vered with prickly pears, and appears to be formed in great part from rubbish thrown down from the height above. Now whether "Solomon and his successors," or any others "at a period long antecedent to the days of Herod," could have constructed such an arched bridge as this must have been, which, springing from so low a level on the East, would reach the very much superior elevation on the West, I must leave it to architects or antiquaries to determine: I can only say, it must have been very unlike any bridge I ever saw, and must have looked exceedingly awkward3: and some architects "do not suppose arches were in use in the time of Solomon, however far back the mere invention of the arch may go'." Haram wall and Sion as of equal altitude," (which I think it does not,) it is not accurate. 40 feet between the concave surface and the road above. If we suppose three arches, one above another, as in some ancient aqueducts, we raise the bridge too high on the East; or if a bridge of ascending steps, such as one sees in some old attempts at a restoration of the City, the only difficulty would be the construction. It never occurred, even to me, to reduce the "level of the whole bridge to that of the present fragment:" but I imagine that the western arch must be on a level with the eastern, to prevent lateral pressure. At least in all bridges that I have seen, however the arches near the middle are higher than those at the side, yet the extremes are always on the same level. Hrr. Krafft adopts my argument, (without acknowledgment, as usual), as decisive against Dr Robinson's hypothesis of the bridge. Topographie, p. 61. Catherwood, Bartlett's Walks, * Dr Robinson, 1. c., who unhappily appears to be too angry with me to give my arguments a fair consideration, meets the difficulty by stating that "the fragment in question is so far from being on a level with the bed of the valley, that the height of the concave surface of the upper course above the ground is about 12 feet by measure," and that "the elevation of the bridge was naturally not much less" than that of the whole wall, i. e. 60 feet. This I cannot comprehend. The base of the ruin, i.e. the spring of the arch is on a level with the present bed of the valley -(which was all I said, and is plain, beyond all contradiction;) now the radius of the arch, as restored by Mr. Brettell, would be 20 ft. 9 in., that is the highest point of the concave surface; and I never saw a bridge with a space of p. 178. Can, then, any other account be given of these stupendous stones? and does their appearance agree in general character with any described by ancient historians, or by modern explorers? They do; and the grand substructure already described from Procopius may help us to solve the difficulty. Dr. Robinson himself is of opinion, that "the ranges of vaults," commencing from the East, "extended not improbably quite to the western wall of the enclosure, where are now said to be immense cisterns ;" and to these vaults, whatever was their original design or present use, I would propose to add another arcade at the western extremity, in order to bring in this arch. In so doing 1 Bib. Res. 1. p. 450. It was wrong of Dr Robinson to misrepresent me as saying that "this external arch once went to form a huge covered cistern above ground," or that I insist that "the vaults within the west wall are cisterns." Theol. Rev. p. 611, note 11. I neither say one thing, nor insist on the other but I adopt his report of the cisterns in proof that the vaults (which may or may not be used as cisterns, or may have been converted to that purpose,) extended thus far West, When Mr. Catherwood (p. 171) suggests that "those portions of the vaulting now walled up may have been used as cisterns," (Bartlett, p. 171), he never meant to suggest that the double gateway under El-Aksa was a cistern, nor could Dr Robinson seriously suppose that even I did. The cisterns at Constantinople may be similar in construction, and belong, as I am persuaded they do, to the same period, and yet have been designed for a widely different purpose. 2 I am happy to find that this ex planation approves itself to Mr. Veitch, case, I shall be thus far borne out by Mr. Catherwood and his brother architects, as indeed I believe by all who have examined them, viz. that they assign one date, and one general plan, to all the substructions of this southern side3. True, they refer them to an earlier period, and connect them with the Jewish Temple under Herod, as though the massive blocks of stone described by Procopius as a sufficient draught for forty choice bullocks, did not find their exact counterpart in these enormous substructions, which answer so precisely to his description; while all the superstructures along the whole line of wall which have any decided architectural character, (except the Saracenic Gate), viz. the Roman arches, the vaulted hall and gateway, and the “fine lofty wall" of the Mosk Abu Bekr, ("of uniform and excellent masonry, such as may be seen in the later Roman erections,") connecting this gateway with the S. W. angle, lead directly to the same conclusion 1. remark the continuation of these substructions South of the fragment, in the Schools at the West end of the Mosk Abu Bekr. See above p. 307. See Catherwood in Bartlett's Walks, p. 171. Mr. Bonomi in Bib. Res. 1. P. 447. * Dr Robinson, Bib. Res. 1. 423, 4. Mr. Wolcott, Bib. Sac. 1. p. 19, and Mr. Tipping, Traill's Josephus, pp. xviii, xlvi., seem to consider the bevelled stones as a sure indication of Jewish masonry; but, as Mr. Catherwood writes, (Bartlett's Walks, p. 178), "What proof of antiquity is to be seen in this I am at loss to conjecture." It appears in mediæval buildings, e. g. in the Castle at Banias. I am disposed to believe that the ξύσαντες αὐτὰς ἐπισταμένως in Procopius may refer to this very bevelling. Even granting a Jewish origin to the huge bevelled stones (though in size also they correspond with those described by Procopius), why may they not have been taken from the old ruins, to be used in later buildings? In the Theol. Rev. p. 615, Dr Robinson cites bevelled stones at Hebron, Baalbek, Bâniâs Hûnîn, es-Shûkîf, and Jebeil on the island Ruad, the ancient Aradus. How many of these can be shewn to be Jewish, except by assuming the bevelled stones as a proof? Some of them certainly are not. His admission in note 6, 1. c. would explain all, even with this assumption: the Romans imitated the stones which they found on the spot. And with respect to the Bridge, it is entirely gratuitous to force this ruined arch into service for that purpose, since there is yet existing an antiquity which may clearly be identified with the Bridge described by Josephus. I allude to the Causeway which has been so often before noticed, as joining the North-east corner of Sion with the Haram, and over which runs that part of the Street of David, which is sometimes distinguished as the Street of the Temple'. The truth is, that the original word, (yépupa), which we translate Bridge, as also its Latin equivalent (pons,) will answer equally well for a dam or embankment, so that the passages in See the account of this Causeway above, pp. 43, 44. It is a satisfaction to find that this Erdwall has taken its place as an established fact in the Topography of Jerusalem, (Dr Schultz, pp. 81, 106. Hr. Krafft, Register in voce, and their Plans, and Mr. Fergusson's), and I have no doubt will maintain it, notwithstanding Dr Robinson's reclamations. Having owned in Bibl. Sac. p. 33, note 1, that "one of the chief streets passes over the whole length of the mound into the Haram," so that "in passing down the street one is not usually aware of the mound at all," that "he traversed the street that crosses it only once, and did not then note that the top of the ridge was occupied by a street," that "he had at the time no suspicion of the nature of the mound,” and "had only imperfect notes of an imperfect observation:" after these admissions in 1843, he undertakes to say in 1846 (Theol. Rev. pp. 611, 12), that "the Causeway runs merely from the base of Sion," that "its length between Sion and the Haram is nearly or quite double the distance between the fragment of the arch and the opposite cliff of Sion," and that "it is a low mound, apparently raised for the purpose of introducing the aqueduct into the Haram." Pretty strong deductions from "imperfect notes of an imperfect observation," and how wide of the truth has already appeared, and is proved by the very aqueduct itself, which, "after it has been for some distance carried along or through the steep face of Sion," under the foundations of the houses on its eastern brow (Mr Wolcott in Bibl. Sac. pp. 31, 32), crosses to the Haram some way beneath the surface of the Causeway. Certainly, by the course here adopted," insuperable difficulties" may be raised to any theory. 2 I am sorry to be obliged to say that this has been much misrepresented by Dr Robinson. I had inadvertently spoken as though the Antiquities was written before the Wars; this was wrong; but did not affect the argument, which was this-that the word was ambiguous, and must be explained by the periphrasis. Dr Robinson (Theol. Rev. p. 613, note 4) calls the which the word only occurs prove nothing either way: but there is fortunately one passage where the historian uses a periphrasis, in describing the southernmost of the four western gates to the outer Temple, for he says that it led to the Upper City, the valley being cut off, or interrupted for the passage 3; which it clearly five passages where the word yépupa occurs, the "clear passages," and the one where the fuller notice is given, "the more doubtful one," and says, "we must explain the one doubtful phrase by the five clear and explicit ones:" i. e. he begs the whole question of the meaning of yépupa, and rejects the explanation of it furnished by Josephus himself. Further; in p. 611, he says that "yépupa, although in the Homeric and early poetic usage it is sometimes employed in speaking of a causeway, signifies nevertheless in the Attic and later prose-usage always and only a bridge," in proof of which he refers to "the Lexicons of Passow, of Liddell and Scott, &c." On looking at which I find the first sense, “Damm, Erdwall," a dam, mound of earth;" the third, "die Brücke," "a bridge;' -what kind of bridge must always be determined by the context, whether in Homer or elsewhere. (See also under yepupów). Sometimes it is a bridge of boats, sometimes of a fallen tree, &c "It appears that yépupa is no less properly used of a solid embankment connecting the opposite sides of a valley than of a bridge with arches. In Herodotus 11. (Euterpe) 99, the expression ἀπογεφορῶσαι τὴν Μέμφιν doubtless means (as Schweighauser and others take it) "to fence off the city from the inundations of the Nile by an embankment." So Eusebius of Hadrian: ye φύρωσαι Ελεωσῖνα, κατακλυσθεῖσαν ὑπὸ Κηφισσοῦ ποταμοῦ. Γέφυρα is best understood of an embankment in 11. E. 89, for Diomede is there compared to a χειμαῤῥους πόταμος, that is, as Creech observes (on Lucret. 1. 286) not a regular river, but an occasional torrent, which would therefore not be likely to be spanned by bridges. Lucretius, 1. c. imitating the passage of Homer uses pontes and moles. Comp. Il. . 245. Pindar calls the Isthmus [of Corinth] Tóvтov Yépvpa (Nem. vi. 67). The words of Schweighauser on Herodotus are " γέφυρα non modo de ponte proprie nominato dicitur, sed et de aggere. ut II. E. 89." The derivation of γέφυρα is hinted at as ἐφ' ὑγροῦ (Constantini Lex), but it would easily lose this primary sense. Pons is similarly used of an agger serving for transit. Tac. Ann. 1. 63 applies it to an embankment across a marsh "Pontes longos (angustus is trames vastas inter paludes a Domitio aggeratus)." P. Freeman. 3 Τῆς φάραγγος εἰς δίοδον ἀπει Anuμévns. Ant. xv. xi......Dr Robin1. c. renders the word "being taken off, separated, intercepted, so that the true sense is, the valley being intercepted for a passage." But then is a river "taken off, separated, intercepted," by an arched bridge? I find yeφύρα ζευγνύναι ποταμόν· and "fuvium ponte jungere." Passow, and Facciolati Lex. in voce. son, |