« السابقةمتابعة »
attached, perhaps, to two neighbouring sites afterwards incorporated into one. The sacred narrative, by implication, and Josephus, explicitly, recognise from the first a distinction between the Upper and the Lower city, the memorial of which is supposed to be retained in the dual form of the Hebrew name DvB'IIT. The learned are divided in opinion as to whether the Salem of Melchizedek is identical with Jerusalem. St. Jerome, who cites Josephus and a host of Christian authorities in favour of their identity, himself maintaining the opposite conclusion, says that extensive ruins of the palace of Melchizedek were shown in his day in the neighbourhood of Scvthopolis, and makes the Salem of that patriarch identical with "Shalem, a city of Shcchem" (Gen. xxxiii. 18); the same, no doubt, with the Salim near to Acnon (St. John, iii. 23), where a village of the same name still exists in the mountains cast of Auhlus. Certain, however, it is that Jerusalem is intended by this name in Psalm lxxvi. 2, and the almost universal agreement of Jews and Christians in its identity with the city of Melchizedek is still further confirmed by the religious character which seems to have attached to its governor at the time of the coming in of the children of Israel, when we find it under the rule of Adonize'dek, the exact equivalent to Melchizedek (" righteous Lord"). Regarding, then, the Utter half of the name as representing the ancient Salem, we have to inquire into the origin of the former half, concerning which there is considerable diversity of opinion. Josephus has been understood to derive it from the Greek word iff Pop, prefixed to Salem. In the obscure passage (Ant. vii. 3. § 2) he is so understood by St. Jerome; but Isaac Vossius defends him from this imputation, which certainly would not raise his character as an etymologist. Lightfuot, after the Kabbies, and followed by Whiston, regards the former half of the name as an abbreviation of the latter part of the title Jehovah-jjreA, which this place seems to have received on occasion of Abraham offering up his son on one of the mountains of" the land of Moriah." (Gen. xxii. 8, 14.) Reland, followed by Raumer, adopts the root SJH^ garash, and supposes the name to be compounded of E*?H and which would give a very good
sense, " hereditas," or " posscssio hereditaria pacis.'' Lastly, Dr. Wells, followed by Dr. Lee, regards the former part of the compound name as a modification of the name Jebus, one of the earlier names
of the city, from which its Canaanitish inhabitants were designated Jebusites. Dr. Wells imagines that the 3 was changed into 1, for the sake of euphony; Dr. Lec, for euphemy, as Jebnsalcm would mean "the trampling down of peace" — a name of ill omen. Of these various interpretations, it may bo said that Lightfuot's appears to have the highest authority; but that Reland's is otherwise the most satisfactory. Its other Scripture name, Sion, is merely an extension of the name of one particular quarter of the city to the whole. There is a further question among critics as to whether by the city Cadytis, mentioned in Herodotus, Jerusalem is intended. It is twiee alluded to by the historian: once as a city of the Syrians of Palaestine, not much smaller than Sardis (iii. 5); again, as having been taken by Pharaoh- Necho, king of Egypt, after his victory in Magdolum (ii. 159). The main objections urged against the identity of Cadytis and Jerusalem in these passages, are, that in the former passage vol. n.
Herodotus is apparently confining his survey to the sea-border of Palaestine, and that the fact narrated in the second is not alluded to in the sacred narrative. But, on the other hand, there is no mention in sacred or profane history of any other city, maritime or inland, that could at all answer to the description of Cadytis in respect to its size: and the capture of Jerusalem by Necho after the battle of Megiddo, — which is evidently corrupted by Herodotus into Magdolum, the name of a city on the frontier of Egypt towards Palaestine, with which he was more familiar,— though not expressly mentioned, is implied in Holy Scripture; for the deposition and deportation of Jehouhaz, and the substitution and subjugation of Jehoiakim, could not have been effected, unless Necho had held possession of the capital. (2 Kings, xxiv. 29—35; comp. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 3.) It may, then, safely be concluded that Cadytis is Jerusalem; and it is remarkable that this earliest form of its classical name is nearly equivalent to the modem name by which alone it is now known to its native inhabitants. El-Khuds signifies "the Holy (city)," and this title appears to have been attached to it as early as the period of Isaiah (xlviii. 2, Iii. 1), and is of frequent recurrence after the Captivity. (Nehem. xi. 1, 18; St. Matth. iv. 5, XXvii. 53.) Its pagan name Colonia Aelia Capitolina, like those imposed on many other ancient cities in Palaestine, never took any hold on the native population of the count ry, nor, indeed, on the classical historians or ecclesiastical writers. It probably existed only in state papers, and on coins, many of which are preserved to this day. (Sec the end of the article.)
II. General Sitb.
Jerusalem was situated in the heart of the mountain district which commences at the south of tiie great plain of Esdraclon and is continued throughout the whole of Samaria and Judaea quite to the southern extremity of the Promised Land. It is almost equidistant from the Mediterranean and from the.river Jordan, being about thirty miles from each, and situated at an elevation of 20IK) feet above -the level of the Mediterranean. Its site is well defined by its circumjacent valleys.
Valleys. — (1) In the north-west quarter of the city is a shallow depression, occupied by an ancient pool. This is the head of the Valley of Hinnom, which from this point takes a southern course, confining the city on the western side, until it makes a sharp angle to the east, and forms the southern boundary of the city to its south-east quarter, where it is met by another considerable valley from the north, which must next be described.
(2) At the distance of somewhat less than 1500 yards from the "upper pool" at the head of the Valley of Hinnom, are the u Tombs of the Kings," situated at the head of the Valley of Jehoshaphai, which runs at first in an eastern course at some distance north of the modern city, until, turning sharply to the south, it skirts the eastern side of the town, and meets the Valley of Hinnom at the southeast angle, as already described, from whence they run off together in a southerly direction to the Dead Sea. Through this valley the brook Kedron is supposed once to have ran; and, although no water has been known to How through the valley within the annals of history, it is unquestionably entitled to the alias of the Valley of the Kedron.
The space between the basin at the head of the Valley of Hinnom and the head of the Valley of
Jchosltaphat is occupied by a high rocky ridge or swell of land, which attains its highest elevation a little without the north-west angle of the present town. The city, then, occupied the termination of this broad swell of land, being isolated, except on the north, by the two great valleys already described, towards which the ground declined rapidly from all parts of the city. This rocky promontory is, however, broken by one or two subordinate valleys, and the declivity is not uniform.
(3) There is, for example, another valley, very inferior in magnitude to those which encircle the city, but of great importance in a topographical view, as being the main geographical feature mentioned by Josephns in his description of the city. This valley of the Tyropoeon (cheese-makers) meets the Valley of Uinnom at the Pool of Siloam, very near its junction with the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and can Jbe distinctly traced through the city, along the west bide of the Templo enclosure, to the Damascus gate, where it opens into a small plain. The level of this valley, running as it does through the midst of a city that has undergone such constant vicissitudes and such repeated destruction, has of course been greatly raised by the desolations of so many generations, but is Bo marked a feature in modern as in former times, that it is singular it was not at once recognised in the attempt to re-distribute the ancient Jerusalem from the descriptions of Josephus. It would be out of place to enter into the arguments for this and other identifications in the topography of ancient Jerusalem; the conclusions only can be stated, and the various hypotheses must be sought in the works referred to at the end of the article.
Hills. — Ancient Jerusalem, according to Josephus, occupied " two eminences, which fronted each other, and were divided by an intervening ravine, at the brink of which the closely-built houses terminated." This ravine is the Tyropoeon, already referred to, and this division of the city, which the historian observes from the earliest period, is of the utmost importance in the topography of Jerusalem. The two hills and the intermediate valley are more minutely described as follows: —
(1) The Upper City.—" Of these eminences, that which had upon it the Upper City was by much the loftier, and in its length the straiter. This eminence, then, for its strength, used to be called the stronghold by king David,.... but by us it was called the Upper Agora.
(2) The Lower City.—"The other eminence, which was called Acra, and which supported the Lower City, was in shape gibbous (apipiKvpTos).
(3) The Temple Mount.—" Opposite to this latter was a third eminence, which was naturally lower than Acra, and was once separated from it by another broad ravine: but afterwards, in the times when the Asmonaeans reigned, they filled up the ravine, wishing to join the city to the Temple; and having levelled the summit of Acra, they made it lower, so that in this quarter also the Temple might be seen rising above other objects.
But the ravine called the Tyropoeon (cheesemakers), which we mentioned as dividing the eminences of the Upper City and the Lower, reaches to Siloam; for so we call the spring, both sweet and abundant. But on their outer sides the two eminences of the city were hemmed in within deep ravines, and, by reason of the precipices on either side, there was no approach to them from any quarter.'* (B. Jud. v. 4, 5.)
This, then, was the disposition of the ancient city, on which a few remarks must be made before we proceed to the new city. The two-fold division, which, as has been said, is recognised by Josephus from the first, is implied also in the sacred narrative, not only in the account of its capture by the Israelites, and subsequently by David, but in all such passages as mention the city of David or Mount Sion as distinct from Salem and Jerusalem. (Camp. Josh. xv. 63; Judges, i. 8, 21 ; 2 Sam. v. 6—9 ; Psalms, lxxvi. 2, &c.) The account given by Josephus of the taking of the city is this: that "the Israelites, having besieged it, after a time took the Lower City, but the Upper City was hard to be taken by reason of the strength of its walls, and the nature of its position" (Ant v. 2. § 2); and, subsequently, that "David laid siege to Jerusalem, and took the Lower City by assault, while the citadel still held out" (viL 3. § 1). Having at length got possession of the Upper City also, " he encircled the two within one wall, so as to form one body" (§ 2). This could only be effected by taking in the interjacent valley, which is apparently the part called Millo.
(4) But when in process of time the city overflowed its old boundaries, the hill Bezetha, or New City, was added to the ancient hills, as is thus described by Josephus:—"The city, being overabundant in population, began gradually to creep beyond its old walls, and the people joining to the city the region which lay to the north of the temple and close to the hill (of Acra), advanced considerably, so that even a fourth eminence was surrounded with habitations, viz. that which is called Bezetha, situated opposite to the Antonia, and divided from it by a deep ditch; for the ground had been cut through on purpose, that the foundations of the Antonia might not, by joining the eminence, be easy of approach, and of inferior height."
The Antonia, it is necessary here to add, in anticipation of a more detailed description, was a castle situated at the north-western angle of the outer enclosure of the Temple, occupying a precipitous rock 50 cubits high.
It is an interesting fact, and a convenient one to facilitate a description of the city, that the several parts of the ancient city are precisely coincident with the distinct quarters of modern Jerusalem: for that, 1st, the Armenian and Jewish quarters, with the remainder of Mount Sion, now excluded from the walls, composed the Upper City; 2dly, the Mahommedan quarter corresponds exactly with the Lower City; 3dly, that the Haram-es-Shcrif, or Noble Sanctuary, of the Moslems, occupies the Temple Mount; and 4thly, that the Haret (quarter) Bab-clHitta is the declivity of the hill Bezetha, which attains its greatest elevation to the north of the modern city wall, but was entirely included within the wall of Agrippa, together with a considerable space to the north and west of the Lower City, including nil the Christian quarter.
The several parts of the ancient city were enclosed by distinct walls, of which Josephus gives a minute description, which must be noticed in detail, as furnishing the fullest account we have of the city a.-* >t existed during the Roman period; a description which, as far as it relates to the Old city, will serve for the elucidation of the ante-Babylonish capital, — as it is clear, from the account of the rebuilding of the walls by Nehemiah (iii., vi.), that the new fortifications followed the course of the ancient enceinte.
1. Upper City and Old Wall — " Of the three walla, the old one was difficult to be taken, both on account of the ravines, and of the eminence above them on which it was .situated. But, in addition to the advantage of the position, it was also strongly built, aa David and Solomon, and the kings after them, were very zealous about the work. Beginning towards the north, from the tower called Hippicus, and passing through the place called Xystus, then joining the council chamber, it was united to the western cloister of the Temple. In the other direction, towards the west, commencing from the same place, and extending through a place called Bethso to the gate of the Essenes, and then turning towards the south above the fountain Siloam, thence again bending toward the east to the Pool of Solomon, and running through a place which they called Ophla, it was joined to the eastern cloister of the Temple." To understand this description, it is only necessary to remark, that the walls are described, not by the direction in which they run, but by the quarter which they facet i*e- the wall" turning towards the south" is the south wall, and so with tho others; so that the Hippie Tower evidently lay at the NW. angle of the Upper City, and, as the position of this tower is of the first importance in the description of the city walls, it is a fortunate circumstance that we arc able to fix its exact site.
(1) The Hippie Tower is mentioned in connection with two neighbouring towers on the same north wall, all built by Herod the Great, and connected with his splendid palace that occupied the northwest angle of the Upper City. "These towers," says the historian, "surpassed all in the world in extent, beauty, and strength, and were dedicated to the memory of his brother, his friend, and his best loved wife.
"The Hippicus, named from his friend, was a square of 25 cnbits, and thirty high, entirely solid. Above the part which was solid, and constructed with massive stones, was a reservoir for the rain-water, 20 cubits in depth; and above this a house of two stories, 25 cubits high, divided into different apartments; above which were battlements of 2 cubits, on a parapet of 3 cubits, making the whole height 80 cubits.
(2) " The Tower Phasaelus. which was named from his brother, was 40 cubits square, and solid to the height of 40 cubits; but above it was erected a cloister 10 cubits high, fortified with breastworks and ramparts; in the middle of the cloister was carried up another tower, divided into costly chamber) and a bath-room, so that the tower was in nothing inferior to a palace. Its summit was adorned with parapets and battlements, more than the preceding. It was in all 90 cubits high, and resembled the tower of Pharus near Alexandria, but was of much larger circumference.
(3) " The Tomer Mariamne was solid to the height of 30 cubits, and 20 cubits square, having above a richer and more exquisitely ornamented dwelling. Its entire height was 55 cubits.
"Such in size were the three towers; but they looked much larger through the .site which they occupied; for both the old wall itself, in the range of which they stood, was built upon a lofty eminence, and likewise a kind of crest of this eminence reared itnelf l<i the height of 30 cnbits, on which the toners being siiuated received much additional elevation.
The towers were constructed of white marble, in blocks of 20 cubits long, 10 wide, and 5 deep, so exactly joined together that each tower appeared to be one mass of rock."
Now, the modern citadel of Jerusalem occupies the NW. angle of Mount Sion, and its northern wall rises from a deep fosse, having towers at either angle, the bases of which are protected on the outside by massive masonry sloping upward from the fosse. The NW. tower, divided only by the trench from the Jaffa gate, is a square of 45 feet. The NE., commonly known as the Tower of David, is 70 feet 3 inches long, by 56 feet 4 inches broad. The sloping bulwark is 40 feet high from the bottom of the trench; but this is much choked up with rubbi&h. To the tower part there is no known or visible entrance, either from above or below, and no one knows of any room or space in it. The lower part of this platform is, indeed, the solid rock merely cut into shape, and faced with massive masonry, which rock rises to the height of 42 feet. This rock is doubtless the crest of the hill described by Josephus as 30 cubits or 45 feet high. Now, if the dimensions of Hippicus and Phasaelus, as already given, are compared with those of the modern towers on the north side of tho citadel, we find that the dimensions of that at the NW. angle—three of whose sides are determined by the scarped rock on which it is based— so nearly agree with those of Hippicus, and the width of the NE. tower—also determined by the cut rock—so nearly with the square of Phasaelus, that there can be no difficulty in deciding npon their identity of position. Mariamne has entirely disappeared.
"To these towers, situated on the north, was joined within —
(4) " The Royal Palace, surpassing all powers of description. It was entirely surrounded by a wall 30 cubits high, with decorated towers at equal intervals, and contained enormous bonqnetting halls, besides numerous chambers richly adorned. There were also many porticoes encircling one another, with different columns to each, surrounding green courts, planted with a variety of trees, having long avenues through them; and deep channels and reservoirs everywhere around, filled with bronze statues, through which the water flowed; and many towers of tame pidgeons about the fountains."
This magnificent palace, unless the description is exaggerated beyond all licence, must have occupied a larger space thau the present fortress, and most probably its gardens extended along the western edge of Mount Sion as far as the present garden of the Armenian Convent; and the decorated towers of this part of the wall, which was spared by the Romans when they levelled the remainder of the city, seem to have transmitted their name to modern times, as the west front of the city wall at this part is called Abroth Ghazzeh, i.e. The Toners of Gaza.
(5) As the Xystus is mentioned next to the Hippicus by Josephus, in his description of the north wall of the Upper City, it may be well to proceed at once to that; deferring the consideration of the Gate Gennath, which obviously occurred between the two, until we come to the Second Wall. The Xystus is properly a covered portico attached to the Greek Gymnasium, which commonly had uncovered walks connected with it. (Diet. Ant. p. 580.) As the Jerusalem Xystus was a place where public meetings were occasionally convened (Bell. Jud. ii. 6. § 3), it must be understood to be a wide public promenade, though not necessarily connected with a gymnasium, but perhaps rather with another palace which occupied " this extremity of the Upper City;" for the name was given also to a terraced walk with colonnades attached to Roman villas. (Vitruv. v. 11.)
(6) The House of the A smonaeans was above the Xystus, and was apparently occupied as a palace by the Younger Agrippa; for, when he addressed the multitude assembled in the Xystus, he placed his sister Berenice in the house of the Asmonaeans, that she might be visible to them. (B. J. I. c.)
(7) The Causeway. At the XyBtus we are told a causeway (ytipvpa) joined the Temple to the Upper City, and one of the Temple gates opened on to this causeway. That the y4q\vpa was a causeway and not a bridge, is evident from the expression of Josephus in another passage, where he says that the valley was interrupted or 611ed up, for the passage (rijs tpdpayyot tts Siotov axciXimfitvii!, Ant. xv. 11. § 5.). As the Tyropoeon divided the Upper from the Lower City, and the Temple Mount was attached to the Lower, it is obvious that the Tyropoeon is the valley here mentioned. This earthwall or embankment, was the work of Solomon, and is the only monument of that great king in Jerusalem that can be certainly said to have escaped the ravages of time; for it exists to the present day, serving the same purpose to the Mahometans as fonnerly to the Jews: the approach to the Mosk enclosure from the Bazaars passes over this causeway, which is therefore the most frequented thoroughfare in the city. (Williams, Iloly City, vol. ii. pp. 392 397, and note, pp. 601—607.)
It is highly probable that the Xystus was nothing else than the wide promenade over this mound, adorned with a covered cloister between the trees, with which the Rabbinical traditions assure us that Solomon's causeway was shaded. It is clear that the north wall of the Upper City must have crossed the valley by this causeway to the Gate Shallecheth, which is explained to mean the Gate of the Embankment (1 Chron. xxvi. 16.)
(8) The Council-Chamber (flouX^, /9ovA(tn-qpior) is the nest place mentioned on the northern line of wall, as the point where it joined the western portico of the Temple. And it is remarkable that the corresponding office in the modern town occupies the same site; the Mehkemeh, or Council-Chamber of the Judicial Divan, being now found immediately outside the Gate of the Chain, at the end of the causeway, corresponding in position to the Shallecheth of the Scriptures.
We have now to trace the wall of the Upper City in the opposite direction from the same point, viz. the Hippie Tower at tlie NW. angle. The points noticed are comparatively few. "It first ran southward (i.e. with a western aspect), through a place called Rethso, to the Gate of the Esscnes; then, turning E., it ran (with a southern aspect) above the fountain of Siloam; thence it bent northward, and ran (with an eastern aspect) to the Pool of Solomon, and extending as far as a place called Ophla, was joined to tile eastern cloister of the Temple."
ii. On the West Front neither of the names which occur are found again in the notices of the city: but Bethso may safely be assigned to the site of the garden of the Armenian Convent, and the Gate of the Essenes may be fixed to a spot not very far from the SW. corner of the modern city, a little to the W. of the Tomb of David, near which a re
markable ridge seems still to indicate the foundations of the ancient city wall.
iii. Along the south face of the Upper City the old wall may still be traced, partly by scarped rock and partly by foundations of the ancient wall, which have served as a quarry for the repairs of the neighbouring buildings for many ages. Its course from this point to the Temple is very difficult to determine, as the steep declivity to the Tyropoeon would make it extremely inconvenient to carry the wall in a straight line, while, on the contrary, the absence of all notice of any deviation from a direct line in a description in which the angles arc uniformly noted, would seem to imply that there was no such deflection in its course. As it is clear, however, that the Upper City was entirely encompassed with a wall of its own, nowhere noticed by Josephns, except so far as it was coincident with the outer wall, it may be safely conjectured that this east wall of the Upper City followed the brow of the ridge from the southeast angle of the Hill Sion, along a line nearly coincident with the aqueduct; while the main wall continued its easterly conrse down the steep slope of Sion, across the valley of the Tyropoeon, not far from its mouth,—a little above the Pool of Siloam,— and then up the ridge Ophel, until it reached the brow of the eastern valley. It may serve to countenance this theory to observe, that in the account of this wall in Nehemiah there is mention of " the stairs that go down from the city of David," by which stairs also the procession went up when encompassing the city wall. (iii. 15, xii. 37.)
iv. The further course of the old wall to the eastern cloister of the Temple is equally obscure, as the several points specified in the description are not capable of identification by any other notices. These are the Pool of Solomon and a place called Ophla, in the description already cited, to which may be added, from an incidental notice, the Basilica of Grapte or Monobazus. (JS. /. T. 8. § I.)
The Pool of Solomon has been sometimes identified with the Fountain of the Virgin, from which the Pool of Siloam is supplied, and sometimes with that very pool. Both solutions are unsatisfactory, for Siloam would scarcely be mentioned a second time in the same passage under another name, and the fountain in question cannot, with any propriety, be called a pool.
The place called Ophla — in Scripture Ophel — is commonly supposed to be the southern spur of the Temple Mount, a narrow rocky ridge extending down to Siloam. But it is more certain that it is used in a restricted sense in this passage, than that it is ever extended to the whole ridge. (See Holy City, vol. ii. p. 365, note 7.) It was apparently a large fortified building, to the south of the Temple, connected with an outlying tower (Neliem. iii, 27, 28), and probably situated near the southern extremity of the present area of the Mosk of Omar. And the massive angle of ancient masonry at the SE. corner of the enclosure, "impending over the Valley of Jehoshaphat, which here actually bends southwest round the corner, having a depth of about 130 feet," may possibly have belonged to the •'outlying tower," as it presents that appearance within (H. C. vol. ii. pp. 311,317). It is clear, in any case, that the wall under consideration must have joined the eastern cloi.-ter of the Temple somewhere to the north of this angle, as the bend in the valley indicated by Dr. Robinson would have precluded the possibility of a junction at this angle.
2. The Second Wall, and the Lower City.—The account of the second wall in Josephus, is very meagre. He merely says tliat it began at the Gate Gennath, a place in the old wall; and, after encompassing the Lower City, had its termination at the Fortress Antoma."
There is here no clue to the position of the Gate Gennath. It is, however, quite certain that it was between the Hippie Tower and the Xystus: and the north-west angle of the Upper City was occupied by the extensive palace of Herod the Great, and its imposing towers stood on the north front of this old wall, where a rocky crest rose to the height of 30 cubits, which would of course preclude the possibility of an exit from the city for some distance to the east of the tower. Other incidental notices make it clear that there was a considerable space between the third and the second wall at their southern quarter, comparatively free from buildings,and,consequently, a considerable part of the north wall of the Upper City unprotected by the second wall:—e. g. Cestius, having taken the outer wall, encamped within the New City, in front of the Royal Palace (B. J. ii. 19. § 5); Titus attacked the outer wall in its southern part, ' both because it was lower there than elsewhere, inasmuch as this part of the New City was thinly inhabited, and afforded an easy passage to the third (or inmost) wall, through which Titus had hoped to take the Upper City" (v. 6. § 2). Accordingly, when the legions had carried the outer and the second wall, a bank was raised against the northern wall of Siou at a pool called Amygdalon, and another about thirty cubits from it, at the high, priest's monument." The Almond Pool is no doubt identical with the tank that still exists at no great distance from the modem fortress; and the monument must, therefore, have been some 50 feet to the east of this, also in the angle formed by the north wall of the Upper City and the southern part of the second wall.
There is the head of an old archway still existing above a heap of ruins, at a point about half way between the Hippie Tower and the north-west angle of Mount Sion, where a slight depression in that hill brings it nearly to a level with tho declivity to the north. This would afford a good startingpoint for the second wall, traces of which may still be discovered in a line north of this, quite to the Damascus gate where are two chambers of ancient and very massive masonry, which appear to have flanked an old gate of the second wall at its weakest part, where it crossed the valley of the Tyropoeon. From this gate, the second wall probably followed the line of the present city wall to a point near the Gate of Herod, now blocked up; whence it was carried along the brow of the hill to the north-east angle of the fortress Antonia, which occupied a considerable space on the.north-west of the Temple area, in connection with which it will be described below.
3. The Third Wall, and the Kew City. —Ike third wall, which enclosed -a very considerable space to the north of the old city, was the work of Herod Ajrrippa the Eider, and was only commenced about thirty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and never completed according to the original design, in consequence of the jealousy of the Roman government The following is Josephus's account: — "This third wall Agrippa drew round the superadded city, which was all exposed. It commenced at the Tower Hippicus, from whence it extended to the northern quarter, as far as the Tower Psephinus;
then, passing opposite to the Monuments of Helena, and being produced through the Royal Caves, it bent, at the angular tower, by the monument called the Fuller's, and, joining the old wall, terminated at the valley of the Kedron." It was commenced with stones 20 cubits long and 10 wide, and was raised by the Jews to the height of 25 cubits, with the battlements.
(1) As the site of the Hippie Tower has been already fixed, the first point to be noticed in this third wall is the Psepkine Tower, which, Josephus informs us, was the most wonderful part of this great work, situated at its north-west quarter, over against Hippicus, octagonal in form, 70 cubits in height, commanding a view of Arabia towards the east, of the Mediterranean towards the west, and of the utmost limits of the Hebrew possessions. The site of this tower is still marked, by its massive foundations, at the spot indicated in the plan; and considerable remains of the wall that connected it with the Hippie Tower are to be traced along the brow of the ridge that shuts in the upper part of the valley of Hinnom, and almost in a line with the modern wall. At the highest point of that ridge the octagonal ground-plan of the tower may be seen, and a large cistern in the midst of the ruins further confirms their identity, as we are informed that the towers were furnished with reservoirs for the rain water.
(2) The next point mentioned is the Monument* of Helena, which, we are elsewhere told, were three pyramids, situated at a distance of 3 stadia from the city. (Ant. xx. 3. § 3.) About a century later (a. D. 174) Pausanias speaks of the tomb of Helena, in the city of Solyma, as having a door so constructed as to open by mechanical contrivance, at a certain hour, one day in the year. Being thus opened, it closes again of itself after a short interval; and, should you attempt to ojien it at another time, you would break the door before you could succeed. (Paus. viii. 16.) The pyramids are next mentioned by Eusebius (Hist Ecclet. ii. 12), as remarkable monumental pillars still shown in the suburbs of Jerusalem; and St. Jerome, a century later, testified that they still stood. (Ejmt. ad Eustochittm, Op. torn. iv. pars ii. p. 673.) The latest notice is that of an Armenian writer in the 5th century, who describes the tomb as a remarkable monument before the gates of Jerusalem. (Hist. A men. lib. ii. cap. 32.) Notwithstanding these repeated notices of the sepulchral monuments of the queen of Adiubene, it is not now possible to fix their position with any degree of certainty, some archaeologists assigning them to the Tombs of the Kings (Robinson, Bib. Bet. vol. i. pp. 465, 535—538), others to the Tombs of the Martyrs, about f of a mile to the west of the former. (Schultx, Jerusalem, pp. 63—67; De Saulcy, torn. ii. pp. 326, 327.) A point halfway between these two monuments would seem to answer better to the incidental notices of the mooumentB, and they may with great probability be fixed to a rocky court on the right of the road to Nebi Samwil, where there ore several excavated tombs. Opposite the Monuments of Helena was the Gate of the Women in the third wall, which is mentioned more than once, and must have been between the Nablus road and the Psephine Tower.
(3) The Royal Cava is the next point mentioned on the third wall. They are, doubtless, identical with the remarkable and extensive excavations still called the Tombs of the Kings, most probably