« السابقةمتابعة »
l. Upper C‘in and Old Wall.— “ Of the three walls, the old one was diflicult. 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. as David and Solomon, and the kings after them, were very zealous about the work. Beginning towards the north, from the tower called l-lippicus, and passing through the place called Xystns, then joining the council chamber, it was united to the wmtern cloistor of the Temple. In the other direction, towards the west, commencing from the same place, md extending through a place called Bethso to the gate of the Essence, 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 face; i. e. the wall “ turning towards the south " is the south wall, and so with the 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 are 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 11W, 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 cnbits high, divided into diderent apartments; above which were battlements of 2 cubits, on a parapet of 3 cubits, making the whole height 80 cubirs.
(2) “ The Tower Phasaelus,which was named from his brother, was 40 cubits square, and solid to the height of 40 cnhits; but above it was erected a cloister 10 cubits high, fortified with breastworks and ramparts; in the middle of the cloistcr was carried up another tower, divided into costly chambers and a bath-room, so that the tower was in nothing inferior to a palace. lts summit was adorned with parapets nnd battlements, more than the preceding. It was in all 90 cubits high, and resembled the tower of Phat-us near Alexandria, but was of much larger circumference.
(3) “ The T mver Mariamne was solid to the height of 30 white, and 20 cubits square, having above a richer and more exquisitely ornamented dwelling. [to 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 wnll itself, in the range of which they stood, was built upon a. lofty eminence, - and likewise a kind of crest of this eminence reared itself to the height of 30 cubits, on which the towers being situated 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 Jade gate, is a square of 45 feet. The NH, 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 rubbish. To the tower part there is no known or visible en_ trance, 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 thc crest of the hill described by Josephus as 30 cubits or 45 feet high. Now, if the dimensions of Hippicus and Phasuelus, as already given, are compared with thm of the modern towers on the north side of the citadel, we find that the dimensions of that at the NW. angle—thrw of whose sides are determined by the scurped rock on which it is based— so nearly agree with those of Hippicus, and the width of the NE. tower—also determined by the out rock—so nearly with the square of Phnsaelus, that there can be no difliculty in deciding upon 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 bunqucttiug halls, besides numerous chambers richly adorned. There were also many porticoes encircling one another, with different columns to each, surrounding green courts, plnnted 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 tumc pidgeons about the fountains."
This magnificent palace, unless the description is exaggerated beyond all licence, must have occupied a larger space than the prmcnt 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 R0mans 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 Abrolh Ghazzeh, i. e. The Towers of Gaza.
(5) As the Xystm 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 Gennuth, which obviously occurred between the two, until we come to the Second WalL The Xystus is properly a covered portico ntluched to the Greek Gymnasium, which commonly hnd 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 bc 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 Home ty'tlleAsmonaeam was above the Xystus, and was apparently occupied as a palace by the Younger Agfippa; 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. l. c.)
(7) The Causeway. At the Xystus we are told a causeway (yépupa) joined the Temple to the Upper City, and one of the Temple gates opened on to this causeway. That the 7é¢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 filled up, for the passage (-r-Fls ¢nipa770s ctr Moder dwcmnupe’ims, Ant. xv. ll. §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 Mahometuns as formerly 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, Holy City, vol. ii. pp. 392 r 397, and note, pp. 60l~—-607.)
It is highly probable that the Xystus was nothing else than the wide promenade over this mound, adonied 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 Shallec/ieth, which is explained to mean the Gate of the Embankment. (1 Chron. xxvi. 16.)
(8) The Council-Chamber (8011M), Bouhev'rnprov) is the next 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 new found immediately outside the Gate of the Chain, at the end of the causeway, corresponding in position to the Shellecheth 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 the NW. angle. The points noticed are comparatively few. “ It first ran southward (i. e. with a western aspect), through a place called Bethso, to the Gate of the Essence; then, turning E., it ran (with a southern aspect) above the fountain of Sileom; 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 the eastern cloistcr of the Temple."
ii. On the “’05! Frontneither 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
markuble ridge seems still to indicate the foundations of thc ancient city wall.
iii. Along the south face of the Upper City the old wall may still be traced, partly by scarde 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 diflicult 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 e. description in which the angles are 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 Josephus, 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 c0incident with the aqueduct; while the main wall continued its easterly course down the steep slope of Sion, across the valley of the Tyropocon, 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. (B. J. v. 8. § 1.)
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 Opkla — in Scripture Ophel — is commonly supposed to be the southern spur of the Temple Mount, a narrow rocky ridge extending down to Siloum. 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 (Nchem. 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 Jehoshsphnt, which here actually bends southwest round the comer, 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. 31 l, 317). It is clear, in any case, that the wall under consideration must have joined the eastern cloistcr 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 that it began at the Gate Gennath, a place in the old wall; and, after cucompassing the Lower City, had its termination at the Fortress Antonia."
There is here no clue to the psition of the Gate Gennath. It is, however, quite certain that it was between the Hippie Tower and the Xystua: 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 ofln exit from the city for some distance to the cast 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 Sion at a pool called Amygdalon, and another about thirty cubits from it, at the highpriest’s monument." The Almond Pool is no doubt identical with the tank that still exists at no great distance from the modern fortress; and the monu~ ment must, therefore, have been some 50 feet to the cast 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 the dcclivity 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 Tyropocon. 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 canied 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 “’0”, and the New City.—The third wall, which enclosed a very considerable space to the north of the old city, was the work of Herod Agrippa the Elder, 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 govern~ ment. 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 Pscphinus;
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 F ullcr'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 cubit-s, with the battlemeuts.
(1) As the site of the Hippie Tower has been already fixed, the first point to be noticed in this third wall is the Psephine 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 modem 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: qfllelcna, 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 Solymig as having a door so coustructcd as to open by mechanical eontrivancc, 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 open it at another time, you would break the door before you could succeed. (Pans. viii. 16.) The pyramids are next mentioned by Euscbius (Hist. Eccles. ii. 12), as remarkable monumental pillars still shown in the suburbs of Jerusalem; and St. Jcromc, a century later, tostified that they still stood. (Episf. ad Eustachium, 0p. tom. 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. (IIisLAnnen. lib. ii. cap. 32.) Notwithstanding these repeated notices of the sepulchral monuments of the queen of Adiabcnc, 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. Res. vol. i. pp. 465, 535—5518), others to the Tombs of the Martyn, about -} of a mile to the west of the former. (Schultz, Jerusalem, pp. 68—67 ; De Saulcy, tom. ii. pp. 826, 327.) A point halfway between these two monuments would seem to answer better to the incidental notices of the monuments, and they may with great probability be fixed to a rocky court on the right of the road to Nebi Samwt'l, where there are 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 l’scphine Tower.
(3) The Royal Caves is the next point men_ tioncd on the third wall. They are, doubtless, identical with the remarkable and extensive excavations still called the Tombs of the Kings, most probably the same which are elsewhere called the Monument of Herod, and, from the character of their decorations, may very Well be ascribed to the llerodian period. M. de Saulcy has lately added to our previous information concerning them, and, by a kind of exhausting process, he endeavours to prove that they could have been no other than the tombs of David and the early kings of Judah, which have always hitherto been placed on Mount Sion, where the tra— ditionary site is still guarded by the Modems. (Voyage en Syria, tom. ii. pp. 228—281.)
(4) The Fuller's monument is the last-mentioned point on the new wall, and, as an angular tower occupied this site, the monument must have been at the north-east angle of the New City; probably one of the many rock graves cut in the perpendicular face of the Valley of Jehoshnphuhnear one of which Dr. Schultz has described the foundations of a tower. (Jerusalem, pp. 38, The Monument of the Fuller probably gave its name to the Fuller's field, which is mentioned by the prophet Isaiah as the spot near which the Assyrian army under Rabshakeh cncamped (xxxvi. 2, vii.3); and the traditionnry site of the camp of the Assyrians, which we shall find mentioned by Josephus, in his account of the siege, was certainly situated in this quarter. From this north-east angle the third wall followed the brow of the Valley of Jehoshaphat until it reached the wall of the Outer Temple at its north-east angle.
Having thus completed the circuit of the walls,“ described by Josephus, and endeavoured to fix the various points mentioned in his description (which fumishee the most numerous topographical notices now extent of ancient Jerusalem), we shall be in a condition to understand the most important historical facts of its interesting and chequered history, when we have further taken a brief survey of the Temple. But, first, a singular and perplexing discrepancy must be noticed between the general and the detailed statements of the historian, as to the extent of the ancient city; for, while he states- the circuit of the entire city to be no more than 33 studio, or 4 Roman milm plus 1 stadium, the specification of the measure of the wall of Agrippa alone gives, on the lowest computation, an excess of 12 studio, or 1; mile, over that of the entire city l—for it had 90 towers, 20 cubits wide,at intervals of 200 cubits. No Satisfactory solution of this difliculty has yet been discovered.
The Temple Mount, called in Scripture the Mountain of the Lord's House, and Moriah (2 Chron. iii. 1), is situated at the south east of the city, and is easily identified with the site of the Dome of the Musk in modern Jerusalem. It was originally a third hill of the Old City, over against Acre, but separated from it by a broad ravine, which, however, was filled up by the Asmouaean princes, so that these two hills became one, and are generally so reckoned by the historian. (B. J. v. 4.)
l. The Outer Court.-The Temple, in the widest signification of the word ('rb irpév), consisted of two courts, one within the other, though the inner one is sometimes subdivided,and distributed into four other courts. The area of the Outer Court was in great part. artificial, for the natural level space on the summit of the mount being found too confined for the Temple, with its surrounding chambers, OOurts, and cloistcrs, was gradually increased by mechanical expedients. This extemiou was com
‘ thenced by Solomon, who raised from the depth of the eastern valley in wall of enormous stones, bound together with load, within which he raised abank of earth to a level with the native rock. On this was erected a cloister, which, with its successors, always retained the name of " Solomon‘s Porch." (Mod. Zvoiuiii/or, St. Jdn, x. 23; Acts, iii. I], v. 12.) This process of enlarging the court by artificial i embankmenta was continued by successive kings; ‘ but particularly by Herod the Great, who, when he reconstructed the Temple Proper (ya-6:), enlarged the ‘ Outer Court to double its former size, and adorned
, it with stately cloisters. (AM. xv. 11. § 5.) Of
these. the Royal Porch, on the south, was the most remarkable of all his magnificent works. It consisted of four rows of Corinthian columns, distributed into a central nave and lateral aisles; the aisles being 30 feet in width and 50 in height, and the nave half as wide again as the aisles, and double their height, rising into n clerestory of unusually large proportions. The other cloisters were double, and their total width only 30 cubits. To this Outer Court there were four gates on the west, towards the city, and one on each of the other sides; of which that on the east is still remaining, commonly called the Golden Gate.
2. The Inner Court—The Inner Temple (lepdu) was separated from the Outer by a stone wall (win?this, sec Ephes. ii. 14) 3 cubits in height, on which stood pillars at equal distances, with inscriptions, in Greek and Latin, prohibiting aliens from access. To this court there was an ascent of fourteen steps, then a level space of 10 cubits, and then a further ascent of five steps to the gatesmf which there were four on the north and south sides, and two on the east, but none on the west, where stood the Sanctuary (wards).
The place of the Altar, in front of the wads, is determined with the utmost precision by the existence in the Sacred Rock of the Moslems, under their venerated dome, of the very cesspool and drain of the Jewish altar, which furnishes a key to the restoration of the whole Temple, the dimensions of which, in all its parts, are givan in minute detail in the treatise called Middoth (i. e. measures). one of the very ancient documents contained in the Mishna. The drain communicating with this cesspool, through which the blood ran off into the Kedron, was at the south-west angle of the Altar; and there was a trap connected with this cave, l cubit square (commonly closed with a marble slab), through which a man occasionally descended to cleanse it and to clear obstructions. Both the drain and the trap are to be seen in the rock at this day.
The Altar was 32 cubits square at its base, but gradually contracted, so that its hearth was only 24 cubits square. It was 15 cubits high, and had an ascent by an inclined plane on the south side, 32 cubits long and 16 wide.
Between the Altar and the porch of the Temple was a space of 22 oubits, rising in a gentle ascent by steps to the vestibule, the door of which was 40 cubits high and 20 wide. The total length of the Holy House itself was only 100 cubits, and this was subdivided into three parts: the Pronaus 11, the Sanctuary 40, the Holy of Holies 20, allowing 29 cubits for the partition walls and a small chamber behind (i. e. west of) the Most Holy place. The total width of the building was 70 cubits; of which the Sanctuary only occupied 20, the remainder being distributed into side chambers, in three stories, as~
signed to various uses The Pronaus was, however, 30 cubits wider, 15 on the north, and 15 on the south, giving it a total length of 100 cubita, which, with a width of only 11 cubits, must have presented the proportions of a Narthex in n, Byzantine church. Its interior height was 90 cubits, and, while the chambers on the sides of the Temple rose only to the height of 60 cubits, there was an additional story of 40 cubits above the Sanctuary, also occupied by chambers, rising into a clerestory of the same elevation as the vestibule.
The front of the Temple was plated with gold, and reflected back the beams of the rising sun with dazzling effect; and, where it was not encrusted with gold, it was exceedineg white. Some of the stones of which it was constructed were 45 cubits long, 5 deep, and 6 wide.
East of the Altar was the Court of the Priests, 135 eubits long and 11 wide; and, east of that again, was the Court of Israel, of the same dimensions. East of this was the Court of the Women, 135 cubits square, considerably below the level of the former, to which there was an ascent of 15 semicircular steps to the magnificent gates of Corinthian brass, 50 cubits in height, with doors of 40 cubits, so pondcrous that they could with ditli~ eulty be shut by 20 men, the spontaneous opening of which was one of tho portcnts of the apprmclring destruction of the Temple, mentioned by Josephus (Bell. Jud. vi. 5. § 3), and repeated by Tacitus (Hist. v. 13).
Thus much must suffice for this most venerated rent of the Hebrew worship from the age of Solomon until the final destruction of the Jewish polity. But, in order to complete the survey, it will be necessary to notice the Acropolis, which occupied the northwest angle of the Temple enclosure, and which was, says the historian, the fortress of the Temple, as the Temple was of the city. lts original name wtm Baris, until Herod the Great, having greatly enlarged and beautified it, changed its name to Antonia, in honour of his friend Mark Antony. It combined the strength of a castle with the magnificence of a palace, and was like a city in eatent,—-comprehending within its walls not only spacious apartments, but courts and camping ground for soldiers. It was situated on an elevated rock, which was faced with , slabs of smooth stone, upon which was raised a breastwork of 3 cubits high, within which was the building, rising to a height of 40 cubits. It had turrets at its four corners, three of them 50 cubits high, but that at the south-east angle was 70 cubits, and commanded a view of the whole Temple. 1t communicated with the northeni and western cloisters of the Temple at the angle of the area, by flights of steps for the convenience of the garrison which usually occupied this commanding position; and it is a remarkable and interesting coincidence, that the site of the official midence of the Roman procurator and his guard is now occupied by the Seraiyah, or ot‘n'cial residence of the Turkish Pasha and his guard: for there can be no question of the identity of the site, since the native rock here, as atllippicus,still remains to attest the fidelity of the Jewish historian. T he rock is here “cut perpendicularly to an extent of 20 feet in some parts; while within the area also, in the direction of the blosk, a considerable portion of the rock has been cut away " to the general level of the enclosure (Bartlett, lVal/cs about Jerusalem, pp. 156, 174, 175); so that the Seraiyalr, or government house, actually “rests upon a precipice of
rock which formerly swept dorm abruptly, and has obviously been cut away to form the level below, which also bears marks of having been scarped."
The fortress was protected towards Bezctha by an artificial fosse, so as to prevent its foundations from being assailed from that quarter. This fosse has only lately been filled in.
It is certain, from several passages, that the fortress Antonia did not cover the Whole of the northern front of the Temple area; and, as the second wall, that encircled the Lower City, ended at the fortress, it is clear that this wall could not have coincided with the modern wall at the north-east quarter of the modern city. It is demonstrable, from several allusions and historical notices, that there must have been a considerable space between the second and third wall on the northern front of the Temple area. (Williams, 11on City, vol. ii. pp. 348—353.)
The ancient history of Jerusalem may be conveniently divided into four periods. 1. The Cunaanitish, or Amorite. 2. The llobrew, or AnteBabylonian. 3. The Jewish, or Post-Babylonian. 4. The Roman, or classiuil.
1. Of these, the first may claim the fullest notitc here, as the sources of information concerning it are much late generally known or read than those of the later periods, and anything that relates to the remote history of that venerable city cannot but be full of interest to the antiquarian, no less than to the Christian student.
It has been said that the learned are divided in opinion as to the identity of the Salem of Melt-hizedek with the Jerusalem of Sacred History. The writer of a very learned and interesting Review of the Second Edition of the Holy City, which appeared in the Christian Remembrancer (vol. xviii. October, 1849), may be said to have demonstrated that identity by a close critical analysis of all the passages in which the circumstances are alluded to; and has further shown it to be highly probable that this patriarch was identical, not with Shem, as has been sometimes supposed, but with cher, the son of Pelt-g, from whom the land of Canaan had obtained the name of the “ land of the Hebrews” or Heberites, as early as the days of Joseph‘s deportation to Egypt. (Gm. x1. 15.)
But the elucidation which the early history of Jerusalem receives from the monuments of Egypt is extremely important and valuable. as relating to a period which is passed over in silence by the sacred historian; and these notices are well collected and arranged in the review referred to, being borrowed from Mr. Osbum's very interesting work entitled Egypt, her Testimony lo the Tmlk. After citing some monuments of Sethos, and Sesostris his son, relating to the Jebusites, the writer proceeds: — “ What glimpses, then, do we obtain, if any, of the existence of such a city as Jerusalem during the recorded period? Under that name, of course, we must not expect to find it; since even in the days of Joshua and the Judges it is so called by anticipation. (11on City, vol. i. p. 3, note.) But there is a city which stands forth with a very marked and peculiar prominence in these wars of the kings of Egypt with
'tho Jebusitcs, Amorites, and neighbouring nations.
We meet with it first as a fortress of the Amorites.
Sethos 11. is engaged in besieging it. It is situated
on a hill, and strengthened with two tiers of rum
parts. The inscription sets forth that it is in the