that allusion is made to it in 2 Chron. xxxii. 303.

With

such an origin this tradition was handed down by the Latin monks, and received from them by English travellers, until it found its way at last into a modern plan of the city, though in a somewhat corrupted form1. It was not so much as mentioned by the writers of the middle ages; and but for a passage in Josephus, I should conclude it to be of later date, for I could discover nothing in its structure to denote any great antiquity 5.

The Chronicles of the Crusades are very explicit in their account of the fountains and pools on which the inhabitants of Jerusalem were dependent for their supply of water in that thirsty land. They severally enumerate those most celebrated, but one undertakes to give an account of all. He mentions the position of four very clearly, three of which still exist, the fourth has disappeared; but this of the Bath has no place in his list; indeed, he virtually denies all knowledge of its existence, for he says, "besides these four there is no mention of any other pools in or about the city"." Yet

* His words are: "...intra civitatem esse alteram piscinam celebrem, præter Probaticam, quæ est a latere occidentali (Orientali?) castelli, parumque ad Aquilonem inclinans, ab eoque distat centum gressus, et a glorioso Christi Sepulchro ducentos circiter, et ab eo communiter piscina S. Sepulchri dicitur. De hoc piscina arbitror loqui Dominum (Esa. xxii. 9) illis verbis, Et congregástis aquas piscinæ inferioris.......Ad eamdam credo fieri allusionem illis verbis 2 Paral. xxxii. 30, Ipse est Hezechias," &c. Elucid. Terra Sanctæ, Lib. VI. cap. viii. p. 4.

its situation agrees so well with the Amygdalon or Almond-pool mentioned by Josephus1, which I have shewn reason to believe was without the second wall, that I am disposed to conclude that it is noticed by that writer. It probably owed its origin to Herod the Great, and may have been designed for the supply of his palace, from which it would not be far distant; and if this be so, the silence of the writer in question must be accounted for either by its being disused in those times, or not improbably filled with rubbish.

Some of the writers above referred to, do indeed speak of the Pool of Hezekiah; and however clear it may be that they were mistaken, yet I think it would have been well if Dr Robinson had informed his readers that his Pool had a rival, which certainly could shew a much earlier title to this dignity,-especially as he does refer to the passages-rather than leave them to conclude that his monkish tradition was as ancient and undisputed as they would argue it to be, from the fact of its being so confidently received by one who objects to traditions of the 13th century as comparatively recent, and is so very suspicious of those which date as far back at least as the commencement of the fourth.

There existed formerly near the church of St Ann, within the St Mary's Gate, on the Eastern side of the city, a large pool celebrated by all the writers of the age of the Crusades, and supposed at least by the latter to be the "Inner Pool" made by Hezekiah, and cele

1 See above, pp. 19. 24.

2 Gesta Dei, p. 573; Will. Tyr. viii. 4, fin.; Jac. de Vit. c. 63. Marinus Sanutus (1321), Lib. 111. Pt. 14, cap. x.; Brocardus (1283), c. 10.

These passages are referred to by Dr Robinson, note 1, on p. 490, but not a word about Hezekiah. He merely says, "it was called piscina interior, and is now apparently destroyed.”

brated in Scripture history. There seem to be insuperable objections to this tradition, which will be stated in a subsequent chapter; nor does it appear to be of sufficient antiquity to demand much respect; but it has been mentioned here to shew what very slender authority there is for the claims of this Pool, when so late as the 14th century it was not so much as mentioned, and the name which he assigns it given to another.

Not that it is on this authority that Dr Robinson builds; "for thus connecting the Reservoir with Hezekiah, he was guided solely by its correspondence, in position and character, to the scriptural accounts of the Pool constructed by that monarch4." Whether this correspondence is so very obvious, will be seen in a subsequent chapter, when I come to speak of the waters of Jerusalem.

Having now endeavoured to dispose of all the arguments which have been adduced by Dr Robinson in support of his theory of Acra, the Lower City, and the Tyropœon, and stated what appear to me insuperable objections to its reception, it will be incumbent on me to state, and to attempt to prove my own.

If the course of the valley of the Tyropoon can be ascertained, the position of Acra will be easily determined; so that I shall invert the order of my argument.

I. There is then one and only one remarkable and well-defined valley passing entirely through the city, to which there is frequent allusion in the Professor's topographical notices", as commencing near the Damascus

Bibl. Sac. p. 196.

See p. 345: from the Jaffa gate he" descended to the Damascus gate."

Again, p. 353, looking for the Tyropoon, he finds no valley or depression "before reaching the declivity stretch

Gate, and running in a Southern direction to the Pool of Siloam. He indeed places "the ancient hills of Sion and Acra on the West of this broad valley, and on the East the lower ones of Bezetha and Moriah;" but this position will be found untenable, if it has not been proved so already. The fact is, what he calls Bezetha is the Acra of Josephus, and this "broad valley running down from the Damascus Gate to the Pool of Siloam" is the Tyropœon. I proceed to the proof of these most important points in the topography of ancient Jerusalem.

That the character of this broad valley, so conspicuous a feature in the topography of the present City as to force itself upon the notice of all travellers, answers to the description of the Tyropoon of Josephus, will already have appeared, not more from my own notices than from the citations which have been made from no friendly writers', and from the impartial testimony of the Arabic historian who names the street that traverses the whole length of this valley, the “Street of the Mill-Valley 2." It extends from the Damascus Gate on the North, to the Pool of Siloam on the South of the City; it divides the modern city in two parts, as the Tyropeon did the ancient, having on the West the high hill of Sion, and the declivity of a still higher ridge; and on the East a lower hill which I call Acra,

ing down to the Damascus gate." But see pp. 12. 27, 28. above, and B. R. pp. 383. 392, 3. 433, note 1.

1 I again quote the Dublin University Magazine: "There really can be no doubt of an evident well-defined valley extending northward from the back (i. e. West) of the Mosk of Omar

to the Damascus Gate. It is strikingly distinguished in Mr Roberts' large picture of Jerusalem, &c." p. 269. But all writers notice it.

2 Dr Robinson reckons it all one street. Bib. Res. 1. p. 393, and Bib. Sac. p. 33, note 1. See above, p. 12,

note 2.

joined at the South to the Temple Mount.

But was

such the relative situation of Sion and Acra, of Acra and Moriah?

Now I think it will be clear from the following considerations that the hill Acra lay North-west of the Temple Mount, and not due West.

It must never be forgotten that Jerusalem was originally two distinct cities united together by David. The intermediate space, or the Valley of the Tyropœon, inclosed with walls to effect this union, is called in Scripture Millo, and elsewhere both in Scripture and in Josephus "the suburb3," as belonging strictly to neither part of the City, but usually comprehended by the Jewish historian with Acra under the common name of the Lower City.

In his description of the Temple we have the following full and very clear account of the gates of the outer court on the western side:-" "In the western quarter of this outmost bound there were four gates: the first leading to the king's palace, the valley being filled up for the passage; two others led into the

* For Millo, see Vol. 1. p. 24, note 1. It is identified with the Tyropoon by Brocardus, who is followed by Adrichomius and others. Lightfoot ("vir de geographia sacra optime meritus," as Reland calls him,) in a comment on a passage of Josephus, which will be presently quoted, says, "These suburbs that he meaneth were indeed that part of the city which is in Scripture called Millo, which was the valley at the west end of Mount Moriah in which Jerusalem [i. e. Acra] and Sion met and saluted each other; replenished with buildings by David and Solo

mon in their times, (2 Sam. v. 9, and 1 Kings xi. 27), and taken in as part and suburbs of Sion, and so named always in after times." And again: "Millo, which was an outer place and the suburbs of Sion, distinguished and parted from Sion by a wall, yet a member of it, and belonging to it." Josephus rather makes it belong to Acra; though it is true that in the passage in question "he maketh Acra as another city from the suburbs." In Scripture, Millo appears to be called once "the city of David." See 2 Chron. xxxii. 5,