wanting, and no where to be found, which must be supposed to have been there used when the temple was completed. The prodigious labour, time, and expence, employed in demolishing such a structure, to answer no end at the same time, make it more than probable that it was never once completed; but, what is still a greater proof of this, is, that those stones which are now wanting, must still have been in being, and would have been seen or found at no great distance from the place."-Indeed, if no end was answered by demolishing this noble work, it is highly probable we should have seen it in a much more perfect state than we do at present; but I think his argument will prove of little weight, when we consider, that they might be broken to pieces, and used for building, which is no more to be wondered at than that men should dig stones out of quarries for the same purpose. This very well accounts for their being no where to be found; and, considering that Stone-henge has stood for many hundred years liable to such treatment, the labour, time, and expence employed therein, cannot be thought so much as to overthrow my supposition. Another circumstance that pleads strongly in favour of Dr. Stukely is, that Stone-henge appears to have been long used for a temple; the many tumuli placed round it, and the remains of sacrifices said to be found there, are strong proofs of this; and it is the greatest absurdity to believe that such veneration and regard would have been ever paid to an unfinished pile. In the next place, B. Martin thinks it does not appear that the Druids were the founders of this temple. It is true, we can in this particular go no farther than mere conjecture, not having any certain account of its building left us; but the Druids have, in my opinion, a much better claim to the honour of the work, than any other people that are thought to have any pretensions to it. That it is of equal antiquity with most other edifices of the same kind in this island cannot be doubted, and, as some of them are crossed and mangled by the Roman ways, it is evident they were erected before the arrival of the Romans, at which time the Druids presided over the worship and religious ceremonies of the Britons; and, as Stone-henge is allowed to have been a temple, they may with great reason be thought the founders of it. I think it is plain, from what has been just said, that the Romans can have no claim to it, notwithstanding this was the opinion of the celebrated Inigo Jones; but though he had undoubtedly great merit as an architect, yet I cannot allow that his abilities as an antiquary were equal; at least, his conjectures on Stone-henge are far from being probable, as it is incredible, that a people so famous as the Romans for the beauty and elegance of their buildings, both at home and abroad, should ever construct a work so very rude and void of all ornaments as Stone-henge has always been. I come now to consider what is offered by B. Martin in support of his notion, that the stones of Stonehenge are factitious. This was, doubtless, invented as the only resource of those who think it impossible for such ponderous bodies to be moved from one place to another by human art. The folly of such an opinion will appear, when we reflect, that, in an old wall surrounding the famous temple * Beauties of Nature and Art, Vol. II, p. 151. at Balbec, there are stones of much larger dimensions than any of those at Stone-henge; for we are told, that one of them is sixty-three feet in length, and two others sixty a piece, each of them being twelve feet deep, and of the same breadth, and these prodigious stones are also raised up into the wall many feet from the ground* : and that they are natural, cannot be doubted; their being three separate pieces is a sufficient proof of this, as they lie contiguous to each other.-I could bring other examples from authentic history, both ancient and modern, to prove what amazing weights may be managed by human art, the methods of doing which were not unknown to the Druids, if we allow Stone-henge to be their work; since I think enough has been alleged to convince any body that the stones of Stone-henge may be natural. Besides, if they were factitious, how could the imposts be made of a different piece from the uprights? would not all the pieces have been united into one block of stone? It may be said, that the imposts were formed into their shape on the ground, and then lifted up into their places; but those who plead for the stones being artificial, are such as think it impossible to lift such heavy bodies to the height of 18 or 20 feet. Admitting, then, that these stones are natural, it is very probable that they were brought from Marlborough-downs; for though it is objected that there are now none among the Grey-Weathers equal to the smaller ones of Stone-henge, yet this by no means proves that there were not some much larger before the building of that temple, but instead thereof, it makes the contrary opinion very plausible, and that the materials of Stone-henge actually came from thence; which I doubt not will appear very practicable, as they might employ a vast number of hands in a work of so public a nature, and perhaps were months, if not years, in performing the task of bringing each of them so far. I hope the above is sufficient to vindicate the sentiments of the learned antiquary before-mentioned: I shall therefore conclude by adding, that his many opportunities of examining Stone-henge, and his great abilities in searching into antiquity, render his authority very respectable; and as his conjectures on the present subject are plausible, so it is likely we shall never see any hypothesis better grounded than that he has favoured us with. 1774, May. *Beauties of Nature and Art, Vol. X. p. 112, |