« السابقةمتابعة »
so the difficulty is disposed of by a very summary process. The Greek of the Onomasticon, supported as it is by the literal translation of the Latin of St Jerome, is pronounced “at best a mere assertion—[as all the statements in the Onomasticon necessarily are]—without any detail or circumstantial evidence by which to test its credibility, and just such an expression as any meddling monk or commentator, copying the book after the first Crusade, might easily alter, supposing it to be a mistake, if he found it so completely at variance with the known locality of the place as it then stood".” In other words, the notice of Eusebius and St Jerome agrees entirely with the present sites, but not at all with Mr Fergusson's theory of Mount Sion and the Sepulchre; therefore, without the authority of a single MS., and in defiance of all rules of historical criticism, the passage is to be set aside as an interpolation. It is enough to state— I cannot be expected to refute—such an argument. Thus much for the site. Then for the Sepulchre itself. It was, according to Eusebius, a “rock standing out erect and alone upon a level ground”,” as the present Monument does, but as the Sakhrah neither does nor ever did; and it was dressed up with columns and other adornments, (according to the received custom of the Romans"), which could not have been applied to the rough unshapen rock in the Mosk of Omar, sunk as it is in the very pavement. But the historian's notice of the buildings about the
* Essay, p. 90. pulchres, will be cited by Professor * See Theophania as cited above, Willis. For the adornment of the Sepp. 78, 79. pulchre, see Eusebius, Vita Constan
"Abundant examples of the style | tini, Lib. 111. cap. xxxiv. of ornament employed in Roman Se
Sacred Cave, does not less strongly militate against Mr Fergusson's views. We need not go beyond the propylacum, which he places at the Golden Gate". How could he fail to see that Eusebius, in the very same short chapter in which he describes that gateway, remarks that it opened upon the very middle of the wide market-place”,-as must have been the case with the propylaeum of the ancient Basilica, (supposing it to have stood East of the present Sepulchre, and the modern bazaars to occupy the position of the ancient market) —while the Golden Gate opens upon a narrow ridge above the deep Valley of Jehoshaphat? And when to all this it is added, that we have no evidence whatever that Constantine built any Church over the Holy Sepulchre, but rather the express testimony of Eusebius to the contrary, it will be granted that Mr Fergusson has slender support indeed from the pages of Eusebius. Besides the adornment of the Cave, already mentioned, nothing more was then done to the Sepulchre, except that the open court in which it stood was paved with marble and a peridrome of columns carried round it on three sides". On the fourth side, i.e. on the East, was the Basilica. When then we are told that the Church of the Anastasis, with its very ceiling, as erected by Constantine fifteen centuries ago,
* Essay, p. 99.
* Vita Constantini, Lib. 111. cap. xxxix. €tri traoru at at Aetol TrúXat' web' &s étr' airns uéans arXatetas dyopas Ta row travròs mporá) awa. The passage in the Laudes Constantini is not irreconcilable with this; Tils 'Eppatov Baauxurns to Tías &v uéoop, kat' airó on Tö ora, Tiptov uapTiptov oikov TNovaria's
pov replex duevov.
is standing to this hour, it is not surely unreasonable to require some evidence that this Emperor did erect a Church over or around the Sepulchre; and if no such evidence can be adduced, however admirably the architecture may suit that period, the “startling fact” becomes pure fiction. The Bordeaux Pilgrim, coeval with Eusebius, meets with no better treatment at Mr Fergusson's hands. In passing from the part of Mount Sion occupied by the palace of David and the only one of seven synagogues that had escaped desolation, to the gate of Neapolis, the Pilgrim had Golgotha on the left and the Palace of Pilate on the right". Now, taking the Palace of David and the Synagogue to mean, as is most probable, the Sepulchre of David and the Coenaculum, and supposing the Neapolis gate of the Itinerary to be Nablouse or Damascus gate (and it is not easy to believe that it can be any other), then the notice of the Pilgrim exactly falls in with the actual sites. But granting all that Mr Fergusson assumes, which is not a little, they cannot be brought to agree with his theory; for although he has the whole disposing of all the sites indicated, he is sadly perplexed about this aforesaid gate, suggesting that it may be the Nablouse or Damascus Gate, or the gate of the New City, i.e. the New Jerusalem of Eusebius, at the South of the Haram, or of the New City of Josephus, far to the North of the Temple?! It were surely much better at once to cut the knot, and “unhesitatingly to reject the testimony of an anonymous
"Itinerarium Hierosol. p. 594. Ed. ories, the choice of which is left to the Wesseling. reader, see Essay, pp. 92, 122. * For these three irreconcilable the- “Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo?”
Vol. II. 7
pilgrim',” as is afterwards proposed: it is at least a convenient method of disposing of “puzzling” passages in this or in any other author. Of St Cyril's testimony I find no distinct notice in Mr Fergusson's pages, though he is an important witness, as he could certainly remember the recovery of the Sepulchre under Constantine. He wrote at a time when the traces of a garden were still visible around the Sacred Cave”, and the particulars which he mentions of the position and character of the Rocky Cave, are perfectly intelligible of the existing Tomb, but not at all of the Sakhrah. The position he describes, as “not within the ancient walls, but within the outer wall which was afterwards added”;”—as I have endeavoured to shew was the case with the present site, but certainly not with the supposititious one. “The Sepulchre,” he says, “consisted originally of a double cave, of which the exterior was cut away for the sake of the present adornment".” The ante-chapel of the actual Sepulchre, called the Chapel of the Angel, constructed of solid masonry, shews how naturally an outer cave would cover the inner chamber; but I cannot comprehend how there could ever have been an exterior cave to the rough rock in the great Mosk, the surface of which rock still remains almost in its natural state. We come now to Antoninus Martyr, who meets with no more respect than his predecessors from Mr Fergusson*. The date assigned to this Itinerary is the latter part of the 6th, or the commencement of the 7th century. The distances are commonly given in the paces of the writer, a convenient, but not very satisfactory mode of measurement, adopted alike by ancient and modern travellers, the result of which is utterly delusive, unless the author remembers to inform us of the value of his paces in known measures, which Antoninus has neglected to do. Mr Fergusson, however, has done it for him, assuming each pace (gressus) to be five feet, (two feet more, at least, than can be allowed to a man of ordinary stature,) and then argues that the distances of the Itinerary do not correspond with those of the present sites. Besides which, the numerals, as is so usual, having undergone some change, he adopts those that best serve his purpose, without the slightest reference to the authority of MSS. or the value of versions. It will afterwards be seen that the measurements, loose as they are, are not inconsistent with the existing localities. There is however one distance not stated in paces by this writer, strangely suppressed by Mr Fergusson, which proves incontestably that he could not be writing of the imaginary Golgotha within the precincts of the Haram. Having described the altar of Abraham, by the side of the rock of Golgotha, where it is still shewn, Antoninus proceeds to notice a crypt or cavern hard by, where might be heard the sound of flowing waters. He adds, that if you cast in an apple, or any
p. 93. puévet kal ord Aéronava. * Catechesis, xiv. sect. v. p. 206. * See the Commentary on Cant. ii. ed. Bened. Commenting on Cant. vi. 14. in Catech. xiv. ix. p. 208.
10, he writes, kntros yúp jv Štrov * Catechesis, xiv. ix. See above,
êortavpu,0m...kal ra ardugoNa roorov | p. 80.