William Stukeley: Difference between revisions

Stukeley was born on 7 November 1669 at the family home in [[Holbeach]], [[Lincolnshire]],{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=27|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2pp=1, 30}} the eldest child in a family of four boys and one girl;{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=27}} it is possible that he was named after [[William III of England|William of Orange]], who soon after became [[King of England]].{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=31}}

His paternal grandfather, John Stukeley (1623–1675), was a country gentleman who possessed a small estate at [[Uffington, Lincolnshire|Uffington]], Lincolnshire and who accrued a large number of debts by the time of his death. John had two sons; the elder, Adlard, was apprenticed to the legal profession, while the younger, also called John, was initially trained as a farmer before joining Adlard in a family law firm. On 28 May 1686, John married the teenage daughter of Robert Bullen in [[Pinchbeck, Lincolnshire|Pinchbeck]], Lincolnshire; their first child was miscarried, with William being their second.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=27|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=30}}

In 1692, at the age of five, Stukeley began an education at Holbeach's Free School, where he learned to read and write.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=27|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=32}} By the age of thirteen, he was the top-rated pupil at his school.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=28|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=32}} As a schoolchild, he began collecting Roman coins after a hoard was found nearby and also developed interests in botany and medicine.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=32}}

In 1700, he was taken out of school to work in his father's legal business.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=28|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=32}} With his father he travelled south to London on various occasions, where he purchased many books and scientific instruments. He was nevertheless bored by his law activities, and when he requested that he be allowed to study at university, his father agreed.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1pp=28–29|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2pp=32–33}}

He began studying at [[Cambridge University]] in November 1703 as a [[Commoner (academia)|pensioner]] at [[Corpus Christi College, Cambridge|Benet College]] (now [[Corpus Christi College, Cambridge|Corpus Christi College]]).{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=29|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=33}} Among the classes that he took during his studies were Classics, Ethics, Logic, Metaphysics, Divinity, Mathematics and Philosophy.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=29}} In his spare time, he dissected animals and searched for fossils in the gravel pits outside the town; in 1708, he dissected a hanged man.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|pp=39, 43}}

Outside of term time, he travelled to London, there taking anatomy courses with [[George Rolf]] and becoming acquainted with the poet [[John Gay]].{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=40}} In February 1706, his father died, with his uncle passing away three weeks later. He returned home to sort out the family's financial affairs.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=30|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=42}} In 1707, his mother died, leaving him in charge of his younger siblings; to pay off family debts, he sold off their furniture and let out their Holbeach home. He attracted notoriety for dissecting a local who had committed suicide.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|pp=30–31}} In January 1709, he returned to Cambridge to defend his thesis, on the title of "Catamenia pendent a plethora".{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=43}} By this point he was taking a growing interest in architecture, producing careful pen-drawings of medieval buildings.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=31}} He considered embarking on the fashionable [[Grand Tour]] of continental Europe to see the ancient ruins of Greece and Italy, but likely decided against it on financial grounds.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|pp=109–110}}

In August 1709, Stukeley moved to London to further pursue medicine under doctor [[Richard Mead]] at [[St Thomas' Hospital]].{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=32|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2pp=43–44}} In March 1710, he left the city to practise medicine in the countryside, establishing a practice in [[Boston, Lincolnshire|Boston]], Lincolnshire.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=34|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=44}} He took with him a [[Black British people|black]] servant, which would have been a status symbol at the time. Little is known of the time that he spent in the town,{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=39|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=44}} although, in 1713, he was accorded the [[Freedom of the City|Freedom of the Town]].{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=34}}

His brother, Adlard, moved in with him, and, in Boston, was [[Apprenticeships in the United Kingdom|apprenticed]] to a local apothecary. Stukeley also formed a local botanic society that went on weekly plant-collecting trips in the local area.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=45}} In 1715, he produced a print of [[St Botolph's Church, Boston]], which he dedicated to the Marquis of Lindsey.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=34}} Many of his travels around Lincolnshire were written up in what appears to be his first book, ''Iter Domesticum'', although the year of its publication is not known.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=39}}

From 1710 until 1725, Stukeley embarked on a horseback expedition through the countryside at least once a year, taking notes on the things that he observed.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=32|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=46}} In 1710, for example, he first visited the prehistoric ceremonial complex, the [[Rollright Stones]].{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=129}} At the time, his interests were not purely antiquarian, for he also took notes on [[landscape gardens]] and other more recent constructions that he encountered.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=37}}

Stukeley befriended the antiquary [[Maurice Johnson (antiquary)|Maurice Johnson]] and joined Johnson's [[learned society]], the [[Spalding Gentlemen's Society]], which is still based in [[Spalding, Lincolnshire|Spalding]], Lincolnshire.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=34|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=45}} A 1714 letter indicates that Johnson recommended several books on British history to Stukeley, apparently at the latter's request; the suggested titles included [[Julius Caesar]]'s ''[[De Bello Gallico]]'', [[John Milton]]'s ''[[The History of Britain (Milton)|The History of Britain]]'', [[Robert Brady (writer)|Robert Brady]]'s ''An Introduction to the Old English History'', [[Peter Heylin]]'s ''Help to English History'', and [[Richard Rowlands]]' ''A Restitution of Decayed Intelligence in Antiquities concerning the most noble and renowned English Nation''.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=35|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=110}} Another letter to Johnson, this time from May 1714, reveals that Stukeley was assembling a series of chronological tables of all British kings since [[Brutus of Troy]]; following the medieval historian [[Geoffrey of Monmouth]], Stukeley believed that the legendary Brutus was a real historical figure.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=40}}

By May 1717, Stukeley had returned to London, living in [[Great Ormond Street]].{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=41|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2pp=46, 50}} Once in the city he began to circulate within its antiquarian circles.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=42}} At Mead's nomination, in early 1718 he was elected as a [[Fellow of the Royal Society]], then under the presidency of the scientist [[Isaac Newton]].{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=42|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=49}} Stukeley befriended Newton and visited him at his home on several occasions; he was part of a coterie in the society who supported [[Newtonianism|Newtonian philosophy]].{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|pp=49, 50}}

Stukeley lectured to the society on a "fossil crocodile or porpoise" in 1719 (a plesiosaur now on display in the [[Natural History Museum, London|Natural History Museum]], London<ref>{{cite web |last1=Natural History Museum |title=Collection database entry for Plesiosaur R.1330 |url=http://data.nhm.ac.uk/object/35641294-c471-4e37-bcc8-4c125c03713e |access-date=5 February 2019}}</ref>), arguing that [[Flood geology|it was evidence]] for the [[Genesis flood narrative]];{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=82}}<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Stukeley |first1=William |title=An account of the impression of the almost entire sceleton of a large animal in a very hard stone, lately presented the Royal Society, from Nottinghamshire. |journal=Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. |date=1719 |volume=30 |issue=360 |pages=963–968 |doi= 10.1098/rstl.1717.0053|doi-access=free }}</ref> in February 1720, he lectured to the society on female human anatomy, illustrated with drawings of a cadaver he had autopsied.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=59}} Following [[Edmond Halley]]'s resignation as society secretary, in November 1721, Stukeley put himself forward as a potential replacement; he unsuccessfully ran against Newton's favoured candidate, [[James Jurin]]. This upset some of Stukeley's friendships in the group and cooled his relationship with Newton for several years.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|pp=51, 52–53}}

Also in 1718, Stukeley joined the newly founded [[Society of Antiquaries of London]] and became its first secretary.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1pp=42–43|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=47}} In 1721–22 he was partly instrumental in setting up the society's committee on coins. He nevertheless appears to have taken little active part in the society's business.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|pp=42–44}} He retained his interest in medical matters, and in June 1719 took a [[medical doctorate]] in Cambridge, enabling him to join the [[London College of Physicians]] in 1720.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=54}}

In October 1720, he was one of the physicians who conducted an autopsy of a deceased elephant in [[Hans Sloane]]'s [[Chelsea, London|Chelsea]] garden.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=60|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=72}} In March 1722 he gave the [[Goulstonian Lecture]] at the Royal College theatre; his topic was the human spleen. He published his lectures as ''On the Spleen'' in 1722, appending to it his "Essay Towards the Anatomy of the Elephant".{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|pp=66–67, 72}} According to Stukeley biographer [[David Boyd Haycock]], ''On the Spleen'' was significant as "his first major publication, and his only one in anatomy".{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=67}}

Stukeley developed a friendship with two brothers who shared many of his antiquarian interests, [[Roger Gale (antiquary)|Roger]] and [[Samuel Gale]].{{sfn|Piggott|1985|pp=41–42}} From his father, the former [[Dean of York]] [[Thomas Gale]], Roger had inherited a copy of the ''Monumenta Britannica'', a work produced by seventeenth-century antiquarian [[John Aubrey]]. He showed it to Stukeley, who produced a transcription of Aubrey's document in either 1717 or 1718.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=45|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2pp=129–130|3a1=Hutton|3y=2005|3p=384}} Piggott suggested that it was Aubrey's manuscript that first brought Avebury to Stukeley's attention. Circa 1718, Stukeley first visited the site, accompanied by the Gale brothers.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|pp=45, 46}} In 1719, he visited again, also taking in Stonehenge before traveling to [[Oxford]] to meet [[Thomas Hearne (antiquarian)|Thomas Hearne]], an antiquarian who was highly critical of Stukeley.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=51}} That summer, he spent time in [[Great Chesterford]] in [[Essex]], where he identified a Romano-British temple from crop marks in a field.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=52}}

Stukeley devoted much attention to Avebury during the 1720s.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=49}} The records he produced of how the monument and its various features looked at the time has been important for later archaeologists for by the early twentieth century—when the earliest sustained archaeological investigation of the site took place—many of these features had been lost.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=49|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=250}} He witnessed locals breaking up megaliths in the circle and although powerless to stop them it may have been this observation that led him to produce a detailed record of the site.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=50}}

In January 1721, Stukeley was initiated as a [[Freemasonry|Freemason]].{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=70|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=175}} He suspected that Freemasonry was the "remains of the mysterys of the antients [sic]".{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=71}} By 1723 he was the Master of the Masonic Lodge meeting at Fountain Tavern on London's [[Strand, London|Strand]].{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=70|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=175}} In July 1722, he and several friends formed the Society of Roman Knights, an organisation devoted to the study of [[Roman Britain]].{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=53|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=117|3a1=Hutton|3y=2005|3p=385}} The group began with sixteen members before attracting new recruits over the following two years. In admitting women as well as men, the Society was unprecedented within British society at the time; the Society of Antiquaries for instance would not admit female members for another two centuries.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1pp=53, 55|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=117}} Members of the Roman Knights each took a name from the Romano-British period;{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=53|2a1=Hutton|2y=2005|2p=385}} Stukeley's was "Chyndonax", the name of a priest listed in a Greek inscription reputedly found in a glass cinerary urn in 1598.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=53|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=117|3a1=Hutton|3y=2005|3p=385}} Through the society he also became close friends with [[Francis Seymour-Conway, 1st Marquess of Hertford]] and [[Heneage Finch, 5th Earl of Winchilsea]]; he encouraged the latter to carry out archaeological fieldwork, as at [[Julliberrie's Grave]] in Kent.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|pp=56–57}}

It was while at Avebury in 1723 that he began a draft of the ''History of the Temples of the Ancient Celts''.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=51}} This work drew upon his fieldwork at both Avebury and Stonehenge as well as his field-notes from other prehistoric sites and information obtained from the 'Templa Druidum' section of Aubrey's ''Monumenta Britannica''. The work also cited Biblical and Classical texts.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=88}} In the book, Stukeley discussed how prehistoric people might have erected such monuments using sledges, timber cradles, rollers and leavers.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|pp=88–89}} He devoted much space to refuting the suggestion, made by [[Inigo Jones]] and J. Webb, that Stonehenge had been erected by the Romans, instead attributing it to the prehistoric—or as he called it, "Celtic"—period.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=88|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2pp=124, 128}} The druids are mentioned only briefly in the book, when Stukeley suggested that they might be possible creators of the stone circles.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=88}}

In 1726, Stukeley left London and relocated to Grantham in Lincolnshire.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=75|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=189}} The reasons for his decision to do so are obscure.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=75}} It may be that he left the city due to frustration that his antiquarian research was not being financially supported by wealthier benefactors.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1pp=107–108|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=190}} On his move to Grantham, Stukeley resigned as secretary of the Society of Antiquaries.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=44}} Stukeley struggled to earn a living as a physician in Grantham;{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=191}} he also established a Freemasonic lodge in the town, although it never appeared on the roll of the [[United Grand Lodge of England|Grand Lodge of England]].{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|pp=175–176}} In December 1727 he married Frances Williamson, daughter of a gentleman from [[Allington, Lincolnshire|Allington]].{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=76|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=191}} The couple's attempts to conceive children met with failure, and Williamson suffered two miscarriages.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=76}} In October 1728, Stukeley buried the second of the two unborn infants in his garden, performing a funeral ceremony that drew upon his interest in ancient Roman practices.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=77}} Frances subsequently bore Stukeley three further daughters.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=191}}

According to Piggott, Stukeley's ordination was "the essential turning-point in his whole life".{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=77}} His reasons for joining the clergy are not known for certain. One possibility is that he sought the steady income supplied by a Church of England [[Benefice|living]], having for a while complained about how little he earned as a doctor. Alternately, he may have believed that becoming a cleric would be a secure position from which he could pursue the unorthodox ideas he was developing.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=77|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=191}} His decision to join the clergy concerned friends like Robert Gale.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=98|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2pp=191–192}} To Piggott, Stukeley sought to use his fieldwork "as ammunition in a holy war against the Deists".{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=104}} Stukeley would write that his purpose in becoming a cleric was "to combat the deists from an unexpected quarter", describing his "resentment of that deluge of profaneness and infidelity that prevails so much at present, and threatens an utter subversion of religion in general".{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=98}}

In the winter of 1737, Stukeley's wife died at the age of forty. By February 1737/38, he suggested to Samuel Gale that they live together, although this plan never came to fruition.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=114}} In 1739, Stukeley married the Gale brothers' sister, bringing her to live with him at Stamford. Her marriage portion of £10,000 allowed Stukeley to maintain two houses from 1740 onward; summers were spent at Stamford while winters were spent in his home in Gloucester Street, London.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=114|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=224}} Also in 1739, he went into business producing medicinal oils with the daughter of John Rogers, a recently deceased apothecary whose wares Stukeley had previously championed.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=72}}

In late 1747, Stukeley became the rector for [[St George the Martyr, Holborn|St George the Martyr]], [[Queen Square, London|Queen Square]], a parish in [[Bloomsbury]], London.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1pp=124–125|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=224}}<ref name=ODNB>{{harvnb|Haycock|2004}}.</ref> He moved permanently to the city in February 1748.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=129}} Stukeley was a friend of [[Isaac Newton]] and wrote a memoir of his life in 1752. This is one of the earliest sources for the [[Isaac Newton#Apple incident|story of the falling apple]] that inspired Newton's formulation of the theory of gravitation.<ref>{{cite magazine | magazine=New Scientist | url=https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/01/newtons-apple-the-real-story.php | archive-url=https://archive.today/20100121073908/http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/01/newtons-apple-the-real-story.php | url-status=dead | archive-date=21 January 2010 | title=Newton's apple: The real story | date=18 January 2010 | access-date=30 November 2012 }}</ref> In the 1750s, he became a regular attendee at Royal Society events.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=224}} However, within the group he found himself increasingly side-lined under the presidency of [[Martin Folkes]]; although the pair retained a cordial relationship, Stukeley felt that Folkes was responsible for a decline in the quality of the society and was likely upset by Folkes' mocking attitude towards Christianity.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|pp=226–227}}

Following Sloane's death in 1753, Stukeley was selected as a trustee to help establish the [[British Museum]], reflecting his standing in London antiquarian circles. He was also involved in the running of the [[Foundling Hospital]], where he became acquainted with the illustrator [[William Hogarth]].{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=235}}

In 1753, a Late Bronze Age tool hoard was uncovered during landscaping at [[Kew Gardens]]; Stukeley was invited to come and inspect the discovery the following year, at which point he met with the [[Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha]], who had an interest in antiquarian matters.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|pp=142–143}} In 1754, he was re-admitted to the Society of Antiquaries.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|pp=138–139}} That same year, one of Stukeley's parishioners died, leaving his book collection to the [[Bodleian Library]] and [[Lincoln College, Oxford]]. Stukeley was left as one of his executors, and, in May 1755, transported the book collection to Oxford.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=144}} Following the [[1755 Lisbon earthquake]], Stukeley developed an active interest in the subject, presenting papers on earthquakes to the Royal Society and, in 1750, publishing ''Philosophy of Earthquakes, Natural and Religious''.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=142|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=225}}

In June 1747, Stukeley had received a letter from [[Charles Bertram]], an Englishman living in Denmark. In their ensuing correspondence, Bertram claimed to possess a copy of a [[The Description of Britain|manuscript allegedly produced by a 14th-century monk]] from [[Winchester]] known as [[Richard of Cirencester]], which in turn contained an account and map of Roman Britain.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1pp=126–127|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=231}} Stukeley expressed caution regarding Bertram's claims, asking for detailed information regarding the original manuscript's provenance, with Bertram responding that he could not provide any because he had been sworn to secrecy by the man who supplied him with it.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1pp=129–130|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=232}} Stukeley unsuccessfully attempted to buy the manuscript from Bertram, stating that he would deposit it in the library of the [[British Museum]].{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=130|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=232}} In March and again in April 1756, Stukeley read papers on Bertram's manuscript to the Society of Antiquaries of London.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|pp=126, 133}} He published these in 1757 as ''An Account of Richard of Cirencester, Monk of Westminster, and of his Works'', which reproduced the map but not the text of the original manuscript, instead consisting of Stukeley's own commentary.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=133|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=232}} At the time, many antiquarians regarded it as a genuine text, although a few had suspicions;{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=233}} in 1795, [[Thomas Reynolds (minister)|Thomas Reynolds]] declared that Bertram's document was a forgery, although this would only be widely recognised in the 19th century.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=135}} This discovery damaged Stukeley's reputation among later scholars, bolstering his reputation for credulity.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=233}} Stukeley had similarly been taken in by another forgery, [[James Macpherson]]'s ''[[Ossian]]'' poems, writing to Macpherson in praise of his alleged discovery.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=234}}

In early 1765, Stukeley suffered a stroke, fell into a [[coma]] and remained in this state for three days before dying in his bed on 3 March, aged 77.{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=151|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=235}}<ref name=ODNB/> He was buried without a monument in the churchyard of [[St Mary Magdalene's Church, East Ham]], which he is said to have selected as his resting-place on a visit there during his lifetime.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol6/pp25-31|title = East Ham: Churches|website=british-history.ac.uk|accessdate=3 August 2023}}</ref>

Stukeley believed that the druids were part of "an oriental colony" of [[Phoenicians]] who had settled in Britain between the end of Noah's flood and the time of [[Abraham]].{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=99}} He stated that the druids were "of Abraham's religion intirely [sic]" and that, although never having encountered divine revelation, had concluded through their own reasoning that God existed as a Trinity.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=99}} He also stated that their religion was "so extremely like Christianity, that in effect in differ'd from it only in this; they believed in a Messiah who was to come into this world, as we believe in him that is come."{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=100|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=167}}

The idea that Britain was God's chosen nation was a recurrent idea in Stukeley's thought.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|pp=120–121}} He thought that Britons should emulate the ancient Romans.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=120}} Stukeley believed that God had created the Roman Empire to prepare for the arrival of Jesus and to assist in the spread of Christianity throughout Europe.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=119}} In this, he believed that the ancient Romans had replaced the Jews as God's [[chosen people]].{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=120}} In his view, the Roman Empire collapsed because its inhabitants had corrupted Christianity with what he called "superstitious fopperys" and that this perverted mixture survived as the [[Roman Catholic Church]].{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=120}} Like many English people of his time, he believed that the [[Church of England]], which had split from the Roman Catholic Church during the 16th-century [[English Reformation]], had gained special favour from God; in Stukeley's words, it represented "the main support of religion now upon the face of the earth".{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=115}} Haycock noted that "a leading theme in Stukeley's antiquarian work" was "the resurrection of British history as an archetype for world history, and of Britain as a country historically fit to lead the world into the future".{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|pp=112–113}} He criticised Britons who favoured archaeological remains encountered abroad during the Grand Tour, claiming that they were neglecting their own national heritage and adopting continental habits and vices such as effeminacy.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=111}}

Stukeley placed an emphasis on measuring and recording historical sites and encouraged his various correspondents to do the same.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=132}} He engaged in excavation by digging in and around archaeological sites, relating that doing so was "like an anatomical dissection".{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=133}} He recognised the principle of [[stratigraphy]], that different layers of soil reflected different periods in the development of a site.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=133}}

From the 1720s, he believed that the prehistoric complex at Avebury was laid out to represent a snake with its head and tail.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=208}} By 1724, he was arguing that the snake was a symbol of Christ, with its shedding of skin echoing the resurrection and the circle or head representing the unity and wholeness of God.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=211}} Using Halley's arguments about the gradual shift in the compass over time, Stukeley calculated that Stonehenge was built in 460 BC and Avebury in 1860 BC.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=125}}

Piggott described Stukeley as "a gregarious creature" who enjoyed conversation and being flattered.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=41}} Haycock referred to Stukeley's "amiable personality",{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=47}} while Piggott also highlighted "an immensely likeable quality" to Stukeley's personality, as evidence highlighting that when the reverend was laid up in bed in Queens Square on one occasion, over 120 friends and parishioners either visited him or sent him a message of sympathy.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=152}} He also regarded the antiquary as displaying a "charm and pleasant oddness" as well as a "cheerfulness and disarming ingenuousness".{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=41}} Piggott also noted that in later life, Stukeley became "self-opinionated" and "dogmatic".{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=41}}

According to Hutton, Stukeley had "a profound and lifelong love of structure, form and design" that was reflected in his interest in the medieval profession as well as antiquities.{{sfn|Hutton|2005|p=384}} He had an enthusiasm for gardening,{{sfnm|1a1=Piggott|1y=1985|1p=75|2a1=Haycock|2y=20012002|2p=105}} and was fond of both city and countryside, enjoying the ability of traveling between the two.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=47}} Fond of pets, he reported feeling great grief following the death of his cat, Tit, in the 1740s.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=124}} While living in Boston, he aligned himself with the [[Tories (British political party)|Tories]].{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=16}} He suffered from [[gout]], having his first attack of the disease in 1709.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=71}}

Haycock noted that Stukeley's books ''Stonehenge'' and ''Abury'' were well received, and that scholars "should not lose sight of his achievements behind the screen of his failings."{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=235}} He noted that Stukeley was "not a lone figure hypothesising wildly in his study" but "participating in a philosophical debate" that attracted the attention of various Enlightenment figures, including Newton,{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=213}} adding that Stukeley had established himself in "a firm position in London's intellectual society".{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=189}} By the early 1720s, Stukeley had a growing reputation as the country's main authority on druids and ancient monuments, having no obvious competitor given the comparative novelty of studying stone circles.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=52}} However, by the 1750s, some of Stukeley's contemporaries were criticising the accuracy of some of his plans,{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=72}} and some were also accusing his interpretations of being speculative.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|pp=222–223}}

Haycock observed that Stukeley's "influence upon antiquarian studies for the century or so after his death" was "profound".{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=236}} For instance, in his 1796 book ''Indian Antiquities'', [[Thomas Maurice]] drew upon Stukeley's publications as part of his argument that the druids were a group of Indian [[brahmins]] who had travelled west.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|pp=243–244}} According to Haycock, he "most famous propagator of Stukelian ideas in the early nineteenth century" was the artist and poet [[William Blake]], who had read both ''Abury'' and ''Stonehenge'' and been influenced by them.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=248}} In the nineteenth century, many of Stukeley's interpretations were being adopted and expanded by several antiquarian clergymen, including [[William Lisle Bowles]], D. James and [[John Bathurst Deane]].{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=251}} The Wiltshire archaeologist [[Richard Colt Hoare]] gave Stukeley's work some additional respectability when praising his use of fieldwork; Hoare concurred with Stukeley that sites like Stonehenge and Avebury were likely "Celtic" but did not endorse the idea that they were built by druids, believing that such information was unknowable.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|pp=249–250}}

By the third quarter of the nineteenth century, the tide had turned against Stukeley's ideas in British archaeological circles.{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=258}} In 1889, [[Augustus Pitt Rivers]] noted, in his presidential address to the [[Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society]], that Stukeley's name "has been handed down to us chiefly as an example of what to avoid in archaeology".{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=258}}

The first edition of Piggott's biography of Stukeley was published in 1950, with a revised edition released in 1985.{{sfnm|1a1=Haycock|1y=20012002|1p=6|2a1=Hutton|2y=2005|2p=382}}

|source=— David Boyd Haycock, 20012002{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|p=261}}

Piggott noted that Stukeley's speculations on druids, "which seem to us so childishly fantastic", shaped the literary mood of the romantic revival.{{sfn|Piggott|1985|p=12}} Haycock noted that, along with Macpherson and [[Thomas Gray]], Stukeley "helped create the principal historical and literary foundations for the 'Druidical revival' that flourished in the last decades of the eighteenth century".{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|pp=234–235}}

A bibliography of Stukeley's published work was published in the 20012002 biography by Haycock:{{sfn|Haycock|20012002|pp=264–265}}

* {{cite book |last=Haycock |first=D. B. |year=20012002 |title=William Stukeley: Science, Religion and Archaeology in Eighteenth-century England |location=Woodbridge |publisher=Boydell }}

*{{cite book |last=Haycock|first=David Boyd |author-link=David Boyd Haycock |title=William Stukeley: Science, Religion and Archaeology in Eighteenth-century England |year=20012002 |publisher=Boydell Press |place=Woodbridge |url=http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/OTHE00017 |isbn=978-0-85115-864-8 |ref=none}}