"a narrow ravine, immediately under the norther of Sion, serving as a drain for the waters falling adjacent part of Sion, and also for those on the so declivity of the ridge';" this cloaca maxima woul followed that natural course, to the saving of co able labour and expense.

And with respect to the evidence of Brocard those who follow him, I may in passing, expr regret that the first attempt to identify the t phical features of ancient Jerusalem, as descri Josephus, should have failed so decidedly; a more that the failure should have been perp through so many centuries, owing to the re which the tract of Brocardus was held in the Co It may be laid down as a rule, that notwithstand "most diligent investigation of its ancient dispo he is invariably wrong where he follows his ow ment; as the plans which have been framed notions abundantly prove. It is only as a wit the existing traditions of his day that he can be

1 Th. Rev. p. 419.

See the notice of this writer in the first Appendix A. to the Biblical Researches, p. 9, Vol. 111. I did not intend to represent the theory of the Tyrop on adopted by Dr Robinson as new or singular, but I did not think that he would care for the support to be derived from Brocardus, (Theol. Rev. p. 434) who is followed by Adrichomius and Villalpandus, and they again by Lightfoot and other writers; whose plans, presently referred to, I for one should be very sorry to adopt. But the important difference between Brocardus with his followers, and Dr

Robinson, is this: that alt drew the Tyropoon from gate, they did not place the the Holy Sepulchre on A Gihon, and saw no incons tween the tradition and t phical notices of Josephus cardus, as quoted B. R. I which I would remark, tha nation of the valley is wor than the "modern tradition Both own the same author. equally wrong. Dr Robins another "supposed but fa ley," of this untrustworth Th. Rev. p. 435.

any authority and it is only by comparing his tract with earlier notices that it can be ascertained whether he is a faithful witness, for he occasionally altered existing traditions to support his own theories—a most evil example, and of very mischievous consequence.

The testimony then of Mr Eli Smith, and of Dr Schultz above adduced, go to prove that the supposed valley along the Street of David (acknowledged by all to have been long since filled up) has no real existence3; and I shall presently have occasion to shew that much earlier writers than Brocardus were so profoundly ignorant of any valley running in that direction, that they regarded the site of the Holy Sepulchre as a declivity of Mount Sion.

For the depression along Palm Street is extremely small, enough to carry off the rain-water, but no more. The ground occupied by the Christian quarter is not unaptly called "a rocky projection or promontory setting in from the West4:" "being the southeastern end or point of the long swell, which forms the high ground on the north-west of Jerusalem, and sinks down gradually towards the Temple as it enters the City; this lower extremity being more steep and rocky than the higher portions"." The effect of this is, that the whole ground North of Sion declines equally to the East, so that Patriarch Street, the three lines of bazaars,

* With regard to the drawings appealed to by Dr Robinson, (T. R. p. 433), I remark: that as Mr Bartlett had been led to expect the valley, and drew it in his very pretty fancy sketches, so Dr Robinson, wishing to find it in Mr Roberts' drawing, saw it. I quote no friendly author. "It certainly is impossible in any representation of the VOL. II.

City, not drawn by a Tyropœonist, to discover this valley.... We look for it in vain in the unsuspected drawings of Roberts." Dublin Univ. Mag. Sept. 1845, p. 269.

4 Schultz, Jerusalem, p. 96. comp. pp. 30, 53, cited in Theol. Rev. p. 428. 5 Bibl. Sac. p. 189, n. 1.

3

and St Stephen Street running from South to N completely level; David Street, the Street of t Sepulchre, and those between them, to wit Street, Copt Street, and Palm Street, passi West to East, deep declivities'. The brow or the ridge so often mentioned, may, as Mr Sn mates, follow a line drawn from the N.W. angl city-wall North of the Church of the Holy S and this would form the water-shed2; or there as Dr Schultz suggests, a bay running in from Valley, between Sion and the Church3, fo crevasse in the rocky promontory, along the 1 cated by the drain; but there is certainly no valley, nor is it now pretended that there is. I it is remembered that the Tyropoon was a feature in the topography of ancient Jerusalem first instance dividing, as it would seem, two from the other, and ever afterwards presenting line of separation between the two hills of the rated city, it seems scarcely credible that the lation of rubbish and such like accidental caus so far have obliterated it, as to leave no distin behind, but permit us to doubt where, betw and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the be

This is admitted, Bartlett's Walks, 2nd Ed. App. p. 247, (cited in T. R. p. 433). Dr Robinson himself, p. 429, says only, "this strong averment must be taken with some grains of qualification;" but his qualifications do not affect my argument: and in p. 431 he writes, "now although these two streets [Patriarch street, and St Stephen's] for some distance North of Sion, may be apparently nearly level, yet after rain,

the water (I think) wo flowing off quite rapidly South; certainly never North." Dr Schultz has

2 See the extract fr above, p. 30, and comp 429, 432, where note 2, cott's letter.

a Dr Schultz, p. 54, Th. Rev. p. 428, note 1.

valley lay; a doubt resolved by the flow of the rainwater against the course assigned it by Dr Robinson.

Lastly, I find a strong objection in the very language of Josephus to taking such a valley, supposing it to exist, for the Tyropoon. He is by no means a loose writer: indeed his expressions, so far as I have been able to test them, are remarkably close and accurate and if he had been speaking of this imaginary rectangular valley, made up indeed of two valleys, I am persuaded that he would not have described it as one extending (kaðńket) down to Siloam; because it was, and still is, the Mill Valley that extended down through the City in a most unmistakable line of continuity, as Dr Robinson, in common with all other writers, abundantly testifies.

On these grounds then-that the gate Gennath must have been some distance East of Hippicus; that the Acra of Josephus is a complete contrast in altitude and character with the ridge North of Sion; that no distinct valley now exists, nor can be proved ever to have existed, between this ridge and Sion, I am obliged to reject the topographical identifications of Dr Robinson, and to propose a theory more consistent with the representations of the Jewish historian.

But nothing has yet been said of the Pool of Hezekiah, which, if rightly placed by Professor Robinson, would bring that part of the modern city, and so the Holy Sepulchre, within the ancient walls, which could scarcely have passed between the Pool and the Sepulchre.

The following is the Professor's notice of the Pool of Hezekiah; "The Reservoir, now usually so called, lies some distance north-eastward of the Jaffa Gate,

just west of the street that leads north to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre1." It lies, in fact, in the angle which David Street makes with Patriarch Street, and Copt Street winds round it on the West and North. With regard to its name, and the authority of the tradition which assigns it to Hezekiah, it is admitted that "the native name is Birket el-Hûmmâm, the Pool of the Bath2;" and that "no tradition exists, or ever has existed, in respect of this Pool, except on the lips of the monks." In confimation of which I may remark, that I inquired diligently of the most learned Jews, of the most intelligent Greeks, of native Christians and Mahommedans, and never in one instance did I receive the name which Frank travellers now give it. The Pool of the Bath, or the Pool of the Holy Sepulchre, are the only names by which they know it.

and

66

On what authority then do the name and the tradition rest? It is singular that with so strong a prejudice against "monkish traditions," especially if they happen to be "comparatively recent," Dr Robinson should here follow a tradition which, above all others in Jerusalem, is "monkish " comparatively recent." Quaresmius, a monk and superior of the Frank Convent at Jerusalem at the beginning of the seventeenth century, appears to be the first writer who dignified this Pool with the name which he has adopted; and he speaks with great hesitation. It was commonly known as the "Pool of the Holy Sepulchre;" he thinks that this is the pool spoken of in Isaiah xxii. 9, and believes

1 Bib. Res. 1. p. 487.

2 Bib. Res. ibid. and Bibl. Sac. p. 196: "from the circumstance that its

waters are used to supply a bath in that vicinity."