« السابقةمتابعة »
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 initation 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.
* 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. Hafniae, 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 resenblance 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 Sara-
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 hill’; 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
Lands of the Bible, Vol. 1. p. 421. * I suggested in the first edition * Accurately represented by Mr. (p. 283, n. 2) that the materials for Tipping, in Traill's Josephus, p. xlvii. the present city-walls, erected in A. D. where see a full description, and in 1517, may possibly have been taken Bib. Res. 1. p. 464. from this quarry, and Dr Schultz l.c. * The comparison of the strata of seems to agree with me. Quaresmius, the limestone rock near the Cave of Vol. 11. p.40, says that the modern wall Jeremiah, and below the city-wall, led is built chiefly of ruins taken from deme to this conclusion, which Dr Schultz solated cities, but in part also of stones fore the erection of the present walls"; and the deep fosse and quarry are probably still earlier. Hence I have misgivings about including the whole hill, as I did in my former Plan, so I have now drawn the second wall along the course of the modern wall. It may be that the character of the wall in this part, consisting entirely of natural rock merely faced with masonry, will justify me in so doing: for, although I dare not assume this to be a peculiarity of Jewish or Roman fortification, yet we know it to have prevailed in Herod's fortresses, and have already met with it by the Hippic Tower, and at the S. E. corner of the Haram", both which were in the course of the ancient walls. The wall will then proceed eastward, until it reaches the brow of the hill that overhangs the valley which extends down from the Gate of Herod to the western end of the Birket Israil, and will then follow the ridge down to its point of junction with the Wall of Antonia at its north-eastern angle. I have before said, that the declivity of Acra is as steep on this side as it is on the West and North; and the valley which separated it from the lower part of Bezetha is still to be traced within the city 7. It is a curious fact, that this part of the city was defended by a double wall so late as the period of the Crusades, and the fosse which separated Antonia from Bezetha existed until a much later period. The Norman French writer cited by Beugnot", in following the Via Dolorosa, (called by him the Street of Josaphat), from the Valley Street, eastward, to the Gate of S. Mary, (with him the Gate of Josaphat,) apparently after passing the “Arch of the Ecce Homo,” (the Dolorous Gates,) says, that on the left of this street, between it and the city-walls, are streets, as of a city, in which lived most of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. This was called La Marie. It derived its name, no doubt, from the Monastery of S. Mary Magdalene, situated within it, shewn to later pilgrims as the house of Simon the Pharisee, where the Saint anointed our Saviour's feet with ointment: and considerable ruins of the church still exist. Near this Monastery was a postern, by which there was no exit to the country but only between the two walls. This is confirmed by the Continuator of William of Tyre, in his account of the siege of the city by Saladin. After a vain attempt upon the Tower of David for eight successive days, the Sultan blockaded the north-east corner of the city, from the Gate of S. Stephen, i.e. the Damascus Gate, to the Gate of Jehoshaphat; “between which", says the writer, “was neither gate nor postern, save the postern of the Magdalene; through which one went between the
says his repeated observation has con- taken from the neighbouring hills. firmed. Jerusalem, p. 36.
* It is mentioned by Mejr-ed-din, Bell. Jud. v. iv. 3, and of Antonia, in 1. c. 11. p. 133; of which more in the v. 8. See above, pp. 16, 317.
next chapter. 7 See above, pp. 52, 3, and Dr * See the description of the towers Schultz, p. 32. Hippicus Phasaelus and Mariamne, in * Given in the Appendix.
two walls".” That the Gate of the Magdalene was identical in position with the present Bab es-Sahari, or Herod's Gate, admits, I think, of no doubt; but the course of these two walls is a perplexing question, which the above-cited passages are not sufficient of themselves to decide, nor do I find any other notice of them. The position of the fosse, before the Church of S. Anne, is clearly marked by numerous writers, and will require a fuller notice in the next Chapter.
I FINd that in p. 321 I have cited Dr. Robinson, as copied by Mr. Tipping, too literally. A comparison of Mr. Brettell's measurement shews that versed sine ought to be substituted for cosine, in that passage. The cosine would be much more than 3ft. 10 in. Mr. Brettell's measurement differs slightly from Dr. Robinson's, and makes the chord 12 ft., the sine 11 ft. 64 in., and the versed sine 3ft. 54 in. Dr. Robinson's elements would give a radius of 20 ft. 1 in., or 74 inches less than Mr. Brettell.
IN p. 375, I have adduced the Placentine Pilgrim as the only writer that mentions the Church of S. Mary, between the period of its erection by Justinian and the Saracenic Conquest. In Vol. 1. p. 291, n. 6, I have spoken of the notice of it in Lib. 1. capp. 1x, xi. of S. Gregory of Tours, de Gloria Martyrum. But this is spurious, and its date uncertain; nor does it furnish any particulars, but merely says, “Monasterium est valde magnum in Hierusalem, non modicam habens congregationem, in quo: ... Imperatoris jussu non minima largiuntur.” Cap. xi. Opera col. 733. This was evidently dedicated to S. Mary, but is not necessarily identical with the Basilica in Cap. Ix. Col. 730.
* Guillelmi Tyrii Continuata Hist. terne, par ont il peussentissir as chans, Lib. xx111. sect. 21, ap. Martene et fors seulement la posterne de la MadeDurand. Tome Iv. col. 613: “des la leine, dont l'en issoit por aler entre porte Saint Estienne jusques à la porte deux murs.” de Josaphas n’avoient porte ne pos
The object proposed in the present Chapter is an elucidation of some antiquities chiefly without the walls of Jerusalem; and I must beg the reader to accompany me first to the Mount of Olives, then descending again into the Valley of Jehoshaphat, to make a circuit of the city, by that Valley and the Valley of Hinnom, pausing at such objects of interest as occur in the way. The discussion also of the Waters will find an appropriate place in this Chapter.
Leaving, then, the tower Antonia by the Street of Jehoshaphat, and passing, for the present without notice, the large reservoir under the northern wall of the Haram known as Birket Israil, and reputed among the