« السابقةمتابعة »
A line drawn along the course of the walls from the Jaffa to the Damascus Gate, down the Street of St Stephen to the South end of the Bazaar, and up the Street of David to the Jaffa Gate, would describe the Christian quarter*. The parallelogram formed by the Streets of the Patriarch and St Stephen, West and East, and the Streets of David and the Holy Sepulchre, South and North, is divided into almost equal parts by Palm Street, forming a communication between the two former. The Northern part is occupied by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and the Southern by the ruins of the Hospital of the Knights of St John. This will be enough for our present purpose. The question is, Was this space included in the second wall of the City, as described by Josephus, or was it not? If it was, the tradition of the site of the Holy Sepulchre falls to the ground, for obvious reasons; if it was not, then the tradition must be allowed to stand until some valid objection be shewn against it.
Having thus broadly stated the question, I may refer to a former chapter for a description of Jerusalem", as it existed in our Saviour's time, before the erection of the third wall by King Agrippa. It will be sufficient here to state, that Acra was the hill sustaining the Lower City, separated from Sion, the much higher hill on which the Upper City was built, by the broad valley of the Tyropoeon ; that the Gate Gennath was a place in the North wall of Sion, near which the wall encompassing Acra had its beginning; and that this North wall of Sion commenced at the Hippie Tower, from whence it ran Eastward to the Temple area. The points to be determined then, are, 1, the site of the Hippic Tower; 2, the position of the Gate Gennath, and the line of the Second Wall; 3, the situation of Acra; and 4, the course of the Tyropoeon; for, at present, I must assume Mount Sion and the Temple Mount to occupy the positions which the almost universal consent of the learned has assigned them, as already described. I. I do not assume that the site of the Hippic Tower corresponded with that of the Tower of David at the N. E. of the present citadel, because I much question whether this can be clearly established". Not that I can for a moment admit the new and strange hypothesis” that would remove it to the N.W. corner of the present City, and find traces of it in the ruins of Tancred's Tower, called by the natives Kasr Jalúd—the Tower of Goliath. I hope to be able to adduce proof that it occupied a space on the platform of the modern citadel, only at its N.W. instead of its N. E. angle. That it is to be sought for in this part of Mount Sion, is clear from Josephus's description of Jerusalem just referred to ; where the Hippicus is assumed as the starting point of two of the City walls, i.e. of the wall that encompassed the Upper City, and of Agrippa's wall, which enclosed the New City. It was a square tower, twenty-five cubits on a side, solid to the height of thirty cubits; and near it, on the same North wall, were the towers of Phasaëlus and Mariamne: the former a square of forty cubits, solid to the same height; the latter also a square of twenty cubits, and solid to that height. Their total altitude was eighty, ninety, and fifty-five cubits respectively; but this altitude was much increased, in appearance, by their position; for the part of the old wall which they occupied was built on a lofty hill, and a kind of loftier crest of this hill rose to a height of thirty cubits more*, on which crest the towers were built, and so received much additional height. Now the Northern wall of the modern citadel 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 N.W. tower, divided only by the trench from the Jaffa Gate, is a square of forty-five feet: the N.E. or Tower of David is seventy feet three inches long, by fifty-six feet four inches broad. The sloping bulwark is forty feet high, from the bottom of the trench ; but this is much choked up with rubbish. “To the lower part there is no known nor visible entrance, either from above or below; and no one knows of any room or space in it.” The reason of this I am now able to explain. The lower part of this platform is solid rock, merely cut into shape, and faced with solid masonry; and a section through the rampart, just North of the Tower of David, shews a basement of rock forty-two feet high, surmounted by a rampart of fifteen feet, including the battlement". Who can doubt that this rock is part of the crest of the hill described by Josephus as thirty cubits, or forty-five feet high, still standing firm against the shock of time, which has brought down to the dust the proud towers of Herod, notwithstanding the forbearance of the Romans and Saracens*2 And now, if we compare the dimensions of the two towers, Hippicus and Phasaëlus, with the modern towers in the North side of the citadel, I apprehend we shall have no difficulty in assigning the Hippie Tower to the N.W. angle; for the square of twentyfive cubits, assigned by Josephus to this tower, does so nearly correspond with the dimensions of the modern tower, as measured by our officers, that the sites must, I think, be identical; and this supposition is much confirmed by observing, that three sides of this cornertower are determined by the form of the scarped rock on which it is based. I would further suggest, whether the Tower of David may not occupy the larger base of Phasačlus? Its breadth, as determined by the cut rock, would nearly correspond with a side of its square, and the length may have been extended along the wall
* William of Tyre, Hist. Orient. given in the Appendix to this Volume, Lab. 1x. xv.111. p. 773, of Bongar's so that I need not swell the foot-notes *L thus describes it. by citations. * Vol. 1. p. 146, &c.: the original is
* I assumed this from Dr Robinson | nus. Châteaubriand's Itinéraire, Tome (Bib. Res. Tome 1. pp. 453–457) in 11. pp. 45 and 262. my first edition. D'Anville held it to * This is Mr Fergusson's hypotheoccupy the site of the Tower Psephi- sis, which will be noticed elsewhere.
* Dr Robinson (Bib. Res. Vol. 1. p. 457) writes, “above the valley of the Tyropaeon;” but without any warrant from Josephus, who says not a word of a valley, and never hints at the Tyroptron being near the Hippicus. His words are: “TriMukourou & ovres vi Teris [répyo.] rô uéyetlos, troAv *isover opaívov to Čua Tóu rôtrov. aird re yap rô dipxalov reixos, ev
* hour, eq' von Ato Aépie &eóóunto,
kai row \dqov Kaddorep kopuq's ris inson) orépa orpodivelyev eis Tpad kov'ra trixels, intrép iiv oi trip'you keiuevot troAt Öri ri row uered pou arpoore) duJ. W. v. iv. 4. Dr Robinson, T. R. 111. p. 442, n. 4, remarks, that “this thirty cubits is not assigned by Josephus as the elevation of the hill, but as the height of the wall above the hill.” He was misled by Whiston's Translation.