when the tower was rebuilt, and the citadel assumed its present form; at which time also the trench would be continued round the rampart, so detaching the third tower, Mariamne, whose base, with the continuation of the cliff, might probably be recovered to the East of the Tower of David, under the accumulation of soil,the débris of former desolations.

This removal of the Hippic Tower to the N.W. angle of the citadel from the N.E., where it was fixed by Dr Robinson, will not materially affect the questions at issue between us, as we should agree in drawing the North wall of Sion from this last Tower Eastward to the Haram, along a line South of the Street of David, and almost parallel to it3. The next question is, Where, in this line, was the Gate Gennath?

II. Dr Robinson, assuming the Street of David to follow the bed of the ancient Tyropoon, and the Christian quarter to occupy the hill Acra, consistently places the Gate Gennath near the Hippic Tower. "It must have been to the East of Hippicus," as he justly remarks, "for the third wall began at that tower5;" and I agree with him in thinking that “it was probably not included within the second wall, in order to allow a direct passage between the Upper City and the country." But I cannot appreciate the only argument adduced in proof

* See B. R. Vol. 1. 457, 459.

I must except to the process of argumentation adopted in proof of this: He says first (Vol. 1. p. 411), " The second wall began at the gate of Genbath (apparently near Hippicus).” Then p. 453, Josephus, it is said, "assumed the ancient tower Hippicus as the starting point in his description VOL. II.

of all the city-walls." Then p. 461, "This gate of Gennath in the first wall doubtless was near the tower Hippicus." And then (Vol. 11. p. 67), "The second wall, as we have seen, began at the gate of Gennath, near the tower of Hippicus," &c.

5 B. R. 1. p. 462, n. 1, and Josephus, J. W. v. iv. 4.

2

that it could not be far distant from Hippicu "because that part of Sion was then high and Indeed, it seems to me to disprove the very poi it is adduced to prove; for how a city-gate co an exit where the wall was carried along a ro nence thirty cubits high, I cannot comprehe such we have just heard from Josephus was with this North wall of Sion, on which sto three imposing towers of Hippicus, Phasaëlus, riamne.

Connected with these within was the roy or palace of the first Herod, which was enc the said wall on the North; so that the Gate nath must have been East, not of the Hippi only, but of both the others, and of the wh on the North wall of Sion, occupied within palace of Herod, which was very extensive, hending not only "two immense chambers, and splendid that the temple itself could not pared with them'," "large bed-chambers, each would contain beds for one hundred guests," a number of other apartments, but "many porti beyond another, round about; and green co groves of trees and long walks through th fountains supplied by deep canals and cister abundant space for the encampment of soldier absurdity of supposing an exit for a city-gate such a royal palace, and down a precipice cubits, is obvious, and need not be insisted on.

Again. After the taking of the outer an wall, which gave possession of the New and Lo

Ibid. 1. xxi. 1.

Ibid. v. iv. 4.

3 Ibid. 11. xv. 5, and

Titus made his advances towards the fortress Antonia in one quarter, and towards the Upper City in another. We have only now to do with the latter. A bank was raised against the Northern wall of Sion by the tenth legion, "at the pool called Amygdalon, as was done by the fifteenth legion about thirty cubits from it, at the high priest's monument." Now the former of these two banks must have been somewhere East of the three towers, which "the Romans could not assail with their machines and towers5" on account of their great strength, aided as it was by the steep cliff", which would probably continue some distance eastward, and present an obstacle to the erection of the engines; while the latter was also West of the second wall; for not only would the existence of a sepulchral monument within the old city be unaccountable, whereas it would be quite natural within that which had been lately enclosed; but while the crowded buildings of the old city would have obstructed the operations of the soldiers, had the bank been raised within that wall, there would be no such impediment in this part, where the new city was thinly inhabited, and the outer wall once taken, "afforded an easy passage to the third or inner wall, through which Titus had hoped to take the Upper City"." And this statement is very remarkable, as proving the fallacy of the oft-repeated assertion of "the existence

Ibid. v. xi. 4.

Bib. Res. 1. 412; but Dr Robinson confounds these two banks, which were destroyed by the Jews, (J. W. v. xi. 6), with those raised by four legions against the west wall, much later in the siege. Ibid. VI. viii. 2. Theol. Rev. p. 447.

6 J. W. v. iv. 1, vI. viii. 4, and ix. 1. 7 Josephus says : ταύτῃ γὰρ τό τε πρῶτον ἦν ἔρυμα χθαμαλώτερον, καὶ τὸ δεύτερον οὐ συνῆπτεν, ἀμελησάντων καθ ̓ ἃ μὴ λίαν ή καινὴ πόλις συνώκιστο τειχίζειν. ἀλλ ̓ ἐπὶ τὸ τρίτον ἦν εὐπέτεια, κ. τ. λ. J. W. v.

vi. 2.

of populous suburbs in this part, which must already have existed before the time of our Lord';" for this part is expressly excepted by Josephus, directly here, as elsewhere incidentally: here directly, in that he states that the first or outer wall was lower in this quarter, owing to the scanty population-(for the enemy's missiles from without would fall harmless in a space void of buildings); incidentally, in the passage where he relates how Cestius encamped his army within the outer wall, opposite to the royal palace2. From both which remarks it is moreover clear that there was a considerable space between the outer and second wall. But if the Gate Gennath was near the Hippic Tower, this could not well be the case; since the second and the outer walls, (running Northward from these points respectively,) must have continued almost parallel for some considerable distance, within a few yards one of another3. The divergence must have been very gradual, if the second wall passed West of the Pool of the Bath, "across the higher and more level part of the broad ridge or swell of land between the Jaffa and Damascus Gates," which rises somewhat higher than the N.W. part of the modern city; and the outer wall "perhaps a little within the line of the present wall, along the brow of the upper part of the Valley of Hinnom 5." And if such had been the disposition of the walls, I cannot imagine that Josephus would have mentioned

1 B. R. 11. 69. B. S. p. 195, note 4. The populous part of the New City was on the north, not on the west, as is elsewhere admitted by Dr Robinson. B. S. p. 193. See Josephus, J. W. v. iv. 2. 2 J. W. 11. xix. 5. comp. Vol. 1.

p. 166,

3 This I conceive Dr R. would admit, to judge at least by his descriptions; for he has never yet aided the description with a plan of the ancient city-walls.

See B. R. 1. 462, 351, 391. 5 Theol. Rev. p. 447.

it as a peculiarity of the second wall, that it was not joined to the inner wall at this part, for it evidently was; nor that Titus would have chosen for his first assault this particular part of the outer wall, where he would be within easy reach of the missiles discharged from the second wall also; and, the breach effected, would have to march his soldiers through it, in face of a fire from the same rampart.

But to this it is answered, that on the building of the wall of Agrippa, the second wall had been allowed to fall to decay in this part: and the proof is, that when Titus had taken the outer wall, the Jews forthwith

commenced repairing the second. But then it is very strange that Titus not only did not at once avail himself of this breach to take the second rampart, but that he allowed the Jews to proceed with their building undisturbed. It would have been much more to his purpose to prevent the erection of this new work, than to de

• Dr Robinson, ibid., supposes the place of Titus's first attack 200 or 300 feet south of the present N.W. corner of the city-wall: my deductions are obvious.

66

This view

Theol. Rev. p. 446. is supported by the assertion of Josephus, that on the capture of the outer wall, one party of the Jews έφραξαντο τὴν ἐμβολήν, “ fortified the rapart." I may adopt the words of Schweighauser on Herodotus, ix. 70. (αναβάντες δὲ ἐπὶ τοὺς πύργους ἐφράξατο ως ηδονέατο ἄριστον τὸ τεῖ x)" Mihi hoc loco φράξασθαι τὸ Teixo significare videtur protegere, defendere murum; nempe ut ipsi propugnatores quasi opayμòs essent, quo suru defenderetur." Lex. sub voc.

ppárσew. Conf. Esch. Sept. Cont. Theb. v. 63. φράξαι πόλισμα. This argument, if valid, would not be consistently urged by one who objects to remove the gate Gennath eastward,

because thus we should uncover 800 feet of the north wall of Sion; seeing that this broken wall would expose the whole of that front of Sion, and all the Lower City. Having found "strong and almost conclusive evidence (on p. 446) that the second wall protected the whole northern side of Sion," one is astonished to find directly opposite, on p. 447, that this portion of the second line of fortification "was in a state of neglect or dilapidation," but, "Diruit, ædificat, mutat quadrata rotundis"! See Bell. Jud. v. vii. 3, and Vol. 1. p. 179.