JERUSALEM

JERUSALEM.

History
JERUSALEM (יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, habitation of peace; Sept. Ἱεροσόλυμα; Vulg. Hierosolyma; Arab. El Kude), the Jewish capital of Palestine. It is mentioned very early in Scripture, being usually supposed to be the Salem of which Melchizedek was king. Such was the opinion of the Jews themselves; for Josephus, who calls Melchizedek king of Solyma, observes that this name was afterwards changed into Hierosolyma. All the fathers of the church, Jerome excepted, agree with Josephus, and understand Jerusalem and Salem to indicate the same place. The name Jerusalem first occurs in Josh. x. 1, where Adoni-zedek, king of Jerusalem, is mentioned as having entered into an alliance with other kings against Joshua, by whom they were all overcome.

In drawing the northern border of Judah, we find Jerusalem again mentioned (Josh. xv. 8). This border ran through the valley of Ben Hinnom; the country on the south of it, as Bethlehem, belonged to Judah; but the mountain of Zion, forming the northern wall of the valley, and occupied by the Jebusites, was assigned to Benjamin. Among the cities of Benjamin, therefore, is also mentioned (Josh. xviii. 28) "Jebus, which is Jerusalem."

After the death of Joshua, the Israelites took Jerusalem, smote it with the edge of the sword, and set it on fire. After that, the Judahites and the Benjamites dwelt with the Jebusites at Jerusalem; for it is recorded that the children of Judah could not drive out the Jebusites inhabiting Jerusalem; and we are farther informed that the children of Benjamin did not expel them from Jerusalem. Probably the Jebusites were removed by Judah only from the lower city, but kept possession of the mountain of Zion, which David conquered at a later period. Jerusalem is not again mentioned till the time of Saul, when it is stated that David took the head of Goliath and brought it to Jerusalem. After David, who had previously reigned over Judah alone in Hebron, was called to rule over all Israel, he led his forces against the Jebusites, and conquered the castle of Zion, which Joab first scaled. He then fixed his

abode on this mountain, and called it "the City of David." The reasons which led him to fix upon Jerusalem as the metropolis of his kingdom are very intelligible. It was in his own tribe of Judah, in which his influence was the strongest, while it was the nearest to the other tribes of any site he could have chosen in Judah. The peculiar strength, also, of the situation, enclosed on three sides by a natural trench of valleys, could not be without weight.

The promise of its glory received its accomplishment when Solomon built his temple upon Mount Moriah. By him and his father Jerusalem had been made the imperial residence of the king of all Israel; and the temple, often called "the house of Jehovah," constituted it at the same time the residence of the King of Kings, whose vicegerents the human kings were taught to regard themselves. It now belonged, even less than a town of the Levites, to a particular tribe; it was the centre of all civil and religious affairs. The importance and splendour of Jerusalem were considerably lessened after the death of Solomon; under whose son, Rehoboam, ten of the tribes rebelled—Judah and Benjamin only remaining in their allegiance. Jerusalem was then only the capital of the very small state of Judah.

After the time of Solomon Jerusalem was much affected by the rapid alternation of good and bad kings. Under good kings the city flourished, and under bad kings it suffered greatly. Under Rehoboam (B.C. 973) it was conquered by Shishak, king of Egypt, who pillaged the treasures of the temple. Under Amaziah it was taken by Jehoash, king of Israel, who broke down 400 cubits of the wall of the city, and took all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in the temple. Uzziah, son of Amaziah, who at first reigned well, built towers in Jerusalem at the corner-gate, at the valley-gate, and at the turning of the wall, and fortified them. His son, Jotham, built the high gate of the temple and many other structures. Hezekiah (B.C. 728) added to the other honours of his reign that of an improver of Jerusalem. His most eminent work in that character was the stopping of the upper course of

Jerusalem. Gihon, and bringing its waters by a subterranean aqueduct to the west side of the city. This work is inferred, from 2 Kings xx., to have been of great importance to Jerusalem, as it cut off a supply of water from any besieging enemy, and secured it to the inhabitants of the city. Hezekiah's son, Manasseh, in his later and best years, built a strong and very high wall on the west side of Jerusalem. The works in the city connected with the names of the succeeding kings of Judah were, so far as recorded, confined to the defilement of the temple by bad kings, and its purgation by good kings, till about 100 years after Manasseh, when the city and temple were abandoned to destruction. After a siege of three years, Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar, who razed its walls, and destroyed its temple and palaces with fire.

The ten tribes forming the kingdom of Israel had been already upwards of 130 years transported to Assyria, when Judah also was exiled to Babylon. The castle of David, the temple of Solomon, and the entire city, lay in ruins, and to all appearance there was an end of the people as well as of the holy city of the Jews. But the same prophets who foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, also announced the consolations of a coming time. Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel, all foretold the searching probation which their countrymen were to undergo in captivity and exile, and their return home when the term of that probation was completed. Daniel lived to see the reign of Cyrus, king of Persia, through whose agency this prediction was fulfilled. It was in the year B.C. 536, in the first year of his reign, that Cyrus proclaimed the restoration of the Jews. This offer was accepted by a considerable number of persons, particularly priests and Levites; and the many who declined to quit their houses and possessions in Babylon, committed valuable gifts to the hands of their more zealous brethren. Cyrus also caused the sacred vessels of gold and silver which Nebuchadnezzar had taken from the temple to be restored to Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah, who took them to Jerusalem, followed by 42,360 people, beside their servants, of whom there were 7337 (Ezra i. 5-11).

On their arrival at Jerusalem they contributed according to their ability to rebuild the temple; and when in the following year the foundation was laid of the new house of God, "the people shouted for joy, but many of the Levites who had seen the first temple, wept with a loud voice." (Ezra iii. 2, 12.) When the Samaritans expressed a wish to share in the pious labour, Zerubbabel declined the offer; and in revenge the Samaritans sent a deputation to King Artaxerxes of Persia, describing Jerusalem as a rebellious city of old time, which, if rebuilt, and its walls set up again, would not pay toll, tribute, and custom. The deputation succeeded, and Artaxerxes ordered that the building of the temple should cease. The interruption thus caused, lasted to the second year of the reign of Darius, when Zerubbabel and Jeshua, supported by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, again resumed the work, and would not cease though cautioned by the Persian governor of Judæa. On the matter coming before Darius Hystaspis, and the Jews reminding him of the permission given by Cyrus, he decided in their favour, and also ordered that the expenses of the work should be defrayed out of the public revenue. In the sixth year of the reign of Darius the temple was finished, when the people kept the Feast of Dedication with great joy, and next celebrated the Passover. Afterwards, in the seventh year of the second Artaxerxes, Ezra, a descendant of Aaron, came up to Jerusalem, accompanied by a large number of Jews who had remained in Babylon. At a later period, in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, Nehemiah, who was his cup-bearer, obtained permission to proceed to Jerusalem, and to complete the rebuilding of the city and its wall,

which he happily accomplished in the face of great opposition. (Neh. i., ii., iv., and vi.) The city was then capacious and large, but the people in it were few, and many houses lay still in ruins.

It is said by Josephus (Antiq. xi. 8) that when the dominion of this part of the world passed from the Persians to the Greeks, Alexander the Great advanced against Jerusalem to punish it for the fidelity to the Persians which it had manifested while he was engaged in the siege of Tyre. His hostile purposes, however, are said to have been averted by the appearance of the high-priest Jaddua at the head of a train of priests in their sacred vestments.

After the death of Alexander at Babylon (B.C. 324), Ptolemy surprised Jerusalem on the Sabbath-day, when the Jews would not fight, plundered the city, and carried away a great number of the inhabitants to Egypt, where, however, from the estimation in which the Jews of this period were held as citizens, important privileges were bestowed upon them (Joseph. Antiq. xii. 1). In the contests which afterwards followed for the possession of Syria (including Palestine), Jerusalem does not appear to have been directly injured, and was even spared when Ptolemy gave up Samaria, Acco, Joppa, and Gaza to pillage. The contest was ended by the treaty in B.C. 302, which annexed the whole of Palestine, together with Arabia Petraea and Cœle-Syria, to Egypt. Under easy subjection to the Ptolemies, the Jews remained in much tranquillity for more than a hundred years, in which the principal incident, as regards Jerusalem itself, was the visit which was paid to it, in B.C. 245, by Ptolemy Euergetes, on his return from his victories in the East. He offered many sacrifices, and made magnificent presents to the temple. In the wars between Antiochus the Great and the kings of Egypt, from B.C. 221 to 197, Judæa could not fail to suffer severely; but we are not acquainted with any incident in which Jerusalem was principally concerned till the alleged visit of Ptolemy Philopator in B.C. 211. He offered sacrifices and gave rich gifts to the temple, but venturing to enter the sanctuary, in spite of the remonstrances of the high-priest, he was seized with a supernatural dread, and fled in terror from the place. But the whole story of his visit, and its results, rests upon the sole authority of the third book of Maccabees (chaps. i. and ii.), and is therefore not entitled to implicit credit. Towards the end of this war, the Jews seemed to favour the cause of Antiochus; and after he had subdued the neighbouring country, they voluntarily tendered their submission, and rendered their assistance in expelling the Egyptian garrison from Mount Zion. For this conduct they were rewarded by many important privileges by Antiochus. He issued decrees directing, among other things, that the outworks of the temple should be completed, and that all the materials for needful repairs should be exempted from taxes. The peculiar sanctity of the temple was also to be respected.

Under their new masters the Jews enjoyed for a time nearly as much tranquillity as under the generally benign and liberal government of the Ptolemies. But in B.C. 176, Seleucus Philopator, hearing that great treasures were hoarded up in the temple, and being distressed for money to carry on his wars, sent his treasurer, Heliodorus, to bring away these treasures. But this personage is reported to have been so frightened and stricken by an apparition that he relinquished the attempt; and Seleucus left the Jews in the undisturbed enjoyment of their rights (2 Macc. iii. 4-40; Joseph. Antiq. xii. 3. 3). His brother and successor, Antiochus Epiphanes, however, was of another mind. He took up the design of reducing them to a conformity of manners and religion with other nations—or, in other words, of abolishing those distinctive features which made the Jews a peculiar people, socially separated from all others. This design was odious to the great body of the people,

Jerusalem, although there were many among the higher classes who regarded it with favour. Of this way of thinking was Mene-
laus, whom Antiochus had made high priest, and who was
expelled by the orthodox Jews with ignominy, in B.C. 169,
when they heard the joyful news that Antiochus had been
slain in Egypt. The rumour proved untrue, and Antiochus
on his return punished them by plundering and profaning
the temple. Worse evils befell them two years after: for
Antiochus, out of humour at being compelled by the Ro-
mans to abandon his designs upon Egypt, sent his chief
collector of tribute, Apollonius, with a detachment of 22,000
men, to vent his rage on Jerusalem. This person plundered
the city, and razed its walls, with the stones of which he
built a citadel that commanded the temple mount. A statue
of Jupiter was set up in the temple; the peculiar obser-
vances of the Jewish law were abolished; and a persecu-
tion was commenced against all who adhered to these ob-
servances, and refused to sacrifice to idols. Jerusalem was
deserted by priests and people, and the daily sacrifice at the
altar was entirely discontinued (1 Macc. i. 29-40; 2 Macc.
v. 24-26; Joseph. Antiq. xii. 5, 4). These cruelties led
to the celebrated revolt of the Maccabees, who, after an
arduous and sanguinary struggle, obtained possession of
Jerusalem (B.C. 163), and repaired and purified the temple,
which was then dilapidated and deserted. New utensils
were provided for the sacred services; the old altar, which
had been polluted by heathen abominations, was taken away,
and a new one erected. The sacrifices were then recom-
menced, exactly three years after the temple had been de-
dicated to Jupiter Olympus. The castle, however, re-
mained in the hands of the Syrians, and long proved a sore
annoyance to the Jews, although Judas Maccabeus sur-
rounded the temple with a high and strong wall, furnished
with towers, in which soldiers were stationed to protect the
worshippers from the Syrian garrison. Eventually the
annoyance grew so intolerable that Judas laid siege to the
castle. This attempt brought a powerful army into the
country under the command of the regent Lysias, who, how-
ever, being constrained to turn his arms elsewhere, made
peace with the Jews; but when he was admitted into the
city, and observed the strength of the place, he threw down
the walls, in violation of the treaty. In the ensuing war
with Bacchides, the general of Demetrius Soter, in which
Judas was slain, the Syrians strengthened their citadel, and
placed in it the sons of the principal Jewish families as hos-
tages. The year after (B.C. 159) the temporising high
priest Alcimus directed the wall which separated the court
of Israel from that of the Gentiles to be cast down, to afford
the latter free access to the temple; but he was seized with
palsy as soon as the work commenced, and died in great
agony. When, a few years after, Demetrius and Alexander
Balas sought to outbid each other for the support of
Jonathan, the hostages in the castle were released; and
subsequently all the Syrian garrisons in Judæa were eva-
cuated, excepting those of Jerusalem and Bethzur, which
were chiefly occupied by apostate Jews, who were afraid to
leave their places of refuge. Jonathan then rebuilt the
walls of Jerusalem, and repaired the buildings of the city,
besides erecting a palace for his own residence. The par-
ticular history of Jerusalem for several years following is
little more than an account of the efforts of the Maccabæan
princes to obtain possession of the castle, and of the Syrian
kings to retain it in their hands. At length, in B.C. 142,
the garrison was forced to surrender by Simon, who de-
molished it altogether, that it might not again be used against
the Jews by their enemies. Simon then strengthened the
fortifications of the mountain on which the temple stood,
and built there a palace for himself. This building was
afterwards turned into a regular fortress by John Hyrcanus,
and was ever after the residence of the Maccabæan
princes. It is called by Josephus "the castle of Baris," in

his History of the Jews; till it was strengthened and en-
larged by Herod the Great, who called it the Castle of An-
tonia, under which name it makes a conspicuous figure in
the Jewish wars with the Romans.

Of Jerusalem itself we find nothing of consequence, till
it was taken by Pompey in the summer of B.C. 63, and on
the very day observed by the Jews as one of lamentation
and fasting, in commemoration of the conquest of Jerusa-
lem by Nebuchadnezzar. Twelve thousand Jews were
massacred in the temple courts, including many priests, who
died at the very altar rather than suspend the sacred rites.
On this occasion Pompey, attended by his generals, went
into the temple and viewed the sanctuary; but he left un-
touched all its treasures and sacred things, while the walls
of the city itself were demolished. From this time the
Jews are to be considered as under the dominion of the
Romans. The treasures which Pompey had spared were
seized a few years after (B.C. 51) by Crassus. In the year
B.C. 43, the walls of the city, which Pompey had demolished,
were rebuilt by Antipater, the father of that Herod the
Great under whom Jerusalem was destined to assume the
new and more magnificent aspect which it bore in the time
of Christ, and which constituted the Jerusalem which Jose-
phus describes. This Jerusalem—the Jerusalem as im-
proved by the magnificent tastes and profuse expenditure
of Herod—was probably as different from the Jerusalem
before his time as the London of 1856 is from the London
of 1800. And perhaps the difference was even greater, for
our great fanes still exist, whereas the temple, which always
formed the great architectural glory of Jerusalem, was taken
down and rebuilt by Herod the Great, with a magnificence
exceeding that of Solomon's. Nor was the city in this
state admired by Jews only. Pliny calls it "longe clarissi-
mum urbium orientis, non Judææ modo" (Hist. Nat. v. 16).
Jerusalem seems to have been raised to this greatness, as
if to enhance the misery of its overthrow. So soon as the
Jews had set the seal to their formal rejection of Christ, by
putting him to death, and invoking the responsibility of his
blood upon the heads of themselves and of their children,
its doom went forth. After having been the scene of horrors
without example, it was, in A.D. 70, abandoned to the Ro-
mans, who razed the city and temple to the ground, leaving
only three of the towers and a part of the western wall to
show how strong a place the Roman arms had overthrown.

This demolition, however, did not cause the site of the
city to be utterly forsaken. Titus left there in garrison the
whole of the tenth legion, besides several squadrons of
cavalry and cohorts of foot. For these troops, and for those
who ministered to their wants, there must have been dwell-
ings; and there is no reason to suppose that such Jews or
Christians as appeared to have taken no part in the war
were forbidden to make their abode among the ruins, and
building them up so far as their necessities might require.
But nothing like a restoration of the city could have arisen
from this, as it was not likely that any but poor people, who
found an interest in supplying the wants of the garrison,
were likely to resort to the ruins under such circumstances.
However, we learn from Jerome that for fifty years after
its destruction, until the time of Adrian, there still existed
remnants of the city. But during all this period there is
no mention of it in history.

Up to A.D. 131 the Jews remained tolerably quiet, al-
though apparently waiting any favourable opportunity of
shaking off the Roman yoke. The then emperor, Adrian,
seems to have been aware of this state of feeling, and,
among other measures of precaution, ordered Jerusalem to
be rebuilt as a fortified place, wherewith to keep in check
the whole Jewish population. The works had made some
progress, when the Jews, unable to endure the idea that
their holy city should be occupied by foreigners, and that
strange gods should be set up within it, broke out into open

Jerusalem. rebellion under the notorious Barchochebas, who claimed to be the Messiah. His success was at first very great; but he was crushed before the tremendous power of the Romans, so soon as it could be brought to bear upon him; and a war scarcely inferior in horror to that under Vespasian and Titus was, like it, brought to a close by the capture of Jerusalem, of which the Jews had obtained possession. This was in A.D. 135, from which period the final dispersion of the Jews has been often dated. The Romans then finished the city according to their first intention. It was made a Roman colony, inhabited wholly by foreigners, the Jews being forbidden to approach it on pain of death: a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus was erected on Mount Moriah, and the old name of Jerusalem was sought to be supplanted by that of Ælia Capitolina, conferred upon it in honour of the emperor, Ælius Adrianus, and Jupiter Capitolinus. By this name was the city known till the time of Constantine, when that of Jerusalem again became current, although Ælia was still its public designation, and remained such so late as A.D. 336, when it appears in the acts of a synod held there. This name even passed to the Mohammedans, by whom it was long retained; and it was not till after they recovered the city from the Crusaders that it became generally known among them by the name of El-Khud—the holy—which it still bears.

From the rebuilding by Adrian the history of Jerusalem is almost a blank till the time of Constantine, when its history, as a place of extreme solicitude and interest to the Christian church, properly begins. Pilgrimages to the holy city now became common and popular. Such a pilgrimage was undertaken, in A.D. 326, by the emperor's mother, Helena, then in the 80th year of her age, who built churches on the alleged site of the nativity at Bethlehem, and of the resurrection on the Mount of Olives. This example may probably have excited her son to the discovery of the site of the holy sepulchre, and to the erection of a church thereon. He removed the temple of Venus, with which, in studied insult, the site had been encumbered. The holy sepulchre was then purified, and a magnificent church was, by his order, built over and around the sacred spot. This temple was completed and dedicated with great solemnity in A.D. 335. There is no doubt that the spot thus singled out is the same which has ever since been regarded as the place in which Christ was entombed; but the correctness of the identification then made has been of late years much disputed, though, as it seems, needlessly, and on quite insufficient grounds. The very cross on which our Lord suffered was also, in the course of these explorations, believed to have been discovered.

By Constantine the edict excluding the Jews from the city of their fathers' sepulchres was so far repealed that they were allowed to enter it once a year to wail over the desolation of "the holy and beautiful house," in which their fathers worshipped God. When the nephew of Constantine, the Emperor Julian, abandoned Christianity for the old Paganism, he endeavoured, as a matter of policy, to conciliate the Jews. He allowed them free access to the city, and permitted them to rebuild their temple. They accordingly began to lay the foundations in A.D. 362; but the speedy death of the emperor probably occasioned that abandonment of the attempt, which contemporary writers ascribe to supernatural hindrances. The edicts seem then to have been renewed which excluded the Jews from the city, except on the day of annual wailing.

In the following centuries the roads to Zion were thronged with pilgrims from all parts of Christendom, and the land abounded in monasteries, occupied by persons who wished to lead a religious life amid the scenes which had been sanctified by the Saviour's presence. After much struggle of conflicting dignities, Jerusalem was, in A.D. 451, declared a patriarchate by the council of Chalcedon. In the next

century it found a second Constantine in Justinian, who ascended the throne A.D. 527. He repaired and enriched the former structures, and built upon Mount Moriah a magnificent church to the Virgin, as a memorial of the persecution of Jesus in the temple. He also founded ten or eleven convents in and about Jerusalem and Jericho, and established an hospital for pilgrims in each of those cities.

But these prosperous days were soon to end. The Persians, who had long harassed the empire of the East, penetrated into Syria in A.D. 614, and, after defeating the forces of the Emperor Heraclius, took Jerusalem by storm. Many thousands of the inhabitants were slain, and much of the city, including the finest churches—that of the holy sepulchre among them—was destroyed. When the conquerors withdrew, they took away the principal inhabitants, the patriarch, and the true cross; but when, the year after, peace was concluded, these were restored, and the Emperor Heraclius entered Jerusalem in solemn state, bearing the cross upon his shoulders.

The damage occasioned by the Persians was speedily repaired. But Arabia soon furnished a more formidable enemy in the Khalif Omar, whose troops appeared before the city in A.D. 636; Arabia, Syria, and Egypt having already been brought under the Moslem yoke. After a long siege the austere Khalif himself came to the camp, and the city was at length surrendered to him in A.D. 637. The conqueror of mighty kings entered the holy city in his garment of camel's hair, and conducted himself with much discretion and generous forbearance. By his orders the magnificent mosque which still bears his name was built upon Mount Moriah, upon the site of the Jewish temple.

Jerusalem remained in possession of the Arabians, and was occasionally visited by Christian pilgrims from Europe till towards the year 1000, when a general belief that the second coming of the Saviour was near at hand, drew pilgrims in unwonted crowds to the Holy Land, and created an impulse for pilgrimages thither, which ceased not to act after the first exciting cause had been forgotten. The Moslem government, in order to derive some profit from this enthusiasm, imposed the tribute of a piece of gold as the price of entrance into the holy city. The sight, by such large numbers, of the holy place in the hands of infidels, the exaction of tribute, and the insults to which the pilgrims, often of the highest rank, were exposed from the Moslem rabble, excited an extraordinary ferment in Europe, and led to those remarkable expeditions for recovering the holy sepulchre from the Mohammedans, which, under the name of the Crusades, will always fill a most important and curious chapter in the history of the world.

The dominion over Palestine had passed in A.D. 960 from the khalifs of Baghdad to the Fatemite khalifs of Egypt, who, in their turn, were dispossessed in A.D. 1073 by the Turkmans, who had usurped the powers of the eastern khalifat. The severities exercised by these more fierce and uncivilized Moslems upon both the native Christians and the European pilgrims supplied the immediate impulse to the first eastern expedition. But by the time the crusaders, under Godfrey of Bouillon, appeared before Jerusalem, on the 17th of June 1099, the Egyptian khalifs had recovered possession of Palestine, and driven the Turkmans beyond the Euphrates.

After a siege of forty days, the holy city was taken by storm on the 15th day of July, and a dreadful massacre of the Moslem inhabitants followed, without distinction of age or sex. As soon as order was restored, and the city cleared of the dead, a regular government was established by the election of Godfrey as king of Jerusalem. One of the first cares of the new monarch was to dedicate anew to the Lord the place where His presence had once abode; and the mosque of Omar became a Christian cathedral, which the historians of the time distinguish as "the temple of the

Jerusalem. Lord" (Templum Domini). The Christians kept possession of Jerusalem eighty-eight years. During this long period they appear to have erected several churches and many convents. Of the latter, few if any traces remain; and of the former, save one or two ruins, the church of the holy sepulchre, which they rebuilt, is the only memorial which attests the existence of the Christian kingdom of Jerusalem. In A.D. 1187 the holy city was wrested from the hands of the Christians by the Sultan Saladin, and the order of things was then reversed. The cross was removed with ignominy from the sacred dome, the holy places were purified from Christian stain with rose-water brought from Damascus, and the call to prayer by the muzzin once more sounded over the city. From that time to the present day the holy city has remained, with slight interruption, in the hand of the Moslems. On the threatened siege by Richard of England in 1192, Saladin took great pains in strengthening its defences. New walls and bulwarks were erected, and deep trenches cut, and in six months the town was stronger than it ever had been, and the works had the firmness and solidity of a rock. But in A.D. 1219, the Sultan Melek el Moaddin of Damascus, who then had possession of Jerusalem, ordered all the walls and towers to be demolished, except the citadel and the inclosure of the mosque, lest the Franks should again become masters of the city and find it a place of strength. In this defenceless state Jerusalem continued till it was delivered over to the Christians in consequence of a treaty with the Emperor Frederick II., in A.D. 1229, with the understanding that the walls should not be rebuilt. Yet ten years later (A.D. 1239) the barons and knights of Jerusalem began to build the walls anew, and to erect a strong fortress on the west of the city. But the works were interrupted by the emir David of Kerek, who seized the city, strangled the Christian inhabitants, and cast down the newly erected walls and fortress. Four years after, however (A.D. 1243), Jerusalem was again made over to the Christians without any restriction, and the works appear to have been restored and completed; for they are mentioned as existing when the city was stormed by the wild Kharismian hordes in the following year; shortly after which the city reverted for the last time into the hands of its Mohammedan masters, who have kept it to the present day.

From this time Jerusalem appears to have sunk very much in political and military importance; and it is scarcely named in the history of the Mamluk sultans who reigned over Egypt and the greater part of Syria in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. At length, with the rest of Syria and Egypt, it passed under the sway of the Turkish sultan Selim I., who paid a hasty visit to the holy city from Damascus after his return from Egypt. From that time Jerusalem has formed a part of the Ottoman empire, and during this period has been subject to few vicissitudes: its history is accordingly barren of incident. The present walls of the city were erected by Suleiman the Magnificent, the successor of Selim, in A.D. 1542, as is attested by an inscription over the Jaffa gate. So lately as A.D. 1808, the church of the holy sepulchre was partially consumed by fire; but the damage was repaired with great labour and expense in September 1810, and the traveller now finds in this imposing fabric no traces of the recent calamity.

In A.D. 1832, Jerusalem became subject to Mohammed Ali, the pasha of Egypt, the holy city opening its gates to him, without a siege. During the great insurrection in the districts of Jerusalem and Nabulus, in 1834, the insurgents seized upon Jerusalem, and held possession of it for a time; but by the vigorous operations of the government order was soon restored, and the city reverted quietly to its allegiance on the approach of Ibrahim Pasha with his troops. In 1841 Mohammed Ali was deprived of all his Syrian possessions by European interference, and Jerusalem was again

subjected to the Turkish government, under which it now remains. It is not, perhaps, the happier for the change. The only subsequent event of interest has been the establishment of a Protestant bishopric at Jerusalem by the English and Prussian governments, and the erection upon Mount Zion of a church, calculated to hold 500 persons, for the celebration of Divine worship according to the ritual of the English church. The wardenship of the holy places at Jerusalem has always been keenly contested by the Greek and Latin churches; and on the anniversaries of some of the festivals common to both, scenes of a most indecorous and irreverent nature were regularly witnessed. It was in vain that the Turkish governor of the city endeavoured to mediate between them; and it was well if the most solemn services of the two churches ended without bloodshed. The Greeks, countenanced by Russia, and the Latins by France, kept up the old feud with such fierce animosity, that it at length embroiled the peace of Europe, and was one of the ostensible causes of the Russo-Turkish war of 1853-55. For the history of Jerusalem see Geschichte von Jerusalem, Strasbourg, 1518; Spalding, Gesch. d. Christl. Königreichs Jerusalem, Berlin, 1803; Delying, Alia Capitolina Orig. et Historia, Lips. 1743; Poujoulat, Histoire de Jérusalem, Brux. 1842; Raumer's Palästina; Robinson's Bib. Researches in Palestine.

Before proceeding to inquire into the ancient state of the city, and to describe its present condition, it will be well to furnish the reader with a general description of the site, that he may be enabled to follow the details with the more precision. For this purpose we shall avail ourselves of the able sketch given by Professor Robinson in his Researches (i. 380-384).

Jerusalem lies near the summit of a broad mountain-ridge. This ridge, or mountainous tract, extends without interruption from the plain of Esdracel to a line drawn between the S. end of the Dead Sea and the S.E. corner of the Mediterranean; or, more properly, perhaps, it may be regarded as extending as far S. as to Jebel Arâf in the Desert, where it sinks down at once to the level of the great western plateau. This tract, which is everywhere not less than from 20 to 25 geographical miles in breadth, is, in fact, high uneven table-land. It everywhere forms the precipitous western wall of the great valley of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; while towards the W. it sinks down by an off-set, into a range of lower hills, which lie between it and the great plain along the coast of the Mediterranean. The surface of this upper region is everywhere rocky, uneven, and mountainous; and is, moreover, cut up by deep valleys which run E. or W. on either side towards the Jordan or the Mediterranean. The line of division, or watershed, between the waters of these valleys—a term which here applies almost exclusively to the waters of the rainy season—follows for the most part the height of land along the ridge; yet not so but that the heads of the valleys, which run off in different directions, often interlap for a considerable distance. Thus, for example, a valley which descends to the Jordan, often has its head a mile or two westward of the commencement of other valleys which run to the western sea.

From the great plain of Esdracel onwards to the S., the mountainous country rises gradually, forming the tract anciently known as the mountains of Ephraim and Judah; until, in the vicinity of Hebron, it attains an elevation of nearly 3000 Paris feet above the level of the Mediterranean Sea. Further N., on a line drawn from the N. end of the Dead Sea towards the true W., the ridge has an elevation of only about 2500 Paris feet; and here, close upon the watershed, lies the city of Jerusalem. Its mean geographical position is in N. Lat. 31. 46. 43, and E. Long. 35. 13. from Greenwich.

Six or seven miles N. and N.W. of the city is spread

Jerusalem. out the open plain or basin round about El-Jib (Gibeon), extending also towards El-Bireh (Becroth); the waters of which flow off at its S.E. part through the deep valley here called by the Arabs Wady Beit Hanina; but to which the monks and travellers have usually given the name of the 'Valley of Turpentine,' or of the Terebinth, on the mistaken supposition that it is the ancient valley of Elah. This great valley passes along in a S.W. direction, an hour or more W. of Jerusalem; and finally opens out from the mountains into the western plain, at the distance of six or eight hours S.W. from the city, under the name of Wady es-Sarār. The traveller, on his way from Ramleh to Jerusalem, descends into, and crosses this deep valley, at the village of Kulōnīeh on its western side, an hour and a half from the latter city. On again reaching the high ground on its eastern side, he enters upon an open tract sloping gradually downwards towards the E.; and sees before him, at the distance of about two miles, the walls and domes of the holy city, and beyond them the higher ridge or summit of the Mount of Olives. The traveller now descends gradually towards the city along a broad swell of ground, having at some distance on his left the shallow northern part of the valley of Jehoshaphat; close at hand, on his right, the basin which forms the beginning of the valley of Hinnom. Further down both these valleys become deep, narrow, and precipitous; that of Hinnom bends S. and again E. nearly at right angles, and unites with the other, which then continues its course to the Dead Sea. Upon the broad and elevated promontory within the fork of these two valleys lies the holy city. All around are higher hills; on the E. the Mount of Olives; on the S. the Hill of Evil Council, so called, rising directly from the vale of Hinnom; on the W. the ground rises gently, as above described, to the borders of the Great Wady; while on the N. a bend of the ridge, connected with the Mount of Olives, bounds the prospect at the distance of more than a mile. Towards the S.W. the view is somewhat more open; for here lies the plain of Rephaim, commencing just at the southern brink of the valley of Hinnom, and stretching off S.W., where it runs to the western sea. In the N.W. too, the eye reaches up along the upper part of the valley of Jehoshaphat; and from many points can discern the mosque of Neby Samwil, situated on a lofty ridge beyond the Great Wady, at the distance of two hours.

"The surface of the elevated promontory itself, on which the city stands, slopes somewhat steeply towards the E., terminating on the brink of the valley of Jehoshaphat. From the northern part, near the present Damascus gate, a depression or shallow wady runs in a southern direction, having on the W. the ancient hills of Akra and Zion, and on the E. the lower ones of Bezetha and Moriah. Between the hills of Akra and Zion another depression or shallow wady (still easy to be traced) comes down from near the Jaffa gate, and joins the former. It then continues obliquely down the slope, but with a deeper bed, in a southern direction, quite to the pool of Siloam and the valley of Jehoshaphat. This is the ancient Tyropeon. West of its lower part Zion rises loftily, lying mostly without the modern city; while on the E. of the Tyropeon and the valley first mentioned, lie Bezetha, Moriah, and Ophel, the last a long and comparatively narrow ridge, also outside of the modern city, and terminating in a rocky point over the pool of Siloam. These three last hills may strictly be taken as only parts of one and the same ridge. The breadth of the whole site of Jerusalem, from the brow of the valley of Hinnom, near the Jaffa gate, to the brink of the valley of Jehoshaphat, is about 1020 yards, or nearly half a geographical mile; of which distance 318 yards are occupied by the area of the great mosque El-Haram Esh-Sherif. North of the Jaffa gate the city wall sweeps round more to the W., and increases the breadth of the city in that part.

"The country around Jerusalem is all of limestone for-Jerusalem. mation, and not particularly fertile. The rocks everywhere come out above the surface, which in many parts is also thickly strewed with loose stones; and the aspect of the whole region is barren and dreary; yet the olive thrives here abundantly, and fields of grain are seen in the valleys and level places, but they are less productive than in the region of Hebron and Nabulus. Neither vineyards nor fig-trees flourish on the high ground around the city, though the latter are found in the gardens below Siloam, and very frequently in the vicinity of Bethlehem."

Every reader of Scripture feels a natural anxiety to form some notion of the appearance and condition of Jerusalem as it existed in the time of Jesus, or rather as it stood before its destruction by the Romans. It is certain that our knowledge of its ancient state must proceed upon an accurate knowledge of its present condition. But if we compare the accounts of different travellers, and the plans which many of them have laid down, the irreconcilable differences between them produce a discouraging conviction of the insufficiency of the basis thus offered for the foundation of any fixed conclusions. And even if there were agreement in the accounts of the superficialities, something more than this would be required—something more than ever perhaps will be realized while the site continues to be trodden under foot by the Gentiles. Much was done by Dr Robinson and others during the period of the rule of the Pasha of Egypt, in which greater facilities were offered for exploration than are likely to be soon again obtained. But a far more minute and searching examination of the site than was even then realized is necessary for the purposes of antiquarian comparison. For instance, the surface is in many parts covered to a vast depth, and the character and properties of particular spots are necessarily much altered, by the accumulated rubbish of ages. Some notion of this may be formed from the fact that in seeking a foundation for the Protestant church on Mount Zion, superincumbent rubbish to the depth of fifty feet was dug through before reaching the solid rock (Olin, ii. 254). It would therefore appear that not only a very minute survey, but numerous excavations, would be necessary to the ends of a really satisfactory investigation.

To the obscurity originating in these causes may be added that which arises from the many ambiguities in the description left by Josephus, the only one which we possess, and which must form the ground-work of most of our notices respecting the ancient city. There are indeed some manifest errors in his account, which the critical reader is able to detect without having the means to rectify.

In describing Jerusalem as it stood just before its destruction by the Romans, Josephus states that the city was built upon two hills, between which lay the Valley Tyropeon (Cheesemonger's Valley), to which the buildings on both hills came down. This valley extended to the fountain of Siloam. The hill on which the upper town stood was much higher than the other, and straighter in its extent. On account of its fortifications, David called it the Fortress or Castle; but in the time of Josephus it was known by the name of the Upper Market. The other hill, on which was situated the lower town, was called Akra. It was in the form of a horseshoe or crescent. Opposite to Akra was a third, and naturally lower hill (Moriah), on which the temple was built; and between this and Akra was originally a broad valley, which the inhabitants of Jerusalem filled up in the time of Simon Maccabæus for the purpose of connecting the town with the temple. At the same time they lowered the hill Akra, so as to make the temple rise above it. Both the hills on which the upper and lower towns stood were externally surrounded by deep valleys, and here there was no approach because of the precipices on every side.

The single wall which inclosed that part of the city

Jerusalem. skirted by precipitous valleys, began at the tower of Hippicus. On the west it extended (southward) to a place called Bethso, and the gate of the Essenes; thence it kept along on the south to a point over against Siloam; and thence on the east was carried along by Solomon's Pool and Ophla (Opbel), till it terminated at the eastern portico of the temple. Of the triple walls, we are told that the first and oldest of these began at the tower of Hippicus, on the northern part, and extending (along the northern brow of Zion) to the Xystus, afterwards terminated at the western portico of the temple. The second wall began at the gate of Gennath (apparently near Hippicus), and encircling only the northern part of the city, extended to the castle of Antonia at the north-west corner of the area of the temple. The third wall was built by Agrippa at a later period: it also had its beginning at the tower of Hippicus, ran northward as far as the tower Psephinos; and thence sweeping round towards the north-east by east, it turned afterwards towards the south, and was joined to the ancient wall at or in the valley of the Kidron. This wall inclosed the hill Bezetha.

From other passages we learn that the Xystus, named in the above descriptions, was an open place in the extreme part of the upper city, where the people sometimes assembled, and that a bridge connected it with the temple (De Bell. Jud. ii. 16. 3; vi. 6. 2; vi. 8. 1; comp. Antiq. xiv. 4. 2). Further, we are informed that on the western side of the temple area were four gates; one leading over the valley to the royal palace (on Zion) adjacent to the Xystus, probably by the bridge just mentioned; two conducting to the suburb (or new city) on the north; and the remaining one leading to "the other city," first by steps down into the intervening valley, and then by an ascent (Joseph. Antiq. xv. 11. 5; xx. 8. 11). By this "other city" can be meant only the lower city or Akra. The hill Bezetha, which was last inclosed, lay quite near on the north of the temple (Joseph. De Bell. Jud. v. 5. 8). From the account of the operations of the Romans under Titus, it may also be collected that the interior and most ancient of the three walls on the north, lay between Akra and the upper city, forming the defence of the latter in this part. It was, doubtless, the same wall which ran along the northern brow of Zion.

It would be only going over this statement in other words to explain the results which it offers; and there is the less need of doing so, as they only serve to support the conclusions which have long been regarded as established. Dr Robinson, in comparing the information derived from Josephus with his own more detailed account, declares that the main features depicted by the Jewish historian may still be recognised. "True," he says, "the valley of the Tyropeon, and that between Akra and Moriah, have been greatly filled up with the rubbish accumulated from the repeated desolations of nearly eighteen centuries. Yet they are still distinctly to be traced: the hills of Zion, Akra, Moriah, and Bezetha, are not to be mistaken; while the deep valleys of the Kidron, and of Hinnom, and the Mount of Olives, are permanent natural features, too prominent and gigantic indeed to be forgotten, or to undergo any perceptible change" (Bibl. Researches, i. 414).

The details embraced in this general notice must be more particularly examined in connection with modern observations; for it is to be remembered that the chief or only value of these observations consists in the light which they throw on the ancient condition and history of the site.

Some questions of much interest, chiefly relating to the site of the crucifixion of our Lord, and of the sepulchre in which he was laid, are connected with the attempt to determine the course and extent of the ancient walls of Jerusalem. The first, or most ancient wall, appears to have inclosed the whole of Mount Zion. The greater part of it, therefore, must have formed the exterior and sole wall on the south, overlooking the deep valleys below Mount Zion;

and the northern part evidently passed from the tower of Hippicus on the west side, along the northern brow of Zion, and across the valley, to the western side of the temple area. It probably nearly coincided with the ancient wall which existed before the time of David, and which enabled the Jebusites to maintain themselves in possession of the upper city, long after the lower city had been in the hands of the Israelites. Mount Zion is now unwalled, and is excluded from the modern city. Some traces of this wall were visible in the time of Benjamin of Tudela, who says that the stones of the foundation were then taken away for building (Itiner., ed. Asher, i. 73). No trace of it can now be perceived, but by digging through the rubbish, the foundations might perhaps be discovered.

The account given by Josephus of the second wall is very short and unsatisfactory. This is the more to be regretted, as on the course taken by the eastern part of that wall rests the question, whether that which is now shown as the site of Calvary and the Holy Sepulchre was anciently beyond the wall or not. The difficulties of this question are very great, the historical evidence being just as strongly in favour of the present site as the topographical evidence is against it. It cannot be denied that the breadth of the city, in a site limited by nature, and where, therefore, every foot of ground was precious, would be greatly and inconveniently narrowed by drawing the line so as to place the present holy sepulchre beyond the walls. But, on the other hand, it must be admitted that the phrase "beyond the walls" is often interpreted with a larger meaning than necessary.

When applied to executions, gibbetings, or any purpose not allowable within the walls, we have always understood, from the analogous usages in all walled towns, that it denotes the slope or any other practicable space immediately under the wall, and so near to it that a slight advance of the wall would include the site. The fastening of the bodies of Saul and his sons to the wall of Beth-shan may illustrate this view of the case, which tends in some degree to lessen the difficulty of the question. For our present purpose it is sufficient to indicate the evident fact that this second wall inclosed the whole of the lower city, or Akra, excepting that part of the eastern side of it which fronted the temple area on Mount Moriah, and the southern side, towards the valley which separated the lower from the upper city. In short, it was a continuation of the external wall, so far as necessary, on the west and north, and on so much of the east as was not already protected by the strong wall of the temple area. The precise course of this wall might perhaps be determined by excavations. It is, indeed, our strong conviction that one good excavation along one of the two streets which intersect the Via Dolorosa would go far to settle for ever the only question of real interest connected with the subject. It is likely that the foundations of the old wall still exist; and if it lay at any point within the present wall, those foundations must pass under this street, and an excavation of not greater extent than those which are made every day in London for sewerage, would bring them to light, and show whether the alleged site of Calvary lay within or without the wall.

Although these were the only walls that existed in the time of our Saviour, we are not to infer that the habitable city was confined within their limits. On the contrary, it was because the city had extended northward far beyond the second wall that a third was built to cover the defenceless suburb; and there is no reason to doubt that this unprotected suburb, called Bezetha, existed in the time of Christ. This wall is described as having also begun at the tower of Hippicus: it ran northward as far as to the tower Psephinos, then passed down opposite the sepulchre of Helena (queen of Adiabene), and being carried along through the royal sepulchres, turned at the corner tower by the Fullers' monument, and ended by making a junction with

Jerusalem. the ancient wall at the valley of the Kidron. It was begun ten or twelve years after our Lord's crucifixion by the elder Herod Agrippa, who desisted from completing it for fear of offending the Emperor Claudius. But the design was afterwards taken up and completed by the Jews themselves, although on a scale of less strength and magnificence. Dr Robinson thinks that he discovered some traces of this wall, which are described in his great work (Bibl. Researches, i. 466).

The same writer thinks that the wall of the new city, the Elia of Adrian, nearly coincided with that of the present Jerusalem: and the portion of Mount Zion which now lies outside, would seem then also to have been excluded; for Eusebius and Cyril, in the fourth century, speak of the denunciation of the prophet being fulfilled, and describes Zion as a "ploughed field."

We know from Josephus that the circumference of the ancient city was 33 stadia, equivalent to nearly three and a half geographical miles. The circumference of the present walls does not exceed two and a half geographical miles; but the extent of Mount Zion, now without the walls, and the tract on the north formerly inclosed, or partly so, by the third wall, sufficiently account for the difference.

The history of the modern walls has already been given in the sketch of the modern history of the city. The present walls have a solid and formidable appearance, especially when cursorily observed from without; and they are strengthened, or rather ornamented, with towers and battlements after the Saracenic style. They are built of limestone, the stones being not commonly more than a foot or 15 inches square. The height varies with the various elevations of the ground. The lower parts are probably about 25 feet high, while in more exposed localities, where the ravines contribute less to the security of the city, they have an elevation of 60 or 70 feet.

Much uncertainty exists respecting the ancient gates of Jerusalem. Many gates are named in Scripture; and it has been objected that they are more in number than a town of the size of Jerusalem could require—especially as they all occur within the extent embraced by the first and second walls, the third not then existing. It has, therefore, been suggested as more than probable that some of these gates were within the city, in the walls which separated the town from the temple, and the upper town from the lower, in which gates certainly existed. On the other hand, considering the circumstances under which the wall was rebuilt in the time of Nehemiah, it is difficult to suppose that more than the outer wall was then constructed, and certainly it was in the wall then built that the ten or twelve gates mentioned by Nehemiah occur. But these may be considerably reduced by supposing that two or more of the names mentioned were applied to the same gate. If this view of the matter be taken, no better distribution of these gates can be given than that suggested by Raumer.

(a.) On the north side,—1. The Old-gate, probably at the north-east corner (Neh. iii. 6; xii. 39). 2. The Gate of Ephraim or Benjamin (Jer. xxxviii. 7), &c. This gate doubtless derived its names from its leading to the territory of Ephraim and Benjamin; and Dr Robinson supposes it may possibly be represented by some traces of ruins which he found on the site of the present Gate of Damascus. 3. The Corner-gate, 400 cubits from the former, and apparently at the north-west corner (2 Chron. xxv. 23), &c. Probably the Gate of the Furnaces is the same (Neh. iii. 2; xii. 38). (b.) On the west side,—4. The Valley-gate, over against the Dragon-fountain of Gihon (Neh. ii. 13), &c. It was probably about the north-west corner of Zion, where there appears to have been always a gate; and Dr Robinson supposes it to be the same with the Gennath of Josephus. (c.) On the south side,—5. The Dung-gate, perhaps the same as Josephus's Gate of the Essenes (Neh. ii. 13). It was 1000 cubits from the Valley-gate, and the

Dragon-well was between them. This gate is probably also identical with "the gate between two walls" (2 Kings xxv. 4), &c. 6. The Gate of the Fountain, to the south-east (Neh. ii. 14); the gate of the fountain near the king's pool (Neh. ii. 14); the gate of the fountain near "the pool of Siloah by the king's garden" (Neh. iii. 15). The same gate is probably denoted in all these instances, and the pools seem to have been also the same. It is also possible that this Fountain-gate was the same otherwise distinguished as the Brick-gate (or Potter's-gate), leading to the valley of Hinnom. (d.) On the east side,—7. The Water-gate (Neh. iii. 26). 8. The Prison-gate, otherwise the Horse-gate, near the temple (Neh. iii. 28). 9. The Sheep-gate, probably near the sheep-pool (Neh. iii. 1, 32). 10. The Fish-gate was quite at the north-east (Neh. iii. 3).

It will be observed that in two of the cases the distances of the gates from each other are mentioned. Thus the Corner-gate (3) was only 400 cubits from the gate of Ephraim (2), and the Dung-gate (5) was 1000 cubits from the Valley-gate (4). This suggests that the gates were really nearer to each other than the objections already stated would assume; and the "hundred-gated Thebes" may be recollected as warranting a doubt whether the ancient Orientals had the same objection to gates which are now entertained. At all events, if the circumference of the wall of Jerusalem, before the third wall was added, be assumed to have been 2½ miles, or equal to the present wall, then this extent would have allowed ten gates at the highest named distance of 1000 cubits apart, and more than thrice that number at the lowest named distance of 300 cubits.

In the middle ages there appear to have been two gates on each side of the city, making eight in all; and this number, being only two short of those assigned in the above estimate to the ancient Jerusalem, seems to vindicate that estimate from the objections which have been urged against it. On the west side were two gates, of which the principal was the Porta David (Gate of David), often mentioned by the writers on the Crusades. It was called by the Arabs Bab el-Mihrab, and corresponds to the present Jaffa-gate, or Bab el-Khulil. The other was the gate of the Fuller's Field (Porta Villa Fullonis), so called from Isa. vii. 3. This seems to be the same which others call Porta Judiciaria, and which is described as being in the wall over against the church of the Holy Sepulchre, leading to Silo (Neby Sameil) and Gibeon. This seems to be that which the Arabian writers call Serb. There is no trace of it in the present wall. On the north there were also two gates; and all the middle-age writers speak of the principal of them as the Gate of St Stephen, from the notion that the death of the protomartyr took place near it. This was also called the gate of Ephraim, in reference to its probable ancient name. Arabic writers called it Bab Amud el-Ghurab, of which the present name, Bab el'Amud, is only a contraction. The present Gate of St Stephen is on the east of the city, and the scene of the martyrdom is now placed near it; but there is no account of the change. Further east was the Gate of Benjamin (Porta Benjaminis), corresponding apparently to what is now called the Gate of Herod. On the east there seem to have been at least two gates. The northernmost is described by Adamnanus as a small portal leading down to the valley of Jehoshaphat. It was called the Gate of Jehoshaphat, from the valley to which it led. It seems to be represented by the present Gate of St Stephen. The Arabian writers call it Bab el-Ushat (Gate of the Tribes) being another form of the modern Arabic name Bab es-Subat. The present Gate of St Stephen has four lions sculptured over it on the outside, which, as well as the architecture, show that it existed before the present walls. Dr Robinson suggests that the original "small portal" was rebuilt on a larger scale by the Franks, when they built up the walls of the city, either in A.D. 1178 or 1239. The other

Jerusalem. gate is the famous Golden-gate (Porta aurea) in the eastern wall of the temple area. It is now called by the Arabs Bab ed-Dahariyah, but formerly Bab er-Rahmeh (Gate of Mercy). The name Golden-gate appears to have come from a supposed connection with one of the ancient gates of the temple, which are said to have been covered with gold; but this name cannot be traced back beyond the historians of the Crusades. This gate is, from its architecture, obviously of Roman origin, and is conjectured to have belonged to the inclosure of the temple of Jupiter which was built by Adrian upon Mount Moriah. The exterior is now walled up; but being double, the interior forms within the area a recess, which is used for prayer by the Moslem worshipper. Different reasons are given for the closing of this gate. It was probably because it was found inconvenient that a gate to the mosque should be open in the exterior wall. Although not walled up, it was kept closed even when the Crusaders were in possession of the city, and only opened once a year on Palm-Sunday, in celebration of our Lord's supposed triumphal entry through it to the temple. On the south side were also two gates. The easternmost is now called by the Franks the Dung-gate, and by the natives Bab el-Mugharibeh. The earliest mention of this gate is by Brocard, about A.D. 1283, who regards it as the ancient Water-gate. Further west, between the eastern brow of Zion and the Gate of David, the Crusaders found a gate which they call the Gate of Zion, corresponding to one which now bears the same name.

It thus appears that before the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem by the Turks in the sixteenth century, the principal gates of the city were much the same as at the present day. But of the seven gates mentioned as still existing, three, the Dung-gate, the Golden-gate, and Herod's-gate, are closed. Thus there are only four gates now in use, one on each side of the town, all of which have been enumerated. St Stephen's, on the east, leads to the Mount of Olives, Bethany, and Jericho. From the nature of the ground, taken in connection with the situation of the temple, a little south, there must always have been a great thoroughfare here. Zion-gate, on the south side of the city, connects the populous quarter around the Armenian convent with that part of Mount Zion which is outside the walls, and which is much resorted to as being the great field of Christian burial, as well as for its traditional sanctity as the site of David's tomb, the house of Caiaphas, house of Mary, &c. The Jaffa-gate, on the west, is the termination of the important routes from Jaffa, Bethlehem, and Hebron. The formation of the ground suggests this as one of the great thoroughfares of the ancient city, which could here be approached from the quarters just indicated much more conveniently than at any other point. The Damascus-gate, on the north, is also planted in a vale, which in every age of Jerusalem must have been a great public way, and the easiest approach from Samaria and Galilee.

Towers. The towers of Jerusalem are often mentioned in Scripture and in Josephus. There is, indeed, no general account of them; but some of the principal are described, and we may reasonably infer that the others resembled them more or less in form and arrangement. Most of the towers mentioned by Josephus were erected by Herod the Great, and were consequently standing in the time of Christ. It was on these, therefore, that his eyes often rested when he approached Jerusalem, or viewed its walls and towers from the Mount of Olives. Of all these towers, the most important is that of Hippius, which Josephus, as we have already seen, assumed as the starting point in his description of all the walls of the city. Herod gave to it the name of a friend who was slain in battle. It was a quadrangular structure, 25 cubits on each side, and built up entirely solid to the height of 30 cubits. Above this solid part was a cistern 20 cubits; and then, for 25 cubits more, were

chambers of various kinds, with a breastwork of 2 cubits, and battlements of 3 cubits upon the top. The altitude of the whole tower was consequently 80 cubits. The stones of which it was built were very large—20 cubits long by 10 broad and 5 high, and (probably in the upper part) were of white marble. Dr Robinson has shown that this tower should be sought at the north-west corner of the upper city, or Mount Zion. This part, a little to the S. of the Jaffa-gate, is now occupied by the citadel. It is an irregular assemblage of square towers, surrounded on the inner side towards the city by a low wall, and having on the outer, or west side, a deep fosse. The towers, which rise from the brink of the fosse, are protected on that side by a low sloping bulwark or buttress, which rises from the bottom of the trench at an angle of 45°. This part bears evident marks of antiquity; and Dr Robinson is inclined to ascribe these massive outworks to the time of the rebuilding and fortifying of the city by Adrian. This fortress is described by the middle-age historians as the tower or citadel of David. Within it, as the traveller enters the city by the Jaffa-gate, the north-eastern tower attracts his notice as bearing evident marks of higher antiquity than any of the others. The upper part is, indeed, modern, but the lower part is built of larger stones, bevelled at the edges, and apparently still occupying their original places. This tower has been singled out by the Franks, and bears among them the name of the Tower of David, while they sometimes give to the whole fortress the name of the Castle of David. Taking all the circumstances into account, Robinson, Raumer, and other travellers, think that the antique lower portion of this tower is, in all probability, a remnant of the tower of Hippius, which, as Josephus states, was left standing by Titus when he destroyed the city.

Josephus describes two other towers—those of Phasaelus and Mariamme—both built by Herod; one of them being named after a friend, and the other after his favourite wife. They stood not far from Hippius, upon the first or most ancient wall, which ran from the latter tower eastward, along the northern brow of Zion. Connected with these towers and Hippius was the royal castle or palace of the first Herod, which was inclosed by this wall on the N., and on the other sides by a wall 30 cubits high. The whole was furnished with great strength and regal splendour, and furnished with halls, and galleries, and cisterns, and apartments without number (Joseph. De Bell. Jud. v. 4. 3, 4; v. 4. 4). These were the three mighty towers which Titus left standing as monuments of the strength of the place which had yielded to his arms; but nothing now remains save the above mentioned supposed remnant of the Tower of Hippius.

A fourth tower, called Psephinus, is mentioned by Josephus (De Bell. Jud. v. 4. 2, 3). It stood at the north-west corner of the third or exterior wall of the city. It did not, consequently, exist in the time of Christ, seeing that the wall itself was built by Herod Agrippa, to whom also the tower may be ascribed. It was of an octagonal form, 70 cubits high, and from it could be seen Arabia towards the rising sun, and the inheritance of the Hebrews quite to the sea. This shows that it must have stood upon the high swell of ground which extends up north-north-west from the north-west corner of the present city. In this quarter there are ancient substructions, apparently of towers and other fortifications; and although none of them may be actually those of Psephinus, Dr Robinson conceives that the tower stood somewhere in this vicinity.

The above are the only towers which the historian particularly mentions. But, in describing the outer or third wall of Agrippa, he states that it had battlements of 2 cubits, and turrets of 3 cubits more; and, as the wall was 20 cubits high, this would make the turrets of the height of 25 cubits, or nearly 38 feet. Many loftier and more sub-

Jerusalem. substantial towers than these were erected on each of the walls at regulated distances, and furnished with every requisite for convenience or defence. Of those on the third or outer wall are enumerated 90; on the middle or second wall, 40; and on the inner or ancient wall, 60.

Public Buildings. The temple was in all ages the great glory and principal public building of Jerusalem, as the heathen temple, church, or mosque, successively occupying the same site, has been ever since the Jewish temple was destroyed.

After the Israelites had exchanged their nomadic life for a life in permanent habitations, it was becoming that they should exchange also their moveable sanctuary or tabernacle for a temple. There elapsed, however, after the conquest of Palestine, several centuries during which the sanctuary continued moveable, although the nation became more and more stationary. It appears that the first who planned the erection of a stone-built sanctuary was David, who mediated the design of building a temple in which the ark of God might be placed, instead of being deposited "within curtains," or in a tent, as hitherto. This design was at first encouraged by the prophet Nathan; but he was afterwards instructed to tell David that such a work was less appropriate for him, who had been a warrior from his youth, and had shed much blood, than for his son, who should enjoy in prosperity and peace the rewards of his father's victories. Nevertheless, the design itself was highly approved as a token of proper feelings towards the Divine King (2 Sam. vii. 1-12), &c. We learn, moreover, from 1 Kings v., and 1 Chron. xxii., that David had collected materials which were afterwards employed in the erection of the temple, which was commenced four years after his death, about B.C. 1012, in the second month, that is, the month of Siv, 480 years after the Exodus from Egypt. We thus learn that the Israelitic sanctuary had remained moveable more than four centuries subsequent to the conquest of Canaan.

The site of the temple is clearly stated in 2 Chron. iii. 1:—"Then Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, in Mount Moriah, where the Lord appeared unto David his father, in the place that David had prepared in the threshing-floor of Ornan (or Araunah) the Jebusite." It seems that the summit of Moriah, although large enough for the agricultural purposes of Araunah, had no level sufficient for the plans of Solomon. According to Josephus (De Bell. Jud. v. 5), the foundations of the temple were laid on a steep eminence, the summit of which was at first insufficient for the temple and altar. As it was surrounded by precipices, it became necessary to build up walls and buttresses in order to gain more ground by filling up the interval with earth. The hill was also fortified by a threefold wall, the lowest tier of which was in some places more than 300 cubits high; and the depth of the foundation was not visible, because it had been necessary in some parts to dig deep into the ground in order to obtain sufficient support. The dimensions of the stones of which the walls were composed were enormous; Josephus mentions a length of 40 cubits. It is, however, likely that some parts of the fortifications of Moriah were added at a later period. The characteristics of the site of the Solomonic temple have undergone so many changes, that it is at present scarcely possible to discern them. Niebuhr gave an accurate description of what he found, illustrated by a map, in the Deutsches Museum, 1784, vol. i., p. 448, sq.; ii. 137, sq.; and also in the third volume of his travels (comp. also Mishna, Middoth, ii. 4).

The workmen and the materials employed in the erection of the temple were chiefly procured by Solomon from Hiram, king of Tyre, who was rewarded by a liberal importation of wheat. Josephus states that duplicates of the letters which passed between Solomon and King Hiram were still extant in his time, both at Jerusalem and among the Tyrian records. He informs us that the persons em-

ployed in collecting and arranging the materials for the Jerusalem temple were ordered to search out the largest stones for the foundation, and to prepare them for use on the mountains where they were procured, and then convey them to Jerusalem. In this part of the business, Hiram's men were ordered to assist.

Josephus adds, that the foundation was sunk to an astonishing depth, and composed of stones of singular magnitude, and very durable. Being closely mortised into the rock with great ingenuity, they formed a basis adequate to the support of the intended structure. Josephus gives to the temple the same length and breadth as are given in 1 Kings, but mentions 60 cubits as the height. He says that the walls were composed entirely of white stone; that the walls and ceilings were wainscoted with cedar, which was covered with the purest gold; that the stones were put together with such ingenuity that the smallest interstices were not perceptible, and that the timbers were joined with iron cramps.

Divines and architects have repeatedly endeavoured to represent the architectural proportions of the temple, which was 60 cubits long, 20 wide, and 30 high. Josephus, however (Antiq. viii. 3, 2), says, "The temple was 60 cubits high, and 60 cubits in length, and the breadth was 20 cubits; above this was another stage of equal dimensions, so that the height of the whole structure was 120 cubits." It is difficult to reconcile this statement with that given in 1 Kings, unless we suppose that the words ἰσος τοῖς μέτροις, equal in measures, do not signify an equality in all dimensions, but only as much as equal in the number of cubits; so that the porch formed a kind of steeple, which projected as much above the roof of the temple as the roof itself was elevated above its foundations. As the Chronicles agree with Josephus in asserting that the summit of the porch was 120 cubits high, there remains still another apparent contradiction to be solved, namely, how Josephus could assert that the temple itself was 60 cubits high, while we read in 1 Kings that its height was only 30 cubits. We suppose that in the book of Kings the internal elevation of the sanctuary is stated, and that Josephus describes its external elevation, which, including the basement and an upper story (which may have existed, consisting of rooms for the accommodation of priests, containing also vestries and treasuries), might be double the internal height of the sanctuary. The internal dimension of the "holy," was 40 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. The holy was separated from the "holy of holies" by a partition, a large opening in which was closed by a suspended curtain. The holy of holies was on the western extremity of the entire building, and its internal dimensions formed a cube of 20 cubits. On the eastern extremity of the building stood the porch. At the entrance of this pronaos stood the two columns called Jachin and Boaz, which were 23 cubits high.

The temple was also surrounded by three stories of chambers, each of which stories was 5 cubits high, so that there remained above ample space for introducing the windows, requisite more for ventilation than for the admission of light into the sanctuary. Now the statement of Josephus, who says, that each of these stories of chambers was 20 cubits high, cannot be reconciled with the biblical statements, and may prove that he was no very close reader of his authorities. Perhaps he had a vague kind of information that the chambers reached half-way up the height of the building, and taking the maximum height of 120 cubits instead of the internal height of the "holy," he made each story four times too high. The windows, which are mentioned in 1 Kings vi. 4, consisted probably of lattice-work.

The lowest story of the chambers was 5 cubits, the middle 6, and the third 7 cubits wide. This differ-

Jerusalem. Once the width arose from the circumstance that the external walls of the temple were so thick that they were made to recede one cubit after an elevation of five feet, so that the scarcement in the wall of the temple gave a firm support to the beams which supported the second story, without being inserted into the wall of the sanctuary; which insertion was perhaps avoided, not merely for architectural reasons, but also because it appeared to be irreverent. The third story was supported likewise by a similar scarcement, which afforded a still wider space for the chamber of the third story. From this description it may be inferred that the entrance to these stories was from without; but some architects have supposed that it was from within; which arrangement seems to be against the general aim of impressing the Israelitish worshippers with sacred awe by the seclusion of their sanctuary.

In reference to the windows it should be observed, that they served chiefly for ventilation, since the light within the temple was obtained from the sacred candlesticks. It seems from the descriptions of the temple to be certain that the oracle, or "holy of holies," was an adytum without windows. It had probably no other opening besides the entrance, which was, as we may infer from the prophetic visions of Ezekiel (which probably correspond with the historic temple of Solomon) six cubits wide.

From 1 Kings vii. 10, we learn that the private dwellings of Solomon were built of massive stone. We hence infer that the framework of the temple also consisted of the same material. The temple was, however, wainscoted with cedar wood, which was covered with gold. The boards within the temple were ornamented by beautiful carvings representing cherubim, palms, and flowers. The ceiling of the temple was supported by beams of cedar wood. The wall which separated the "holy" from the "holy of holies," probably consisted not of stone, but of beams of cedar. It seems, further, that the partitions partly consisted of an opus reticulatum; so that the incense could spread from the "holy" to the "most holy."

The floor of the temple was, throughout, of cedar, but boarded over with planks of fir. The doors of the oracle were composed of olive tree; but the doors of the outer temple had posts of olive tree, and leaves of fir. Both doors, as well that which led into the temple as that which led from the "holy" to the "holy of holies," had folding leaves, which, however, seem to have been usually kept open, the aperture being closed by a suspended curtain—a contrivance still seen at the church-doors in Italy, where the church-doors usually stand open, but the doorways can be passed only by moving aside a heavy curtain. From 2 Chron. iii. 5, it appears that the greater house was also ceiled with fir. It is stated in ver. 9, "that the weight of the nails employed in the temple was fifty shekels of gold;" and, also, that Solomon "overlaid the upper chambers with gold."

The lintel and side-posts of the oracle seem to have circumscribed a space which contained one-fifth of the whole area of the partition; and the posts of the door of the temple one-fourth of the area of the wall in which they were placed. Thus we understand the passage, 1 Kings vi. 31-35, which also states that the door was covered with carved work overlaid with gold. Within the "holy of holies" stood only the ark of the covenant; but within the "holy" were ten golden candlesticks, and the altar of incense.

The temple was surrounded by an inner court, which in Chronicles is called the court of the Priests, and in Jeremiah the upper-court. This again was surrounded by a wall consisting of cedar beams placed on a stone foundation. This inclosure, according to Josephus (Antiq. viii. 3-9), was three cubits high. Besides this inner court, there is mentioned a great-court which seems to have been also called outward-court. This court was also more especially known as the court of the Lord's house (Jer. xix. 12;

xxvi. 2). These courts were surrounded by spacious buildings, which, however, according to Josephus (De Bell. Jud. v. 5, 1), seem to have been partly added at a period later than that of Solomon. For instance (2 Kings xv. 35), Jotham is said to have "built the higher gate of the house of the Lord." In Jer. xxvi. 10, and xxxvi. 10, there is mentioned a "new gate" (Comp. also Ezek. xl. 5-47; xlii. 1-14). The third entry into the house of the Lord mentioned in Jer. xxxviii. 14, does not seem to indicate that there were three courts, but appears to mean that the entry into the outer court was called the first, that into the inner court the second, and the door of the sanctuary the third. It is likely that these courts were quadrilateral. In the divisions of Ezekiel they form a square of four hundred cubits. The inner court contained towards the east the altar of burnt-offering, the brazen sea, and ten brazen lavers; and it seems that the sanctuary did not stand in the centre of the inner court, but more towards the west. From these descriptions we learn that the temple of Solomon was not distinguished by magnitude, but by good architectural proportions, beauty of workmanship, and costliness of materials. Many of our churches have an external form not unlike that of the temple of Solomon. In fact, this temple seems to have been the pattern of our church buildings, to which the chief addition has been the Gothic arch. Among others, the Roman Catholic church at Dresden is supposed to bear a strong resemblance to the temple of Solomon.

It is remarkable that after the temple was finished, it was not consecrated by the high priest, but by a layman, by the king in person, by means of extempore prayers and sacrifices. The temple remained the centre of public worship for all the Israelites only till the death of Solomon, after which ten tribes forsook this sanctuary. But even in the kingdom of Judah it was from time to time desecrated by altars erected to idols. For instance, Manasseh "built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord. And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger. And he set a graven image of the grove that he had made in the house," &c. Thus we find also that king Josiah commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order, to remove the idols of Baal and Asheerah from the house of the Lord (2 Kings xxiii. 4, 13). In fact, we are informed that in spite of the better means of public devotion which the sanctuary undoubtedly afforded, the national morals declined so much that the chosen nation became worse than the idolaters whom the Lord destroyed before the children of Israel (2 Kings xxi. 9). It appears also that, during the times when it was fashionable at court to worship Baal, the temple stood desolate, and that its repairs were neglected. We further learn that the cost of the repairs was defrayed chiefly by voluntary contribution, by offerings, and by redemption money. The original cost of the temple seems to have been defrayed by royal bounty, and in great measure by treasures collected by David for that purpose.

There was a treasury in the temple, in which much precious metal was collected for the maintenance of public worship. The gold and silver of the temple was, however, frequently applied to political purposes (1 Kings xv. 18, sq.), &c. The treasury of the temple was repeatedly plundered by foreign invaders. For instance, by Shishak (1 Kings xiv. 26); by Jehoash, king of Israel (2 Kings xiv. 14); by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxiv. 13); and lastly, again by Nebuchadnezzar, who, having removed the valuable contents, caused the temple to be burned down (2 Kings xxv. 9, sq.), B.C. 588. The building had stood since its completion 417 or 418 years (Josephus has 470, and Rufinus

Jerusalem, 370 years). Thus terminated what the later Jews called the first house.

The second temple. In the year B.C. 536 the Jews obtained permission from Cyrus to colonize their native land. Cyrus commanded also that the sacred utensils which had been pillaged from the first temple should be restored, and that for the restoration of the temple assistance should be granted. The first colony which returned under Zerubbabel and Joshua having collected the necessary means, commenced in the second year after their return, B.C. 534, the rebuilding of the temple. The Sidonians brought rafts of cedar trees from Lebanon to Joppa. The Jews refused the co-operation of the Samaritans, who being thereby offended, induced the king Artasashta (probably Smerdis) to prohibit the building. And it was only in the second year of Darius Hystaspis, B.C. 520, that the building was resumed. It was completed in the sixth year of this king, B.C. 516. According to Josephus (Antiq. xi. 4, 7) the temple was completed in the ninth year of the reign of Darius.

This second temple was erected on the site of the former, and probably after the same plan. According to the plan of Cyrus, the new temple was sixty cubits high, and sixty cubits wide. It appears from Josephus that the height is to be understood of the porch, for we learn from the speech of Herod which he records, that the second temple was sixty cubits lower than the first, whose porch was 120 cubits high (comp. Joseph. Antiq. xv. 11, 1). But it was not so much in dimensions that the second temple was inferior to the first, as in splendour, and in being deprived of the ark of the covenant, which had been burned with the temple of Solomon. The temple of Zerubbabel had several courts (αὐλὰι) and cloisters or cells (πρόθυρα). Josephus distinguishes an internal and external ἱερόν, and mentions cloisters in the courts. This temple was connected with the town by means of a bridge (Antiq. xiv. 4). During the wars from B.C. 175 to B.C. 163, it was pillaged and desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes, who introduced into it idolatrous rites (2 Mac. vi. 2, 5), dedicating the temple to Jupiter Olympius, and the temple on Mount Gerizim, in allusion to the foreign origin of its worshippers, to Jupiter Ζεύς. The temple became so desolate that it was overgrown with vegetation (1 Macc. iv. 38; 2 Macc. vi. 4). Judas Maccabæus expelled the Syrians and restored the sanctuary, B.C. 165. He repaired the building, furnished new utensils, and erected fortifications against future attacks. Alexander Jannæus, about B.C. 106, separated the court of the priests from the external court by a wooden railing. During the contentions among the later Maccabees, Pompey attacked the temple from the north side, caused a great massacre in its courts, but abstained from plundering the treasury, although he even entered the "holy of holies," B.C. 63 (Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 4). Herod the Great, with the assistance of Roman troops, stormed the temple, B.C. 37; on which occasion some of the surrounding halls were destroyed or damaged.

Temple of Herod. Herod, wishing to ingratiate himself with the church and state party, and being fond of architectural display, undertook not merely to repair the second temple, but to raise a perfectly new structure. As, however, the temple of Zerubbabel was not actually destroyed, but only removed after the preparations for the new temple were completed, there has arisen some debate whether the temple of Herod could properly be called the third temple.

The reason why the temple of Zerubbabel was not at once taken down, in order to make room for the more splendid structure of Herod, is explained by Josephus as follows (Joseph. Antiq. xv. 11, 2). The Jews were afraid that Herod would pull down the whole edifice, and not be able to carry his intentions as to its rebuilding into effect; and this danger appeared to them to be very great, and the

vastness of the undertaking to be such as could hardly be Jerusalem accomplished. But while they were in this disposition, the king encouraged them, and told them he would not pull down their temple till all things were got ready for building it up entirely.

The work was commenced in the eighteenth year of the reign of Herod; that is, about twenty or twenty-one years before the Christian era. Priests and Levites finished the temple itself in one year and a half. The outbuildings and courts required eight years. However, some building operations were constantly in progress under the successors of Herod, and it is in reference to this we are informed that the temple was finished only under Albinus, the last procurator but one, not long before the commencement of the Jewish war, in which the temple was again destroyed. It is in reference also to these protracted building operations that the Jews said to Jesus, "Forty and six years was this temple in building" (John ii. 20). The temple is described by Josephus (Antiq. xv. 11, and De Bell. Jud. v. 5). With this should be compared the Talmudic tract Middoth. (Mishna, v. 10).

The whole of the structures belonging to the temple were a stadium square, and consequently four stadia (or half a Roman mile) in circumference. The temple was situated on the highest point, not quite in the centre, but rather to the north-western corner of this square, and was surrounded by various courts, the innermost of which was higher than the next outward, which descended in terraces. The temple, consequently, was visible from the town, notwithstanding its various high enclosures. The outer court was called the mountain of the house. According to Middoth (i. 3) this mountain of the house had five gates, two towards the south, and one towards each of the other quarters. The principal gate was that towards the east: it was called the Gate Susan, and a representation of the town of Susa, sculptured in relief, was affixed to it. This had been preserved from the days of Zerubbabel, when the Jews were anxious to express by all means their loyal submission to the Persian power. It seems, however, that besides these five principal gates there were some other entrances, because Josephus speaks of four gates on the west and several on the south. Annexed to the outer wall were halls which surrounded the temple, and were thirty cubits wide, except on the south side, where the βασιλική στοά (the royal hall) seems to have been threefold, or three times wider than the other halls. The roofs of these halls were of cedar wood, and were supported by marble columns 25 cubits high. The Levites resided in these halls. There was also a synagogue where the Talmudic doctors might be asked questions, and where their decisions might be heard. These halls seem likewise to have formed a kind of lounge for religionists; they appear to have been spacious enough to afford opportunities for religious teachers to address knots of hearers. Thus we find that Jesus had there various opportunities for addressing the people, and refuting cavillers.

Here also the first Christians could daily assemble with one accord (Acts ii. 46). Within this outer court money-changers and cattle-dealers transacted a profitable business, especially during the time of Passover. The priests took only shekels of full weight, that is, shekels of the sanctuary, even after the general currency had been deteriorated; hence the frequent opportunity of the money-changers to accommodate for agio the worshippers, most of whom arrived from abroad unprovided with the right coin. The profaneness to which this money-changing and cattle-dealing gave rise caused the indignation of our Lord, who suddenly expelled all these sharks from their stronghold of business (Matt. xxi. 12, sq.), &c.

The surface of this outer court was paved with stones of various colours. A stone balustrade was several steps

Jerusalem. higher up the "mountain" than this outer court, and prevented the too near approach of the heathens to the next court. For this purpose there were also erected columns at certain distances within this balustrade, on which there were Greek and Latin inscriptions, interdicting all heathens, under penalty of death, to advance farther.

Higher up than this balustrade was a wall of the court, 40 cubits high from its foundation, but from within the court it appeared to be only 25 cubits high. To this higher court led a staircase and gate on the eastern side of the square. This staircase first led into the court of the women, which was 135 cubits square. Again, fifteen steps higher up was the principal entrance to the court of the Israelites, i.e., the men, on the eastern side of the temple. On the other sides only five steps led up from the court of the women to that of the men. But the fifteen steps, each of which was lower than each of the five steps, seem to have terminated in the same level. Over the gates were structures more than 40 cubits high, in which were rooms. Each of the gates was adorned with two columns, which were 12 cubits in circumference. In these gates were folding-doors, each of which was 30 cubits high and 15 wide; they were plated with gold and silver. The gate towards the east, being the principal one, was of Corinthian brass, and was higher, larger, and more adorned with precious metal than the rest. Within the walls of this court were halls supported by beautiful columns. The court of the priests was separated from that of the Israelites by a low stone balustrade 1 cubit high. The whole space which was occupied by the court of the Israelites and that of the priests, together with the temple, was from east to west 187 cubits, and from north to south 135 cubits. Each of these courts was 11 cubits wide, in which measurement that of the halls seems not to have been included (comp. Middoth ii. 6). The court of the priests surrounded the whole temple. On the northern and southern sides were magazines of salt, wood, water, &c., and on the south side also was the place of meeting for the Sanhedrim. Towards the east, with entrances from the court of the women, were two rooms in which the musical instruments were deposited; towards the north-west were four rooms in which the lambs for the daily sacrifices were kept, the shewbread baked, &c. In the four corners of the court of the women were lazarettos and quarantine establishments for the reception of persons suspected of leprosy and other infectious diseases; there was also a physician appointed to treat the priests who were unwell. Within the various courts there were several alms-boxes, shaped like trumpets. All the courts were paved with flat stones. From the various statements concerning the court of the women, it is evident that this appellation did not mean a place exclusively devoted to the women, but rather a place to which even women were admitted, together with other persons who were not allowed to advance farther. The temple itself was fifteen steps higher than the court of the Israelites, and stood, not in the middle, but rather towards the north-western corner of the court of the priests. In the usual plans of the temple the passage in Middoth ii. 1, has been disregarded. This passage clearly states that the temple was not in the centre:—"The greatest space was from the south, the next greatest from the east, the third from the north, and the least from the west. The foundations of the temple consisted of blocks of white marble, some of which were 45 cubits long, 6 cubits wide, and 5 cubits high. The porch measured externally 100 cubits in width; the remaining part of the building 60 or 70 cubits. Thus it appears that the porch projected on each side from 15 to 20 cubits." The difference of measurement between Josephus and the Talmud may be accounted for by the difference of internal and external width. The projections of the porch were like shoulders. The whole building was 100 or 110 cubits

long, and 100 cubits high. The internal measurement of the Jerusalem porch was 50 cubits by 20, and 90 cubits in height. The "holy" was 40 cubits by 20, and 60 cubits high; the "holy of holies" was 20 cubits square and 60 cubits high. According to Middoth, the porch was only 11 cubits, the "holy" 40 cubits, the "holy of holies" 20 cubits, and behind this last there was a vestry of 6 cubits. The remaining 23 cubits were distributed among the diameters of the several walls, so that the whole was 100 cubits long. In the eastern front, which was 100 cubits square, was a proportionate gate, 70 cubits high and 25 cubits wide. Above the "holy" and "holy of holies" were upper rooms. On the summit of the temple (αρά κορυφή) were spikes, which resembled our conductors in shape, and were intended to prevent birds from settling on the temple. It seems that the roof was flat, and surrounded by a balustrade 3 cubits high. On the north and south side of the temple were three stories of chambers, which were much higher than those of the Solomonic temple, but did not entirely conceal the temple itself, because it projected above them. The spaces on the north and south side of the porch contained the apparatus for slaughtering the sacrifices, and were called the house of knives.

The "holy of holies" was entirely empty; there was, however, a stone in the place of the ark of the covenant, on which the high-priest placed the censer. Before the entrance of the "holy of holies" was suspended a curtain, which was torn by the earthquake that followed after the crucifixion. The rabbis talk of two curtains, between which was a space of 1 cubit, suspended before the "holy of holies." The folding-doors between the porch and the "holy" were 20 cubits high and 10 cubits wide; but the entrance itself, with its mouldings, was 55 cubits high and 16 cubits wide. These doors stood open; there were, however, behind them some other doors which were shut, and before which a splendid Babylonian byssus curtain was suspended, in colours and workmanship similar to that of the Solomonic temple. The entrance to the porch was externally 70 cubits high and 25 cubits wide, with folding-doors of 40 cubits high and 20 cubits wide. These doors were usually kept open. This entrance to the porch was adorned by a colossal golden vine, whose grapes were as big as men. This vine was a symbolical representation of the "noble vine" (Jer. ii. 21; Ezek. xix. 10; Joel i. 7), and of the "vineyard" (Isa. v.), under which the prophets represent their nation. It is very likely that this vine also gave an opportunity to the parable of the vine (John xv.), and to the strange misconception of pagan scribblers that the Jews worshipped Bacchus.

Within the porch were a golden and marble table, on which the priest who entered the sanctuary daily deposited the old and the new shewbread. Before the porch, towards the south, were the brazier, or fire-pan, and the altar for burnt-offerings; towards the north were six rows of rings attached to the pavement, to which the sacrifices to be killed were fastened; also eight low columns overlaid with cedar beams, from which the beasts that had been killed were suspended in order to be skinned. Between these columns stood marble tables on which the flesh and entrails were deposited. On the western side of the altar stood a marble table, on which the fat was deposited, and a silver table, on which the various utensils were placed.

The temple was situated upon the south-eastern corner of Mount Moriah, which is separated to the east, by a precipitous ravine and the Kidron, from the Mount of Olives; the Mount of Olives is much higher than Moriah. On the south the temple was bounded by the ravine which separates Moriah from Zion, or the lower city from the upper city. Opposite to the temple at the foot of Zion, were formerly the king's gardens, and higher up, in a south-westerly direction, the stronghold of Zion or the city of David, on a higher level than the temple. The temple was in

ancient warfare almost impregnable, from the ravines at the precipitous edge of which it stood; but it required more artificial fortifications on its western and northern sides, which were surrounded by the city of Jerusalem; for this reason there was erected at its north-western corner the tower of Antonia, which although standing on a lower level than the temple itself, was so high as to overlook the sacred buildings with which it was connected, partly by a large staircase, and partly by a subterranean communication. Under the sons of Herod, the temple remained apparently in good order, and Herod Agrippa, who was appointed by the Emperor Claudius its guardian, even planned the repair of the eastern part, which had probably been destroyed during one of the conflicts between the Jews and Romans of which the temple was repeatedly the scene (Antiq. xvii. 10). There are a few indications from which we learn that important documents were deposited in the tabernacle and temple. Even in Deut. xxxi. 26, we find that the book of the law was deposited in the ark. According to 2 Kings xxii. 8, Hilkiah rediscovered the book of the law in the house of Jehovah. In 2 Macc. ii. 13, we find a library mentioned, apparently consisting chiefly of the canonical books, and probably deposited in the temple. In Josephus (De Bell. Jud. v. 5) it is mentioned that a book of the law was found in the temple. It appears that the sacred writings were kept in the temple (Antiq. v. 1-17). Copies of political documents seem to have been deposited in the treasury of the temple.

This treasury was managed by an inspector, and it contained the great sums which were annually paid in by the Israelites, each of whom paid a half shekel, and many of whom sent donations in money, and precious vessels, ἀνθῳνα. Such costly presents were especially transmitted by rich proselytes, and even sometimes by pagan princes (2 Macc. iii. 3; Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 16. 4), &c., &c. It is said especially that Ptol. Philadelphus was very liberal to the temple, in order to prove his gratitude for having been permitted to procure the Septuagint translation. The gifts exhibited in the temple are mentioned in Luke xxi. 5; we find even that the rents of the whole town of Ptolemais were given to the temple. There were also preserved historical curiosities, especially the arms of celebrated heroes (Joseph. Antiq. xix. 6. 1); this was also the case in the tabernacle.

The temple was of so much political importance that it had its own guards. Their general had his own secretary (Antiq. xx. 6. 2; 9. 3), and had to maintain the police in the courts (comp. Acts iv. 1, and v. 24). He appears to have been of sufficient dignity to be mentioned together with the chief priests. It seems that his Hebrew title was, the man of the mountain of the house.

The priests themselves kept watch on three different posts, and the Levites on twenty-one posts.

It was the duty of the police of the temple to prevent women from entering the inner court, and to take care that no person who was Levitically unclean should enter within the sacred precincts. Gentiles were permitted to pass the first enclosure, which was therefore called the court of the Gentiles; but persons who were on any account Levitically unclean were even not permitted to advance thus far. Some sorts of uncleanness, for instance that arising from the touch of a corpse, excluded only from the court of the men. If an unclean person had entered by mistake, he was required to offer sacrifices of purification. The high-priest himself was forbidden to enter the "holy of holies" under penalty of death on any other day but the day of atonement. Nobody was admitted within the precincts of the temple who carried a stick or a basket, and who wanted to pass merely to shorten his way, or who had dusty shoes (Mildoth, ii. 2).

During the final struggle of the Jews against the Ro-

mans, A.D. 70, the temple was the last scene of the tug of Jerusalem. The Romans rushed from the tower Antonia into the sacred precincts, the halls of which were set on fire by the Jews themselves. It was against the will of Titus that a Roman soldier threw a firebrand into the northern outbuildings of the temple, which caused the conflagration of the whole structure, although Titus himself endeavoured to extinguish the fire (Joseph. De Bell. Jud. vi. 4). "One cannot but wonder at the accuracy of this period thereto relating; for the same month and day were now observed, as I said before, wherein the holy house was burnt formerly by the Babylonians. Now, the number of years that passed from its first foundation, which was laid by King Solomon, till this its destruction, which happened in the second year of the reign of Vespasian, are collected to be 1130, besides 7 months and 15 days; and from the second building of it, which was done by Haggai, in the second year of Cyrus the king, till its destruction under Vespasian, there were 639 years and 45 days."

The sacred utensils, the golden table of the shewbread, the book of the law, and the golden candlestick, were displayed in the triumph at Rome. Representations of them are still to be seen sculptured in relief on the triumphal arch of Titus. The place where the temple had stood seemed to be a dangerous centre for the rebellious population, until, in A.D. 136, the Emperor Hadrian dedicated a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus on the ruins of the temple of Jehovah. Henceforth no Jew was permitted to approach the site of the ancient temple, although the worshippers of Jehovah were in derision compelled to pay a tax for the maintenance of the temple of Jupiter. Under the reign of Constantine the Great some Jews were severely punished for having attempted to restore the temple (comp. Fabricii Lux Evangelii, p. 124). In A.D. 363, the Emperor Julian undertook to rebuild the temple; but after considerable preparations and much expense, he was compelled to desist by flames which burst forth from the foundations. Repeated attempts have been made to account for these igneous explosions by natural causes; for instance, by the ignition of gases which had long been pent up in subterranean vaults. A similar event is mentioned by Josephus (Antiq. xvi. 7. 1), where we are informed that Herod, while plundering the tombs of David and Solomon, was suddenly frightened by flames which burst out and killed two of his soldiers.

A splendid mosque now stands on the site of the temple. This mosque was erected by the Caliph Omar after the conquest of Jerusalem by the Saracens, A.D. 636. It seems that Omar changed a Christian church, that stood on the ground of the temple, into this mosque, which is called El Aksa, the outer, or northern, because it is the third of the most celebrated mosques, two of which, namely, those of Mecca and Medina, are in a more southern latitude.

The tower or castle of Antonia stood on a steep rock adjoining the N.W. corner of the temple. It has already been mentioned, that it originated under the Maccabees, who resided in it. The name of Baris, which it obtained, was originally the Persian name of a royal palace; but which, according to Jerome (Epist. ad Princip. ii. 639), was afterwards adopted in Palestine, and applied to all the large quadrangular dwellings built with turrets and walls. As improved by Herod, who gave it the name of Antonia, after his patron Mark Antony, this fortress had all the extent and appearance of a palace, being divided into apartments of every kind, with galleries and baths, and also broad halls or barracks for soldiers; so that, as having everything necessary within itself, it seemed a city, while in its magnificence it was a palace. At each of the four corners was a tower, one of which was 70 cubits high, and overlooked the whole temple with its courts. The fortress communicated with the cloisters of the temple by secret passages, through which the soldiers could enter and quell any tumults, which

Jerusalem. were always apprehended at the time of the great festivals. This tower was also "the castle" into which St Paul was carried when the Jews rose against him in the temple, and were about to kill him; and where he gave his able and manly account of his conversion and conduct. It was, in fact, the citadel of Jerusalem.

Waters of Jerusalem. In his account of the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey, Strabo says that the town was well provided with water within the walls, but that there was none in the environs (Geog. xvi. 2, 40). Probably the Roman troops then suffered from want of water, as did other armies which laid siege to Jerusalem. In the narratives of all such sieges we never read of the besieged suffering from thirst, although driven to the most dreadful extremities and resources by hunger, while the besiegers are frequently described as suffering greatly from want of water, and as being obliged to fetch it from a great distance. The agonies of thirst sustained by the first Crusaders in their siege of Jerusalem will be remembered by most readers from the vivid picture drawn by Tasso, if not from the account furnished by William of Tyre. Yet when the town was taken plenty of water was found within it. This is a very singular circumstance, and is perhaps only in part explained by reference to the system of preserving water in cisterns, as at this day, in Jerusalem.

Solomon's aqueduct near Bethlehem to Jerusalem could have been no dependence, as its waters might easily have been cut off by the besiegers. All the wells also are now outside the town; and no interior fountain is mentioned save that of Hezekiah, which is scarcely fit for drinking. At the siege by Titus the well of Siloam may have been in possession of the Jews, i.e., within the walls; but at the siege by the Crusaders it was certainly held by the besieging Franks; and yet the latter perished from thirst, while the besieged had ingentes copias aquæ. We cannot here go through the evidence which by combination and comparison might throw some light on this remarkable question. There is, however, good ground to conclude, that from very ancient times there has been under the temple an unfailing source of water, derived by secret and subterraneous channels from springs to the W. of the town, and communicating by other subterraneous passages with the Pool of Siloam and the fountain of the Virgin in the E. of the town, whether they were within or without the walls of the town.

The existence of a perennial source of water below the temple has always been admitted. Tacitus knew of it (Hist. v. 12); and Aristæas, in describing the ancient temple, informs us that "the supply of water was unfailing." The Moslems also have constantly affirmed the existence of this fountain or cistern. But a reserve has always been kept up as to the means by which it is supplied. This reserve seems to have been maintained by the successive occupants of Jerusalem as a point of civic honour; and this fact alone intimates that there was danger to the town in its becoming known, and points to the fact that the supply came from without the city by secret channels, which it was of importance not to disclose. Yet we are plainly told in the Bible that Hezekiah "stopped the upper water-course of Gihon, and brought it down to the west side of the city of David" (1 Kings i. 33, 38); from 2 Chron. xxxii. 30, it seems that all the neighbouring fountains were thus "stopped" or covered, and the brook which they had formed diverted by subterraneous channels into the town, for the express purpose of preventing besiegers from finding the "much water" which previously existed outside the walls (comp. also Eccles. xviii. 17). Perhaps, likewise, the prophet Ezekiel (xlvii. 1-12) alludes to this secret fountain under the temple when he speaks of waters issuing from the threshold of the temple towards the east, and flowing down towards the desert as an abundant and beautiful stream.

This figure may be drawn from the waters of the inner Jerusalem, source under the temple, being at the time of overflow discharged by the outlets at Siloam, into the Kidron, which takes the eastward course thus described.

There are certainly wells, or rather shafts, in and near the temple area, which are alleged to derive their waters through a passage of masonry 4 or 5 feet high, from a chamber or reservoir cut in the solid rock under the grand mosque, in which the water is said to rise from the rock into a basin at the bottom. The existence of this reservoir and source of water is affirmed by all Moslems, and coincides with the preceding intimations, but it must be left for future explorers to clear up all the obscurities in which the matter is involved. The ordinary means taken by the inhabitants to secure a supply of water are minutely described in Raumer's Palästina, pp. 329-333; Robinson's Researches, i. 479-516; and Olin's Travels, ii. 168-181.

In proceeding to furnish a description of the present Jerusalem, we shall, for the most part, place ourselves under the guidance of Dr Olin, whose account is one of the most recent, and by far the most complete and satisfactory which has of late years been produced.

The general view of the city from the Mount of Olives is mentioned more or less by all travellers as that from which they derive their most distinct and abiding impression of Jerusalem.

The summit of the Mount of Olives is about half a mile E. from the city, which it completely overlooks, every considerable edifice and almost every house being visible. The city seen from this point appears to be a regular inclined plain, sloping gently and uniformly from W. to E., or towards the observer, and indented by a slight depression or shallow vale, running nearly through the centre, in the same direction. The south-east corner of the quadrangle—for that may be assumed as the figure formed by the rocks—that which is nearest to the observer, is occupied by the mosque of Omar and its extensive and beautiful grounds. This is Mount Moriah, the site of Solomon's temple; and the ground embraced in the sacred enclosure, which conforms to that of the ancient temple, occupies about an eighth of the whole modern city. It is covered with green sward and planted sparingly with olive, cypress, and other trees, and it is certainly the most lovely feature of the town, whether we have reference to the splendid structures or the beautiful lawn spread out around them.

The south-west quarter, embracing that part of Mount Zion which is within the modern town, is to a great extent occupied by the Arminian convent, an enormous edifice, which is the only conspicuous object in this neighbourhood. The north-west is largely occupied by the Latin convent, another very extensive establishment. About midway between these two convents is the castle or citadel, close to the Bethlehem-gate, already mentioned. The north-east quarter of Jerusalem is but partially built up, and it has more the aspect of a rambling agricultural village than that of a crowded city. The vacant spots here are green with gardens and olive-trees. There is another large vacant tract along the southern wall, and west of the Haram, also covered with verdure. Near the centre of the city also appear two or three green spots, which are small gardens. The church of the Holy Sepulchre is the only conspicuous edifice in this vicinity, and its domes are striking objects. There are no buildings which, either from their size or beauty, are likely to engage the attention. Eight or ten minarets mark the position of so many mosques in different parts of the town, but they are only noticed because of their elevation above the surrounding edifices. Upon the same principle the eye rests for a moment upon a great number of low domes, which form the roofs of the principal dwellings, and relieve the heavy uniformity of the flat plastered roofs which cover the greater mass of more humble habita-

Jerusalem. tions. Many ruinous piles, and a thousand disgusting objects, are concealed or disguised by the distance. Many inequalities of surface, which exist to so great an extent that there is not a level street of any length in Jerusalem, are also unperceived.

From the same commanding point of view a few olive and fig trees are seen in the lower part of the valley of Jehoshaphat, and scattered over the side of Olivet from its base to the summit. They are sprinkled yet more sparingly on the southern side of the city on Mounts Zion and Ophel. North of Jerusalem the olive plantations appear more numerous as well as thriving, and thus offer a grateful contrast to the sun-burnt fields and bare rocks which predominate in this landscape. The region west of the city appears to be destitute of trees. Fields of stunted wheat, yellow with the drought rather than white for the harvest, are seen on all sides of the town.

Jerusalem, as seen from Mount Olivet, is a plain inclining gently and equally to the E. Once enter its gates, however, and it is found to be full of inequalities. The passenger is always ascending or descending. There are no level streets, and little skill or labour has been employed to remove or diminish the inequalities which nature or time has produced. Houses are built upon mountains of rubbish, which are probably 20, 30, or 50 feet above the natural level, and the streets are constructed with the same disregard to convenience, with this difference, that some slight attention is paid to the possibility of carrying off surplus water. The latter are, without exception, narrow, seldom exceeding 8 or 10 feet in breadth. The houses often meet, and in some instances a building occupies both sides of the street, which runs under a succession of arches barely high enough to permit an equestrian to pass under them. A canopy of old mats or of plank is suspended over the principal streets when not arched. This custom had its origin, no doubt, in the heat of the climate, which is very intense in summer, and it gives a gloomy aspect to all the most thronged and lively parts of the city. These covered ways are often pervaded by currents of air when a perfect calm prevails in other places. The principal streets of Jerusalem run nearly at right angles to each other. Very few, if any, of them bear names among the native population. They are badly paved, being merely laid irregularly with raised stones, with a deep square channel, for beasts of burden, in the middle; but the steepness of the ground contributes to keep them cleaner than in most Oriental cities.

The houses of Jerusalem are substantially built of the limestone of which the whole of this part of Palestine is composed: not usually hewn, but broken into regular forms, and making a solid wall of very respectable appearance. For the most part there are no windows next to the street, and the few which exist for the purposes of light or ventilation are completely masked by casements and lattice-work. The apartments receive their light from the open courts within. The ground plot is usually surrounded by a high enclosure, commonly forming the walls of the house only, but sometimes embracing a small garden and some vacant ground. The rain-water which falls upon the pavement is carefully conducted, by means of gutters, into cisterns, where it is preserved for domestic uses. The people of Jerusalem rely chiefly upon those reservoirs for their supply of this indispensable article. Every house has its cistern, and the larger habitations are provided with a considerable number of them, which occupy the ground-story or cells formed for the purpose below it. Stone is employed in building for all the purposes to which it can possibly be applied, and Jerusalem is hardly more exposed to accidents by fire than a quarry or subterranean cavern. The floors, stairs, &c., are of stone, and the ceiling is usually formed by a coat of plaster laid upon the stones, which at the same time form the roof and the vaulted top of the room. Doors,

sashes, and a few other appurtenances, are all that can usually be afforded of a material so expensive as wood. The little timber which is used is mostly brought from Mount Lebanon, as in the time of Solomon. A large number of houses in Jerusalem are in a dilapidated and ruinous state. Nobody seems to make repairs, so long as his dwelling does not absolutely refuse him shelter and safety. If one room tumbles about his ears, he removes into another, and permits rubbish and vermin to accumulate as they will in the deserted halls. Tottering staircases are propped to prevent their fall; and when the edifice becomes untenable, the occupant seeks another a little less ruinous, leaving the wreck to a smaller or more wretched family, or, more probably, to a goatherd and his flock. Habitations which have a very respectable appearance as seen from the street, are often found, upon entering them, to be little better than heaps of ruins.

Nothing of this would be suspected from the general appearance of the city as seen from the various commanding points without the walls, nor from anything that meets the eye in the streets. Few towns in the East offer a more imposing spectacle to the view of the approaching stranger. He is struck with the height and massiveness of the walls, which are kept in perfect repair, and naturally produce a favourable opinion of the wealth and comfort which they are designed to protect. Upon entering the gates, he is apt, after all that has been published about the solitude that reigns in the streets, to be surprised at meeting large numbers of people in the chief thoroughfares, almost without exception decently clad. A longer and more intimate acquaintance with Jerusalem, however, does not fail to correct this too favourable impression, and demonstrate the existence and general prevalence of the poverty and even wretchedness which must result in every country from oppression, from the absence of trade, and the utter stagnation of all branches of industry. Considerable activity is displayed in the bazaars, which are supplied scantily, like those of other eastern towns, with provisions, tobacco, coarse cottons, and other articles of prime necessity. A considerable business is still done in beads, crosses, and other sacred trinkets, which are purchased to a vast amount by the pilgrims who annually throng the holy city. The support and even the existence of the considerable population of Jerusalem depend upon this transient patronage,—a circumstance to which a great part of the prevailing poverty and degradation is justly ascribed. The worthless articles employed in this pitiful trade are, almost without exception, brought from other places, especially Hebron and Bethlehem,—the former celebrated for its baubles of glass, the latter chiefly for rosaries, crucifixes, and other toys made of mother-of-pearl, olive-wood, black stones from the Dead Sea, &c. These are eagerly bought up by the ignorant pilgrims, sprinkled with holy water by the priests, or consecrated by some other religious mummer, and carried off in triumph and worn as ornaments to charm away disease and misfortune, and probably to be buried with the deluded enthusiast in his coffin, as a sure passport to eternal blessedness. With the departure of the swarms of pilgrims, however, even this poor semblance of active industry and prosperity deserts the city. With the exception of some establishments for soap-making, a tannery, and a very few weavers of coarse cottons, there do not appear to be any manufactures properly belonging to the place. Agriculture is almost equally wretched, and can only give employment to a few hundred people. The masses really seem to be without any regular employment. A considerable number, especially of the Jews, professedly live on charity. Many Christian pilgrims annually find their way hither on similar resources, and the approaches to the holy places are thronged with beggars, who in piteous tones demand alms in the name of Christ and the blessed Virgin. The general condition of the

Jerusalem. population is that of abject poverty. A few Turkish officials, ecclesiastical, civil, and military; some remains of the old Mohammedan aristocracy,—once powerful and rich, but now much impoverished and nearly extinct,—together with a few tradesmen in easy circumstances, form almost the only exceptions to the prevailing indigence. There is not a single broker among the whole population, and not the smallest sum can be obtained on the best bills of exchange short of Jaffa or Beirut.

Population. The population of Jerusalem has been variously estimated by different travellers, some making it as high as 30,000, others as low as 12,000. An average of these estimates would make it somewhere between 12,000 and 15,000; but the Egyptian system of taxation and of military conscription in Syria has lately furnished more accurate data than had previously been obtainable, and on these Dr Robinson estimates the population at not more than 11,500, distributed thus:—

If to this be added something for possible omissions, and the inmates of the convents, the standing population, exclusive of the garrison, cannot well exceed 11,500. The Moslems, it will be seen, exceed in number the Jews or Christians respectively, but are much fewer than these two bodies united. To all these classes Jerusalem is holy; and is the only city in the world which peoples of such different origin, races, language, and religions agree to regard with nearly equal veneration.

The language most generally spoken among them is the Arabic. Schools are rare, and consequently facility in reading is not often met with. The general condition of the inhabitants has already been indicated.

The Turkish governor of the town holds the rank of Pasha, but is responsible to the Pasha of Beirut. The government is somewhat milder than before the period of the Egyptian dominion; but it is said that the Jewish and Christian inhabitants at least have ample cause to regret the change of masters. Yet the Moslems reverence the same spots which the Jews and Christians account holy, the holy sepulchre only excepted; and this exception arises from their disbelief that Christ was crucified or buried, or rose again. Formerly there were in Palestine monks of the Benedictine and Augustinian orders, and of those of St Basil and St Anthony; but since 1304 there have been none but Franciscans, who have charge of the Latin convent and the holy places. They resided on Mount Zion till A.D. 1561, when the Turks allowed them the monastery of St Salvador, which they now occupy. They had formerly a handsome revenue out of all Roman Catholic countries, but these sources have fallen off since the French Revolution, and the establishment is said to be poor and deeply in debt. The expenses arise from the duty imposed upon the convent of entertaining pilgrims; and the cost of maintaining the twenty convents belonging to the establishment of the Terra Santa is estimated at 40,000 Spanish dollars a year. Formerly it was much higher, in consequence of the heavy exactions of the Turkish government. Burckhardt says that the brotherhood paid annually L.12,000 to the pasha of Damascus. But the Egyptian government relieved them from these heavy charges, and imposed instead a regular tax on the property possessed. For the buildings and lands in and around Jerusalem the annual tax was fixed at 7000 piastres, or 350 Spanish dollars. It is probable that the restored Turkish government has not yet, in this respect, recurred to its old oppressions. The convent contains fifty monks, half Italians and half Spaniards. In it resides the intendant or the principal of all the convents, with the rank

of abbot, and the title of Guardian of Mount Zion and Jerusalem. Custos of the Holy Land. He is always an Italian, and has charge of all the spiritual affairs of the Roman Catholics in the Holy Land. There is also a president or vicar, who takes the place of the guardian in case of absence or death: he was formerly a Frenchman, but is now either an Italian or Spaniard. The procurator, who manages their temporal affairs, is always a Spaniard. A council, called Discretorium, composed of these officials and three other monks, has the general management of both spiritual and temporal matters. Much of the attention of the order is occupied, and much of its expense incurred, in entertaining pilgrims and in the distribution of alms. The native Roman Catholics live around the convent, on which they are wholly dependant. They are native Arabs, and are said to be descended from converts in the times of the Crusades.

There is a Greek patriarch of Jerusalem, but he usually resides at Constantinople, and is represented in the holy city by one or more vicars, who are bishops residing in the great convent near the church of the Holy Sepulchre. At present the vicars are the bishops of Lydda, Nazareth, and Kerek (Petra), assisted by the other bishops resident in the convent. In addition to thirteen monasteries in Jerusalem, they possess the convent of the Holy Cross near Jerusalem, that of St Helena between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and that of St John, between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea. All the monks of the convents are foreigners. The Christians of the Greek rite who are not monks are all native Arabs, with their native priests, who are allowed to perform the church services in their mother tongue—the Arabic.

The Armenians in Jerusalem have a patriarch, with three convents and 100 monks. They have also convents at Bethlehem, Ramleh, and Jaffa. Few of the Armenians are natives: they are mostly merchants, and among the wealthiest inhabitants of the place; and their convent in Jerusalem is deemed the richest in the Levant. Their church of St James upon Mount Zion is very showy in its decorations, but void of taste. The Coptic Christians at Jerusalem are only some monks residing in the convent of Es-Sultan, on the north side of the pool of Hezekiah. There is also a convent of the Abyssinians, and one belonging to the Jacobite Syrians.

The estimate of the number of the Jews in Jerusalem at 3000 is given by Dr Robinson, on the authority of Mr Nicolayson, the resident missionary to the Jews, and seems to be confirmed from other sources. They inhabit a distinct quarter of the town between Mount Zion and Mount Moriah. This is the worst and dirtiest part of the holy city, and that in which the plague never fails to make its first appearance. Few of the Jerusalem Jews are natives: and most of them come from foreign parts to die in the city of their fathers' sepulchres. The greater proportion of them are from different parts of the Levant, and appear to be mostly of Spanish and Polish origin. Few are from Germany, or understand the German language. They are for the most part wretchedly poor, and depend in a great degree for their subsistence upon the contributions of their brethren in different countries. These contributions have of late years been smaller than usual, and, when they arrive, are the occasion of much heartburning and strife. The Scottish Deputation (Narrative, p. 148) say, "They are always quarrelling, and frequently apply to the consul to settle their disputes. The expectation of support from the annual European contributions leads many of them to live in idleness. Hence there are in Jerusalem 500 acknowledged paupers, and 500 more who receive charity in a quiet way. Many are so poor that, if not relieved, they would not stand out the winter season. A few are shop keepers, and a few more hawkers, and a very few are operatives. None of them are agriculturists,—not a single Jew cultivates the soil of his fathers."