My interest in the Long Man of Wilmington began with a search to discover if any of my early family would have anything to say about him. My family lived at Michelham Priory from 1791 – 1861 “The best part of the century” my father used to say. In addition my great great uncle Thomas Lambe lived at Wilmington Priory at the same time, both priories are in close proximity to the long man. Indeed Thomas Lambe was one of the committee responsible for the present giant in 1874. Ms Downs his daughter (and my great aunt) was one of those who questioned the depiction of the giant’s feet at the time. As they were well educated people I had hoped to find further references to the giant but alas found only my great aunt’s comments. The research however did prompt an interest in the giant figure seeming to challenge one from the great hollow in the downs and I have been curious ever since.
Men very eminent and others ordinary such as myself have speculated for the past two centuries as to the origins of the Long Man. In spite of all this interest and debate its origins remain as mysterious as ever. The giant is believed by some to be the largest depiction of a human edifice in the world, it is impressive to say the least. The size of the two horsemen in G and R Lavis photograph does give a good idea of the size of the figure.
The Long Man of Wilmington, from a photograph taken by G. & R. Lavis soon after the outlining with bricks in 1874. The two horsemen do give a good indication as to the size of the Long Man.
It faces north and slightly east on a steep hillside known as windover Hill which forms a part of the Sussex Downs. This hill is partly an escarpment which runs for something like 60 miles along the south downs from Winchester to Eastbourne. The site on which the giant has been carved plunges at a steep angle of 28 degrees and is remarkably smooth compared with the surrounding hillside. The site was obviously chosen for its suitability to encompass a figure if such gigantic size. It is truly huge measuring 240 feet from head to foot.
It is possible in the past that more figures could have been encoutered along the south coast. only two however remain for us to speculate on, the Long Man and the Cerne Abbas phallic giant. Certainly Caesar does speak in the plural with regard to giant figures used in the sacrificial activities by the British. He did land at Pevensey which is in the neighbourhood if the Long Man and so if it existed thin it could be included in his comments. According to folk tradition two giants are recorded as being covered by the turf in Plymouth Hoe. The figures were apparently still discernable as late as 1750 when a Mr Heath wrote an account of Cornwall. He states that they could still be seen then. Also Geoffrey of Mormouth an ancient monkish historian may have been reffering to all these figures when he wrote that “Britain was peopled with giants”.
In Caesar’s description of the giants he states that they were formed of osiers (willows) the legs of which they filled with captives and sacrificed them by setting them on fire. Hitherto it has been assumed that these giant figures had been three dimensional free standing sculptured figures. Strabo a Roman Writer however uses the Latin term which means an enclosed space when writing about this sacrificial method. His comments indicate that the sacrifices took place in two dimensional enclosed spaces without a doubt on the ground. This could have meant that figures such as the Long Man could have had victims staked out within the confines of their legs. The size of the giants legs are evident from the G and R Lavis Photograph the two horsemen demonstrate this. the description of osiers could have been in the form of willow hurdles combined with brushwood placed following the contours of the giant’s legs which were set alight. Being on such a steep slope the flames would have roared up the hill in the same manner as they do in a chimney flue. My hypothesis could be tested by drilling small holes across the section accupied by the legs. This would involve no damage to the existing contours, the cones could be replaced after having been examined for evidence of burning. An additional connection with Caesar and the Long Man is that he states that the giants are asscosiated with the god mercury. Priapus the god of fertility who will be introduced latter in this article was the offspring of the union between mercury and venus.
The Sussex Archaeological Society and the Rev de St Croix were responsible for the present figure. It is a great pity that the restoration was carried out in the Victorian period for they had a strange attitude toward bodily functions and sexual matters. (It is due to the Victorians that we have at least 30 euphemisms for the word lavatory) They were very reluctant to illustrate crude and primitive forms. It is also a pity that at least four vicars were involved in recording over a long period, details of the giant for they obviously would be reluctant to include any sexuality in their records. Indeed it is recorded that the Rev de St Croix was at one time reluctant to view the Cerne Abbas giant because of its sexual nature. Bearing this in mind it is reasonable to believe that both worthy restorers thought it their public duty to clean up and improve on the crude and rustic figure. They set about the task with a firm belief that the figure should conform to the modern rules of artistic anatomy which of course it does. Although I don’t believe the present figure resembles the original figure very accurately I do think it very pleasing to the eye. A Mr Woodward in 1900 obviously was in agreement with my remarks with regard to the accuracy for he wrote the following “This most interesting piece of antiquity has undergone a most deplorable restoration since twenty years ago”. The strength of his expression leaves no doubt that the two figures were drastically different. His comments were within 20 years if the restoration and so he must have been aware by word of mouth an actual personal observation of how the original looked. It seems that within recorded history the original figure was never a white chalk depiction it seems to have been just cut into the turf. It was made visible not by being white but by the snow melting at a different rate to the surrounding snow or by shadows cast when the sun was low. The present contours have none of the primitive look of the Cerne Abbas giant or any of the crude rustic rural quality of the 1850 illustrations. For instance the arms are more or less the right shape, they even have an indication of elbows and the hands elegantly grip the staves. The waist is correct giving the figure hips and the contour of the legs is shaped to show the shape of the thighs and calves. The calves then narrow at the ankles resulting in well formed feet, indeed one of the feet is in three dimensions. All these point conform to the modern convention of artistic anatomy, no ancient figure would have conformed to these rules. I discuss this matter of contours because it seems to me one of the aspects that confuses the search for the giants origins. Some researchers endeavour to equate the modern outlines with perhaps its antique origins.
With regard to the gender of the present figure, there is now indication as to whether it is male or female. The fact that it has always been known as a man does suggest that at some time there may have been some indication as to its gender. Burrell in his sketch did choose to clothe the figure when all others show him as naked. We could interperate this as being due to his prudery in not wanting to indicate the phallus which may just have been desirable. If the gender of the figure had been so uncertain I think it would have been reffered to ‘The great figure’ or ‘The Giant’. The fact that it has always been known as The Long Man does suggest that a phallus was discernable at some time.
John Rowley's drawing of the Long Man, 1710. 164 years before the 1874 restoration
The earlier drawing by Rowley in 1710 did not include the offending parts simply because it was a casual reference. He was employed to measure the Duke of Devonshire’s property not to describe it. The giant was known in the neighbourhood as “The rude figure of the Long Man”. Burrell also refers to his sketch as that of a “Rude figure”. Both of these references could have meant a crude, rustic figure or the word ‘rude’ could have possessed the vulgar connotation. This description no matter how one interperates, it proves that the original figure was certainly different to the present one. Dr Phene an eminent expert at the time was of the opinion that attempts had been made to erase parts of the figure. He states “Attempts have been made to obliterate parts of the figure by filling in the original incisions.” This could have been attempts to obliterate the offending phallus, for what other parts would anyone want to obliterate? It is significant that no attempt had been made to obliterate the whole figure, only parts. Another factor to bear in mind that makes this neighbourhood different to Cerne Abbas is that this region was special to Strict Baptists. It was known by them as ‘Dicker Country’ and so there would have been many zealous Baptists and indeed Anglicans who would have wanted to obliterate any indication of sexuality. This was also the neighbourhood of zealous dissenters who built their own chapel at Alfriston. They were the subject of an infamous battle that took place one Sunday when noses were blooded and clothes were torn. An indication of their zealousness.
Many descriptions of the figure at that time stated that it was becoming overgrown with grass and becoming less distinct. Indeed some said it could only be seen when snow fell on the hill or when the sun was low and then at only a distance. Others stated it was the lower part that was becoming less distinct, perhaps due to the efforts to obliterate the contours specific to these regions.
Others believe (as I do) that both the Long Man and the Cerne Abbas giant are asscosiated with the primitive cult of fertility. I believe that both are depictions of Pirapus the Greek god of fertility. This belief is reinforced by my recent discovery in an old classical dictionary. It states that sometimes Priapus is depicted with a club and a scythe and always with a deformed phallus. The club was to drive away thieves threatening the crop for which Priapus was responsible. The excessive phallus was because Priapus to possesses an oversized club and an oversized phallus.
It is less positive with regard to the Long Man but nevertheless I think it positive enough. The dictionary states that sometimes Priapus is depicted with a stick in one hand and a scythe in the other. The stick was for driving away birds that threaten the crop. The scythe was for pruning thus increasing the fertility of the crop and for gathering in the mature crop.
Sir William Burrell's sketch, 1776. nearly 100 years before the restoration of 1874
Indeed Burrell’s drawing inadequate though it may be does show it in possession of a scythe. It was commonly believed in the neighbourhood that the scythe was discernable on the original figure. The rake which Burrell places in the other hand I think is a figmant of his imagination for there is no mention of it elsewhere in the numerous records. Another connection with Priapus and the two giants is a quotation by a Mr Toms in the Herald magazine of 1924. He quotes from the Chronicle of Lanercost dated 1268 that “Certain beastly heretical monks taught local people to set up images of Priapus. It seems it was in order to save the crops and livestock suffering from disease at the time. It is a fact that there is a priory close by each giant and it was commonly believed and quoted in both neighbourhoods that both figures were thought to be the work of lazy (heretical?) monks. Indeed one of the establishments was governed by a prior who had a wife and illegitimate children and who accosted girls in the street.
1850
1850
The two staves depicted with the restored Long man I believe are debased depictions of the stick and scythe. The illustrations of 1850 do show one stave as being shorter than the other which perhaps qualifies it as being a stick. The part that the classical dictionary does mention the scythe in connection with both giants does lend support to the supposition that the Long man is a depiction of Priapus. It seems to me that if the Long Man Possessed two of the symbols associated with the fertility of crops and Priapus he would have possessed the symbol associated with the fertility of mankind.
1850
Bearing in mind the information disclosed in this article I believe there is a case to regard the Long Man as being a depiction of Priapus. If the test is done as I suggest and ash is found then it might be established that he dates from before the Romans.
As the Long Man may have looked before the Rev. Croix's "improvements" Kenneth Child
article by Kenneth Child
