« السابقةمتابعة »
portant than these scanty notices, and, indeed, more important than all the notices of Ireland put together, is the text of Ptolemy. In this author the details for Ireland (’Ioi'lpvm) are fuller, rather than scantier, than those for Great Britain. Yet, as Ireland was never reduced, or even explored by the Romans, his authorities must have been other than Latin. Along with this fact must be taken another, viz., that of the earliest notice of Ireland (’Ie'pvn) being full as early as the earliest of Britain; earlier, if we attribute the Argonautic poem to Onomacritus; earlier, too, if we suppose that Hanno was the authority of Avienus.
If not Roman, the authorities for Ierne must have been Greek, or Phoeniciau,— Greek from Marseilles, Phoenician from either the mother-country or Carthage. The probabilities are in favour of the latter. On the other hand, early as we may make the first Voyage from Carthage (via Spain) to Ireland, we find no traces of any permanent occupancy,or of any intermixtnre of blood. The name Ierne was native; though it need not necessarily have been taken from the Iemians themselves. It may been Iberian (Spanish) as well. Some of the names in Ptolemy -—a large proportion—are still current, 0. g. Liboius, Senus, Oboca, Birgus, Eblana, Nagnatae, &c., = Lifl'y, Shannon, Avoca, Barrow, Dublin, Connauglrt. 8tc. Ptolemy gives us chiefly the names of the Irish rivers and promontorics, which, although along a sea-board so deeply indented as that of Ireland not always susceptible of accurate identification, are still remarkably true in the general outline. What is of more importance, inasmuch as it shows that his authorities had gone inland, is the fact of seven towns being mentioned : — “ The inland towns are these, Rhigia, Rhaeba, Laverus, Macolicum, Dunum, another Rhigirt, Turnis."
The populations are the Vennicnii and Rhobogdii, in Ulster; the Nagnatae, in Connaugllt; the Erdini and Erpeditani, between the Nagnatae and Vennicnii; the Uterni and Vodiae, in dhmsler; and the Autcri, Gangani, the Veliborae (or Ellebri), between the Utemi and Nagnatae. This leaves Leinster for the Brigantes, Coriondi, Menapii, Cauci, Blanii, Voluntii, and Damii, the latter of whom may have been in Ulster. Besides the inland towns, there was a Menapia (ndhts) and an Eblana (WJAIS) on the coast.
Tacitus merely states that Agricola meditated the conquest of Ireland, and that the Irish were not very different from the Britons:—“ Ingenia, cnltusque hominam haud multum a Britannia ditferunt." (Agric. 24.
I)t is remarkable that on the eastern coast one Britiin and two German names occur,——-Brigantes, Cauci, and Mcnapii. It is more remarkable that two of these names are more or less associated on the continent The Chanci lie north of the Illenapii in Germany, though not directly. The inference from this is by no means easy. Accident is the last resource to the ethnographical philologist; so that more than one writer has assumed a colonisation. Such a fact is by no means improbable. It is not much more diflicult for Germans to have been in chford in the second century than it was for Northmen to have been so in the eighth, ninth, and tenth. On the other hand, the root m-n-p seems to have been Celtic, and to have been a common, rather than a proper, name; since Pliny gives us the island Monapia: A nglesea. No opinion is given as to the nature of these coincidences.
Of none of the Irish tribes mentioned by Ptolemy
do we meet any separate substantive notice, a notice of their playing any part in history, or a notice of their having come in contact with any other nation. They appear only as details in the list of the populations of Ierne. Neither do the Iemi appear collectively in history. They lay beyond the pale of the classical (Roman or Greek) nations, just as did the tribes of Northern Germany and Scandinavia; and we know them only in their geography, not in their history.
But they may have been tribes unmentioned by Ptolemy, which do appear in history ; or the names of Ptolemy may have been changed. Ptolemy says nothing about any Scoti ,- but Claudian does. He also connects them with Ireland: —
“ maduerunt Saxons fuso Orcades; incaluit Pictorum sanguine Thule Scotorum cumulos flevit glacialis Ierne." (De Tert. Consul. Honorii, 72—74.)
“ totum quum Scotus Iernen
' (In Prim. Comul. Stilich. ii. 252.)
The extent to which the current opinions as to the early history of the Gaels of Scotland confirm the ideas suggested by the text of Claudian is considered under SCUTI. At present it may be said that Scull may easily have been either a generic name for some of the tribes mentioned in detail by Ptolemy, or else aBritish instead of a Gaelic name. At any rate, the Scoti may easily have been, in the time of Ptolemy, an Irish population.
Two other names suggest a similar question,Belgae, and Attacotti. The claim of the latter to have been Irish is better than that of the former. The Attacotti occur in more than one Latin writer; the Belgae (Fir-bolgs) in the Irish annals only. [See Anaco'r'rr, and BELGAE 0F Bnrraxs'm.]
The ethnology of the ancient Ierne is ascertained by that of modern Ireland. The present population belongs to the Gaelic branch of the Celtic stock; a population which cannot be shown to have been introduced within the historical period, whilst the stock of the time of Ptolemy cannot be shown to have been ejected. Hence, the inference that the population of Ierne consisted of the ancestors of the present Irish, is eminently reasonable, -- so reasonable that no objections lie against it. That English and Scandinavian elements have been introduced since, is well known. That Spanish (lberic) and Phoenician elements may liave been introduced in the ante-historical period, is likely; the extent to which it took place being doubtful. The most cautious investigators of Irish archaeology have hesitated to pronounce any existing remains either Phoenician or Iberian. Neither are there any remains referable to pagan Rome. [R G. L.]
IERNUS, in Ireland, mentioned by Ptolemy (ii. 2. § 4) as the most southern of two rivers (the Durus being the other) lying between the Bonus (Shannon) and the Southern Promontory (Mian Ilead)=either the Kenmore or the Barth-y Bay River. [R. G. L]
JERUSALEM, the ancient capital of Palacstine, and the seat of the Hebrew kingdom.
The name by which this ancient capital is most commonly known was not its original appellation, but apparently compounded of two earlier names,
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 nyynj. 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 Scythopolis, and makes the Salem of that patriarch identical with “ Shalem, a city of Shechcm" (Gen. xxxiii. 18); the same, no doubt, with the Salim near to Aenon (St. John, iii. 23), where a village of the same name still exists in the mountains east of Nablde. 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 Adonizedek, the exact equivalent to Melchizedek (“ righteous Lord "). Regarding, then, the latter 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 Grock word 7spov, prefixed to Salem. In the obscure We (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. Lightfoot, after the Hobbies, and followed by Whiston, regards the former half of the name as an abbreviation of the latter part of the title Jehovah-jireh, which this place seems to have received on occasion of Abralmm offering up his son on one of tho mountains of “ the land of Moriuh." (Gen. xxii. 8, Reland, followed by Raluher, adopts the root W‘lz’
yarash, and supposes the name to be compoundcdfof
win and sense, “ liercditas," or “ possessio hereditaria pacis." Lastly, Dr. Wells, followed by Dr. Lee, regards the fonner part of the compound name as a modification of the name Jebus, W13”, one of the earlier names of the city, from which its Canaanitish inhabitants were designated Jebusites. Dr. Wells imagines that the J was changed into 1, for the sake of euphony; Dr. Lee, for euphemy, as Jcbnsalem would mean “the trampling down of peace "—a name of ill omen. Of these various interpretations, it may be said that Lightfoot's appears to have the highest authority; but that Reland’s is otherwise the most mtisfnctory. 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 twice 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 Pharoah-Necho, king of Egypt, after his victory in Magdolum (ii. I59). The main objections urged against the identity of Cadytis and Jerusalem in these passages, are, that in the former passage VOL. u.
Di”? which would give a very good
Herodotus is apparently confining his survey to the sea-border of I’alaestine, 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 Palaestinc, with which he was more familiar,—though not expressly mentioned, is implied in Holy Scripture; for the deposition and deportation of Jehoahaz, and the substitution and subjugation of Jchoiakim, could not have been effected, unless Nccho had held possession of the capital. (2 Kings, xxiv. 29—35; comp. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 3.) It mayI 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. ELK/tad: signifies “the Holy (city)," and this title appears to have been attached to it as early as the period of Isaiah (xlviii. 2, hi. 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 country, 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. (See the end of the article.) ’
II. GENERAL Srra.
Jerusalem was situated in the heart of the mountain district which commences at the south of the great plain of Esdraelon 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 2000 feet above the level of the Mediterranean. Its site is well defined by its circumjaeent 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 qf Hinnom, which from this point takes a southern course, eonfining 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 I-Iinnom, are the “ Tombs of the Kings," situated at the head of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, 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 custom side of the town, and meets the Valley of Hinnom at the southeast angle, as already described, from whence they run 08‘ together in a southerly direction to the Dead Sea. Through this valley the brook chron is supposed once to have nu]; and, although no water has been known to flow 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
Jehoshaphnt is occupied by a high rocky ridge ur swell of land, which attains its highest elevation is 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 Josephus in his description of the city. This valley of the Tyrupoeon (cheese-makers) meets the Valley of Hinnom at the Pool of Siloam, very near its junction with the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and can be distinctly traced through the city, along the west side of the Temple 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, bnt is so 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 bills 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.—“ Theother eminence, which was called Acts, and which supported the Lower City, was in shape gibbous (Min/pros).
(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 broM ravine: but afterwards, in the times when the Asmonaoans 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 precipich 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 lamelites, and subsequently by David, but in all such passages as mention the city of David or Mount Sion as distinct from Salem and Jerusalem. (Comp. Josh. av. 63; Judges, i. 8, 2i; 2 Sam. v. 6—9; Psalm, lxxvi. 2, fire.) The account given by Josephus of the taking of the city is this: that “ the Israelites, having bwieged 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, subseqnently, that “ David laid siege to Jerusalem, and took the Lower City by assault, while the citadel still held out" (vii. 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 efi‘ccted 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 Bezel/m, 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 Bezeths, 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 auti_ cipation 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, lst, the Armenian and Jewish quarters, with the remainder of Mount Sion, now excluded from the walls, composed the Upper City; 2dly, the Ma~ hommedan quarter corresponds exactly with the Lower City; 3dly, that the Haram-es-Shcrif, or Noble Sanctuary, of the Moslems, occupies theTemple Mount; and 4thly, that the Haret (quarter) Bab-elHitta 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 all 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 farnishing the fullest account we have of the city as it existed during the Roman period; a description which, as far as it relatns to the Old city, will serve for the elucidation of the auto-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.