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 Israîl, 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

It is mentioned by Mejr-ed-din, 1. c. 11. p. 133; of which more in the next chapter.

See the description of the towers Hippicus Phasaelus and Mariamne, in

Bell. Jud. v. iv. 3, and of Antonia, in v. 8. See above, pp. 16, 317.

7 See above, pp. 52, 3, and Dr Schultz, p. 32.

8 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.

NOTE C.

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 3 ft. 10 in. Mr. Brettell's measurement differs slightly from Dr. Robinson's, and makes the chord 12 ft., the sine 11 ft. 6 in., and the versed sine 3 ft. 54 in. Dr. Robinson's elements would give a radius of 20 ft. 14 in., or 74 inches less than Mr. Brettell.

NOTE D.

THE passage cited from the Talmud in p. 355, note 5, seems not to be correctly given in the edition of Surenhusius, from which I copied it.

ש הבירה צורה שבו :The folio and quarto editions read as follows רואה כהן גדול שורף את הפרה וכל מעסריה יוצאין להר המשחה

The variation does not justify the translation or the Commentaries, but it seemed right to notice it.

NOTE E.

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. I. capp. IX, 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.

1 Guillelmi Tyrii Continuata Hist. Lib. XXIII. sect. 21, ap. Martene et Durand. Tome 1v. col. 613: "des la porte Saint Estienne jusques à la porte de Josaphas n'avoient porte ne pos

terne, par ont il peussent issir as chans, fors seulement la posterne de la Madeleine, dont l'en issoit por aler entre deux murs."

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

native Christians to be the Pool of Bethesda, we make our exit from the city by S. Mary's Gate,-for I adopt the native name, in order to avoid the confusion which the transference of the name and the traditions of S. Stephen from the North of the city might otherwise occasion1. It is impossible to deny or to account for this transference2; indeed, the conflicting statements of ancient and modern writers can only be reconciled by assuming it, and the period at which it must have occurred may be reduced to very narrow limits3. It is obvious that the earlier tradition, which fixed the place of the Protomartyr's Passion a stadium without the Damascus Gate', has much greater authority than that

On this account, also, I have departed from my usual practice in the Plan, which is to give the current native and Frank name. I might have revived one of its other names, "Porta Josaphat," from the Norman French writer cited by Beugnot, and the Continuator of William of Tyre, (Martene and Durand, Tom. v. col. 613,) or "Porta Vallis sive Gregis." See Adrichomius, Th. Terr. Sanct. No. 165, p. 168, and Quaresmius E. T. S. Tom. 11. p. 293. This last writer makes this the Gate Genath! Edrisi and others transfer to this gate the name Bab es-Sabat, (the Tribes,) proper to the contiguous Gate of the Haram. See Jaubert, 1. p. 341. So Ibn-el-Wardi, p. 180, and Mejr-ed-din, 11. p. 129. On the whole, however, it seemed better to adopt the current native name, derived from the Tomb of the Virgin, to which it leads.

9 Quaresmius, with laudable but mistaken zeal for the traditions, attempts both. Tome 11. p. 295.

:

* Rudolph von Suchem (A.D. 133650) appears to be the last extant writer who gives this name to the Damascus Gate. In his days the buildings had disappeared and before that (a. D. 1325) Sir John Maundeville had found a Church of S. Stephen on the East of the city by the Valley of Jehoshaphat. p. 80, ed. Lond. 1727. "The tradition had begun to waver." See Dr Robinson, in Theol. Rev. III. p. 639, and notes. Comp. Viaggio di S. Sigoli (A. D. 1384) p. 71. Firenze, 1829; and his companion Lionardo di Niccolo Frescobaldi, p. 114. Roma, 1818. In the 15th century the name and traditions had become fixed. Theol. Rev. 1. c.

Dr Robinson, with an unaccountable oblivion of chronology, adduces the undisputed fact that the place of S. Stephen's Martyrdom, according to the earlier tradition, (without the Damascus-Gate,) was within the third wall, as a Scripture proof that "of course it

which, dating only from the 14th century, finds it without this; and, as "it is not to be supposed that the scene of an event so important to the whole Church as the death of the first Martyr,...should in so short a time have been forgotten among the Christians of Jerusalem," it is very probable that the Church of Eudoxia did mark the true spot. However this may have been, I am at a loss to understand how the question of the genuineness of the existing tradition, (obviously transferred in the 14th century from another locality, which was not itself distinguished by any monument until the 5th century) can affect the authenticity of the site of the Holy Sepulchre, which has undergone no such transference, which was from the first distinguished by a rock-hewn monument, least of all subject to decay, surmounted in the second century by a pagan shrine, demolished in the 4th century, only to make way for a more magnificent and substantial erection.

Descending now into the Valley of Jehoshaphat by a zig-zig path of steps down the steep declivity, the dry bed of the Brook Kedron is passed by a bridge of one arch; a few paces beyond which is the entrance to

was not the true spot." Theol. Rev. p. 640; and in p. 642 he argues on it, as usual, "we have seen, according to the testimony of Scripture, this venerated spot could not be the true site of Stephen's martyrdom." But S. Stephen was martyred A. D. 33, according to the received chronology, and the third wall was not built until A. D. 40: so that at the time of his martyrdom, the site, a stadium North of the Damascus Gate, was certainly without the second wall, even according to Dr Robinson's idea VOL. II.

of its course.

5 Dr Robinson, 1. c. p. 642.

6 The two cases are adduced as exactly parallel by Dr Robinson, 1. c. But who will maintain that the two events were equally important? He further says, that "the evidence and the probability of a traditional knowledge of the spot on the North of the city are at least as great as in the parallel case of the Holy Sepulchre:" p. 641 ad ped. He cannot really think it.

28