In the "style of ornamentation" also, below the dome, he finds equally conclusive proof of his Constantinian theory. "It is true, there is no band of scroll-work, that I can point out, which is exactly similar to the one which here occupies the triforium space." How then is this accounted for? "only from the circumstance, that in all the old basilicas this band has been replaced by pictures in fresco or Mosaic, which have obliterated the original ornament1." "One or two instances, however, do occur of something very similar;" and it is fair that Mr. Fergusson's argument should have all the support that can be derived from them. The first adduced is, "on the two lateral apsides of the vestibule of the Baptistery of Constantine, the other, in the apse of the basilica of San Clemente at Rome." Now any one who will take the pains to compare the scroll pattern of the Churches here cited with that of the Dome of the Rock, will at once see that the resemblance is only very general. But I could almost regret that it is not more close, as in that case it would furnish a stronger argument against Mr. Fergusson's theory. He entertains, to be sure, no doubt that the Baptistery of Constantine was built by him; but the fact remains that "some have supposed that it was erected subsequently." This instance then is of uncertain date; and even granting the structure to be Constantinian, the ornamentation may very possibly be subsequent, and must not be assumed as coeval with the fabric. But the second instance is more to the purpose. "The Church of San Clemente was originally erected in the fourth century, but is generally supposed to have been entirely rebuilt in the eighth, though on the original plan, and the frescos of the apse to have been added in the thirteenth3." The reader will need to be reminded that this is Mr. Fergusson's proof that the similar frescos of the Dome of the Rock are Constantinian, i.e. of the earlier part of the fourth century. But in order that it may subserve this end, testimony is, as usual, thrown to the winds; and the latest addition to S. Clemente is assumed to be the only part of the original still remaining. "I feel convinced," he says, "that we have now the original apse, with its ornaments, except the cross in the centre, which is an interpolation of the thirteenth century'; to which age also belong all the paintings on the front of the arch: the nave may belong to the eighth, and the choir to the ninth century; indeed, they probably do so, for their style of ornament is so manifestly distinct from that on the apse of which I am speaking, that they cannot belong to the same age, and so far go to prove my position." The frescos of the apse are not of the same age, but some centuries later than those of the choir, says

1 Essay, p. 112.

Ibid. p. 105.

3 Ibid. p. 106.

This is so far from being an interpolation, that the whole pattern of the

fresco painting evidently takes its character from the Cross, and is held together by it. All the scroll-work springs from its foot take away the Cross, and all is confusion.

:

history and the consent of antiquaries-not, of the same age, says Mr. Fergusson, "and that proves my position." Besides which, I should have thought that a slight examination of the frescos of the Mosk must have convinced any one accustomed to such studies that all belong to the same period for although the patterns are somewhat diversified in the Dome, as the diversity of construction required, yet the idea is the same throughout-it is all one piece. But the Dome is allowed by Mr. Fergusson to be "the latest addition to the building;" to be "both externally and internally of pure Mahometan architecture, and is known to have been erected, or at least most thoroughly repaired, by Sultan Suliman the Second, one of the Mahometan rulers of Constantinople"." Now Suliman reigned from A. D. 1687 to 1690: and we have seen from Quaresmius, that in the earlier part of that century (A. D. 1625) the interior of the building was all plain white; the Mosaics described by William of Tyre having fallen to decay": the conclusion is obvious, and the agreement not a little confirmatory of both notices.-Suliman, when he restored the Dome, ornamented it and the walls below with the "gilt stucco," copied in colours by Mr. Catherwood, and described as being "in the Arabesque style, such as prevails in the Alhambra"."

Once more; "The 16 windows in the clerestory of the Dome, which are round-headed, are filled with perforated slabs ;" and "the perforations are filled with painted glass of great brilliancy." This Mr. Fergusson thinks is a peculiarity of Christian buildings, and adduces the Church at Bethlehem, and S. Sophia at Constantinople, as examples. A most unhappy misconception, involving a double or triple error. For first, I have yet to learn that the art of glass-staining had attained perfection in the time

* Essay, p. 114. One must look with its author's eyes to "perceive at once the difference in the style of architecture above and below the springing of the dome: all in the coved part being as distinctly and purely Mahometan, as all beneath it is certainly Christian!"

See above, p. 303, and note 3. 7 Mr. Catherwood only says that the style is the same; there is no similarity between the patterns, as shewn in Mr. Owen Jones's magnificent work on Alhambra. I have looked through Coste's Architecture Arabe, &c. for similar patterns, but in vain. The reason is obvious. He gives none so late as this. The Mosks of Constantinople would doubtless furnish numerous parallels: but they are not published.

8 Essay, p. 106. "I have never seen it in a Mahometan religious structure of any kind, nor do I know of one that possesses this ornament." It is curious enough that the neighbouring Mosk el-Aksa is an exception to this imaginary rule. Dr Richardson, II. p. 306, remarks, "The dome is painted of different colours, and lighted by windows in the side. The glass in these windows is also painted blue, yellow, red, and green. The light admitted through such a medium is softened and delightful," &c. Compare Mr. Bonomi's account in Hogg's Visit to Alexandria, &c. Vol. 11. p. 280. If Mr. Fergusson were consistent he would regard this as an argument for the Christian origin of El-Aksa.

of Constantine; secondly, the Moslems are very partial to this beautiful decoration in their Mosks; and some of the most brilliant glass I have seen is in the Mosk of the Sultan Suliman the Magnificent (A.D. 1520– 1566) at Constantinople, which was executed in Persia; thirdly, the Mosaic work at Bethlehem and S. Sophia, to which I presume Mr. Fergusson must allude1, is not transparent but opaque, and not at all of the consistence of glass.

Lastly, Mr. Fergusson finds, that the ceiling of the concentric aisles "is singularly Roman in its character and distribution, so much so, that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to fix on any period when it could be erected between the age of Constantine and the revival of the Roman style in the 16th century in Italy." It is necessary only to assume that "this revival has not yet extended to Syria," and that the Mohammedans "never, in any age or country, erected a building with a ceiled roof:" and the "startling fact" is established: we "find in a building so often burned down-according to the Chroniclers-the very original ceiling with which it was erected fifteen centuries ago.”

To sum up then; The Pointed discharging arches being allowed to present no insuperable objection to the Constantinian origin of the Dome of the Rock, the fact is established by the following arguments: A style of ornamentation for which no exact parallel has been found in a Christian building, but the nearest to which is generally assigned to the 13th century, while that in the Dome of the Rock is known to have been executed at the end of the 18th: painted glass, which in the East is more proper to a Mosk than to a Church; and the ceiling which, it is admitted, may have been executed in or after the sixteenth century.

I said, when I considered the historical argument, that the architectural argument would be found to halt throughout, and fairly break down at last. I must leave the reader to judge whether such is not the case. I will only here express my regret that the very positive tone assumed by Mr. Fergusson, and his contemptuous expressions so frequently reiterated against those who presume to question his conclusions, prevent him from gracefully receding from a theory which every one but himself will see to be utterly void of foundation.

A few words will serve to clear up all the difficulty and doubt that

There is no painted glass certainly | ral construction or decoration in draw.

at Bethlehem: nor do I believe that there is in S. Sophia, at least I do not remember any, though it was to be expected that the Moslems would introduce it there, as into their other Mosks.

* Essay, p. 107. I must take the liberty of remarking that Mr. Fergusson is singularly unhappy in his illus trations. In comparing the architectu

ings indicated by him, it is sometimes extremely difficult to discover the faintest resemblance, and yet we are told (e.g. p. 98) "that they are so perfectly identical that it would be impossible to distinguish between them," &c. &c.

See e. g. pp. 107 ad ped. 111 ad ped. 115 ad cap. et passim.

yet hangs about the architecture of the Dome of the Rock. If it does contain a few details more conformable to the classical type than were to be expected in a Saracenic building at the close of the 7th century, these may be accounted for partly by the materials, partly by the artificers employed. Old materials were worked into the new structure, and of course the new work would be made to the same pattern, as near as might be and models for imitation were at hand. Besides, we know that it was the practice of the early Khalifs to employ Greek masons and builders, who would naturally follow the classical type as nearly as they could in the then debased state of the art. So with the later ornamental work of the Dome and ceiling of the aisles. It is very probable that an Italian artist may have been engaged by Suliman II., (exactly as Greek artists have lately been employed by the Turks to restore the Church of S. Sophia at Constantinople",) which would account for any similarity that may exist between this and any Christian building.

One word may be necessary to explain the inscriptions cited by William of Tyre, in proof that the Dome of the Rock was built by the Khalif Omar; an error which is countenanced by a few respectable writers, and has become confirmed by the popular name given to the Mosk. The inscriptions no doubt commemorated the recovery of the Rock by Omar and his designation of the spot to sacred uses, and in this way his name might be introduced as the first founder of the Mosk, although no part of the actual structure was his.

4 There is a notable instance of this in the Great Church of Damascus, converted into a Mosk by Welid, the son and successor of that very Abd-el-Melik who built the Dome of the Rock. Abulfeda mentions that he (A. D. 705–714) collected workmen from Greece and all the dominions of Islam. In ann. Heg. 96. Annales Muslem. Tom. 1. p. 433, ed. Reiske. Hafniæ, 1789. De Guignes remarks on this instance, ce qui prouve que dans leur plus beaux monumens les Arabes employoient alors des ouvriers Grecs, on en trouve plusieurs exemples dans l'histoire orientale." Notices des Manuscrits du Roi, Tome 111. p. 615. Mr. A. J. B. Hope, writing of the Dome of the Rock, remarks in a letter "I suppose that we must account for its unquestionable resemblance to Christian architecture by supposing that, as in Constantinople the Turks employed Greeks after the capture to build Mosks, and these imi

tated Byzantine churches, so the Saracens employed Christians in Jerusalem, who imitated the churches existing there the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and that of the Ascension." Exactly, in fact, as Mr. Fergusson, p. 110, supposes San Stefano Rotundo to be a copy of the Dome of the Rock,

The infidels have always been glad to avail themselves of the services of Christian artists. Thus e.g. A. Morison (Relation Historique, &c. p. 294, A. D. 1697, 8), mentions that the kadi at Jerusalem has power to dispense with the rigour of the law that prohibits Christians from entering the Mosk, and that he had conversed with a clever carpenter, who had been forced to work there eight or ten days (probably in the repairs under Suliman II.) So at Constantinople the late Sultan Mahmûd, father of Abd-el-Mejid, lies in a mausoleum erected by an Italian architect, within the precincts of the Osmaních.

NOTE B.

COURSE AND TERMINATION OF THE SECOND WALL UNTIL ITS JUNCTION WITH ANTONIA.

I HAVE already traced the course of the Second Wall from the Gate Gennath to the Damascus Gate (pp. 55-60), but deferred the consideration of its continuation until I had ascertained the position of the Fortress Antonia, at which it terminated, (p. 64). Dr. Wilson, in 1843, observed a peculiarity in a portion of the present north wall of the City which he "had not seen alluded to in any book of travels, that the wall, for some extent above its foundation, bears, in the magnitude and peculiarity of its stones, the evidence of great antiquity. The Saracens have made grooves in them to make them correspond symmetrically with their own workmanship above; and the traveller is apt to pass them by without notice. They are decidedly of the character, however, which he has mentioned; and they are probably remains of the second wall, described by Josephus. They ought to be taken into account in the discussion of the great topographical question of the site of the Holy Sepulchre. They extend about 300 feet from the Damascus Gate westward, to which they also continue '." Here then the stones fall in with the two chambers of Cyclopean masonry on either side the Damascus Gate, which I have before noticed in tracking the course of the second wall, (p. 64): the outer faces of these stones are similarly grooved by the Saracens.

I suppose, then, that the second wall coming from the South joined the western extremity of the stones mentioned by Dr. Wilson, and then followed the course of the present wall to the Damascus Gate. The question now arises, whether it followed that course still further eastward across the high, rocky ridge, now crowned by the city-wall, opposite to the Cave of Jeremiah. There can, I think, be no doubt that this was originally one hill3; and if I could discover when the intervening rock was quarried out and the grotto excavated, I should know how much to include in the second wall. The cave certainly existed be

1 Lands of the Bible, Vol. 1. p. 421. 2 Accurately represented by Mr. Tipping, in Traill's Josephus, p. xlvii. where see a full description, and in Bib. Res. 1. p. 464.

3 The comparison of the strata of the limestone rock near the Cave of Jeremiah, and below the city-wall, led me to this conclusion, which Dr Schultz says his repeated observation has confirmed. Jerusalem, p. 36.

4 I suggested in the first edition (p. 283, n. 2) that the materials for the present city-walls, erected in a. D. 1517, may possibly have been taken from this quarry, and Dr Schultz L. c. seems to agree with me. Quaresmius, Vol. 11. p. 40, says that the modern wall is built chiefly of ruins taken from desolated cities, but in part also of stones taken from the neighbouring hills.