the purpose of enlarging or correcting our ideas, while the first is fresh in our memory, so that any modifications which are necessary, may be introduced at the proper time and place.

The suggestions here made will serve to meet another objection that may arise, namely, that it is unreasonable to expect that the common reader will become a critic. We say unhesitatingly, that only so far as he becomes a historical critic will his reading be worth anything to him. But if he study a subject and read several authors on it simultaneously and thoughtfully, he cannot avoid being a critic. He will necessarily judge for himself on many points, and learn gradually to form a correct estimate of the several books he consults. The process is one in which the intellect of the reader is necessarily less passive, than when he resigns himself to a single writer. Inquiries multiply in his mind, as he proceeds. He is perpetually pausing to clear up obscurities, to reconcile apparent contradictions, to correct false statements and false impressions, and he almost unconsciously becomes an earnest, and careful investigator, searching eagerly for truth, and never satisfied till he arrives at it.

In reading the history of a period, its thousand aspects should be successively viewed. It may be profitably read many times, with different objects in view. Its physical, political, military, social, moral, ecclesiastical, municipal, biographical history,—the history of education, of the arts, of literature, of amusements, of superstitions, are all subjects of deep interest and of rational inquiry. Besides works of a professedly historical character, the philosophical, poetical, oratorical, epistolary products of a nation, need to be read and studied. Such works though ordinarily excluded from historical studies, constitute by the far the most instructive part of them. It is comparatively of little consequence what monarchs reigned, what generals fought, what ministers intrigued, what prelates ruled over the church. It is the pulsation of the body politic, the throbbings, the strivings, and the doings of the people that we are interested in. We need to see them in all their states; in their sufferings and in their gay moods, in their labors and in their pleasures. In this respect, we fear, the history of mankind must be written anew. We need to have inquiries instituted in regard to subjects, on which former ages were nearly indifferent, but on which we cannot be so. In attempting to satisfy this want, now almost universally felt, the reader of history though limited in the subject of his inquiry, must go beyond his text-books, and must read-everything, and judge ultimately on all points for himself.

In a former Article, of which the present is a continuation, I endeavoured to bring out fully and clearly the testimony of Josephus respecting several points in the ancient topography of the Holy City. These were, particularly, the position of the hills Akra and Bezetha, the valley of the Tyropoeon, the true place of the gate Gennath, and the course of the ancient second wall; all which have a special importance at the present time, from their connection with and bearing upon the question as to the intrinsic authority of ecclesiastical and monastic tradition. I now proceed in like manner to adduce the testimony of the Jewish historian, and such further evidence as may exist, relative to some other points in the antiquities of the Holy City; which, although they may not possess the same degree of temporary interest, are yet in themselves of high archaeological importance.

V.

The southern portion of the present Haram-area formed part and parcel of the ancient Temple-enclosure; and was not first built up at a later period.

So far as I am aware, no doubt as to the fact here affirmed has ever been suggested, except by the English writer so often reVOL. III. No. 12.

53

ferred to; who chooses to assign this part of the area to the time of Justinian. The German author nowhere alludes to the topic, nor in general to the southern part of the area in any way; but the view he takes respecting the position of the fortress Antonia within the northern portion of the same enclosure, necessarily implies that he adopts the affirmative of the present proposition. It may nevertheless not be inappropriate, here to bring together the facts and testimony which bear upon the question.

I. On viewing the exterior of the elevated Haram-area, courses of immense stones near the ground immediately arrest the attention of the beholder, which are obviously the remains of the substructions of the ancient temple-enclosure. "The lower courses of the masonry of ancient walls exist on the east, south and west sides of the great enclosure, for nearly its whole length and breadth."3 According to the English writer himself, these courses of "large stones at the exterior of the eastern wall of the enclosure above the valley of Jehoshaphat," not improbably "form part of one of those stupendous foundations [of the temple] mentioned with so much admiration by the Jewish historian."4 The immense blocks of the same character at and near the southeast corner, are to him "an angle of the first (and oldest) wall" of the city.5 The similar stones and wall at the point known as the Jews' Wailing-place, on the west side, he likewise regards as having belonged to the ancient temple.

Now it is perfectly obvious on the slightest inspection, that the whole line of these immense ancient stones, whether on the eastern or western side, between the southern extremity and a point further north than the grand mosk, is of one and the same epoch, and formed part originally of one and the same wall, uninterrupted and unbroken. There is not, either upon the east side or the west, the slightest trace of any termination of a distinct templewall, nor of the junction of any city or other wall. If the huge stones on the east, opposite to the mosk, belonged to the temple, so did those at the south-east corner. If the wall at the Jews' Wailing-place was part of the ancient temple, so was that at the south-west corner, including the fragment of the immense arch existing at that point. Indeed, the conclusion is inevitable, that 2 Schultz, p. 54.

Holy City, p. 329 sq.

3 Catherwood in Bartlett's Walks, etc. p. 160. Ed. 2.

Holy City, p. 15.

Ibid. p. 330, 331.

Ibid. p. 347, 348.

7 See Bibl. Researches, I. p. 424 sq. The matter is well put by Mr. Bartlett, Walks, etc. Ed. 2. App. p. 249: "It is clear that we are in this dilemma ;

1846.]

Temple Area.

607

if the southern part of the present enclosure be the work of a later age, then is the whole a work of the same late age; and no traces of the ancient temple-walls remain.

According to the English chaplain, "the conclusion is unavoidable," that the "ancient fragment" of immense stones forming the south-east corner of the present area, " is an angle of the first (or old) wall" of the city. Here again it is entirely obvious, that if this south-east "angle" formed of huge stones be ancient, then too the line of the same masonry running from it northwards is in like manner ancient; as is indeed admitted. And further, the line of similar immense stones extending from it westwards,that is to say, the whole southern side of the present area,―must in like manner be regarded as ancient. The character of the huge blocks and of the masonry is everywhere one and the same. But if the courses of this southern side be ancient, then this could only have been the southern limit of the ancient temple-area; for to refer this also to a city wall is not attempted, and would be absurd.2

II. Josephus, in speaking of the lofty portico along the southern wall of the temple-area,3 describes it as "continued from the eastern valley to the western; for it could not possibly be extended further;" and he also affirms, that "if from its roof one attempted to look down into the gulf below, his eyes became dark and dizzy before they could penetrate to the immense depth." Two circumstances are here specified, viz. that the portico (and of course the southern wall) could not have been prolonged further towards the east; and, that from the roof of the southern portico one looked down into the valley beneath. In both these circumstances the southern wall of the present area tallies precisely with the description; while they -if the fragment of the wall at the Place of Wailing is of Jewish origin, so is the remaining portion, as far as the S. W. corner, including the bridge; but if this latter be a Byzantine arch, then must the wall it mitres into be also Byzantine, and as a matter of course the Wailing Place too. Whichever alternative is adopted, is fatal to the theory."

1

Holy City, p. 330, 331.

2 H. City, ib. "Had it been the temple-wall which made its angle here, it is evident that the first or old wall must have joined the south portico of the temple, not the east, as Josephus expressly affirms." But the eastern portico was doubtless extended to the south-east corner, where it was connected with the southern portico. At any rate, it may not be easy to see how the difficulty (if any exists) would be removed, by supposing the junction to be made under exactly the same circumstances at a point 500 feet farther north, as there proposed.

3 Jos. Ant. XV. 11. 5.

would not be true of a parallel wall at a point much further north. The present south-east corner is on the very brink of the steep declivity, hardly admitting even a footpath between; while more to the north a strip of level ground intervenes sufficiently broad to be occupied as a cemetery. Just at this corner, too, the valley of Jehoshaphat bends round for a moment to the south-west; so that the eastern part of the southern wall impends over it; which likewise could not be the case with any wall at a more northern point.

III. Josephus further relates,' that the southern front of the templeprecincts had also gates about the middle (τὸ μέτωπον τὸ πρὸς μεσημβρίαν εἶχε μὲν καὶ αὐτὸ πύλας κατὰ μέσον).” The easy and natural explanation of this language is, that here was a double gateway in the southern wall, in the manner of the Golden gateway on the eastern side of the area. Accordingly, the grand subterranean gateway, still existing beneath the mosk el-Aksa, first explored by Mr. Catherwood and since visited and described by Messrs. Wolcott and Tipping, is a double gateway, with two arches and a middle row of columns extending up through the whole passage. The coincidence with the notice of Josephus is here too exact and striking, to be the result of accidental circumstances after an interval of more than five centuries.3

IV. The existence of spacious vaults beneath the southern portion of the present Haram-area, is now well known. It is urged, that an objection to the Jewish origin of these substructures is found in the silence of the Jewish historian."5 If, however, I read aright, the Jewish historian is not altogether thus silent; but does make direct allusion to these spacious crypts. After the investment of the city by Titus, a tumult arose in the temple during the festival of unleavened bread. The party of the tyrant John got possession by

1 Jos. Antt. XV. 11. 5.

* Catherwood in the Bibl. Researches, I. p. 450. Wolcott in Biblioth. Sacra, 1843, No. I. p. 19, 20.

H. City, p. 335: "If Josephus is to be our guide, then this would not be the gate which he mentions; because this is so far from being in the middle of the southern side,' as that was, that it is almost one third nearer to its western than to its eastern extremity." As if the karà μécov of Josephus was intended to specify the exact middle point, and no other! The same author refers the gateway of course to Justinian; and speaks of Procopius, as describing it; p. 336. This, though not improbable in itself, is yet very doubtful. Procopius did not write as an eye-witness; and his account bears marks of the confusion and exaggeration of popular report, " bordering somewhat on the fabulous." See the original of Procopius as quoted, H. City, App. p. 496; and compare Mr. Williams' professed paraphrase of it, p. 332 sq.

See Bibl. Res. I. p. 246 seq.

H City, p. 339.