6

south to this point,1 and then 'bent' with the valley towards the west, running on the side of the declivity' until 'a more gradual slope' allowed it to descend the 'ridge of Ophel.""2

3

The course of the ancient city wall here alluded to, I cannot but think Mr. Williams has entirely mistaken. We have seen what Josephus says of this wall. Referring to the original Greek, I do not see any objection which can be urged against its course, as thus given by Dr. Robinson. "From the tower of Hippicus, again, this first or ancient wall on the west ran (southwards) along the western brow of Zion, through a place called Bethso to the Gate of the Essenes. Both these are now unknown. Thence it turned along on the south over Siloam; and bending round on the east to Solomon's Pool and the place called Ophla, [Ophel,] it joined itself to the eastern portico of the temple.

.....

From Siloam the wall ran to the pool or reservoir of Solomon; and this cannot well have been any other than the Fountain of the Virgin, which is deep and excavated in the rock . . . . . The eastern wall then probably ran along the Valley of Jehoshaphat; or else, crossing the point of the narrow ridge N.E. of Siloam, swept down into that valley so as to include the fountain. Then, passing by Ophla, it ascended and terminated at the eastern portico of the temple."4 Surely when a wall is thus supposed to terminate at a south-east angle, where the eastern and southern porticos must have met, it may be said to terminate at the eastern cloister with as much propriety as at the southernnay, with more propriety, when its eastern line is that immediately spoken of. Though it may be granted that the works of Justinian lay actually to the south of the

"I think the great tower that lieth out,' which was in Ophel, stood at this south-east angle, and that the large stones belonged to it."-See Nehem. iii. 26, 27.

The Holy City, pp. 330, 331.

3 See above, p. 408.

+ Biblical Researches, vol. i. pp. 459, 460.

Haram area, there is nothing in the circumstance to prevent the belief that they were within the space occupied by the temple enclosures; but of this more immediately in another connexion.

I see no method of disposing of Josephus and the Rabbis, in the view of the present enclosure of the Haram, except by supposing that the square of which they speak did not include the porticos of the temple, which I do not think very probable, or by supposing that they have fallen into a gross mistake in their measurements or rather estimates. This is the opinion of Mr. Catherwood.1

A little further to the east of the wailing-place, is the SPRING OF AN ANCIENT ARCH, which has come to the notice of Europeans only within these few years. We visited it several times. On one of these occasions we took the son of Rabbi Herschell of London, and one of his Jewish friends, an intelligent gentleman from the West Indies, to examine it. They had often noticed the largeness of the three courses of stones of which it is composed, without observing the curve of which they are the commencement, and the precise object of their superposition. We found Dr. Robinson's measurement of these remains tolerably correct. The arch runs fifty-one feet along the wall. One of the stones is upwards of twenty feet long; and another is twenty-four and a half in length by five in depth. The chord of the arch, as far as it remains, measures twelve feet six inches. Dr. Robinson supposes that the arch could have belonged only to the BRIDGE, which, according to Josephus, led from this part of the temple to the Xystus on Zion, and that it proves incontestably the antiquity of that portion of the wall from which it springs. Mr. Williams, on the other hand, thinks that it must have been connected with the VAULTS below the church built by the emperor Justinian, now forming the mosk 1 Bartlett's Walks, p. 173, et seq.

SPRING OF AN ANCIENT ARCH-WORKS OF JUSTINIAN. 469

el-Aksá, and its contiguous hospitals, and the substructions which occupy the south-eastern corner of the enclosure of the Ḥaram. The idea of its possible connexion with the interior vaults had occurred to ourselves at Jerusalem, without any reference, however, to the works of Justinian; but, after turning the matter over in our minds, we were inclined to prefer the theory of Dr. Robinson.

What the state of the argument relative to the arch and the antiquities forming the southern part of the enclosure now is, I may briefly show. The following is the substance of the notice taken of the works of Justinian, on the authority of Procopius, by Mr. Williams:-"It [the Church of the Virgin] was then,' says the historian of St. Sophia, at Constantinople, 'an incomparable edifice, differing from all other buildings in Jerusalem in this, that whereas they were built on even ground on the crest or on the sloping sides of the hills, this had only one part based upon the solid rock, while the remainder was suspended in the air by means of arched substructions, rising with the rock until they reached the pitch of the hill, where they were joined to the ground of the sacred enclosure, (r roũ remévous éôáper.) It was a work of immense labour, and the architects having to contend against the natural difficulties of the site, despised the ordinary resources of art, and had recourse to strange and unheard-of expedients. They hewed out immense rocks (érgas) from the large quarries in the neighbouring mountains, and having cut them skilfully on the spot, conveyed them to their destination in the following manner. They constructed wagons equal in size to the stones, and placing one stone on each wagon, they yoked to each forty of the imperial bullocks, selected for their strength, and thus dragged the stone on the wain. But the roads to the city being impracticable for such wagons, they levelled the mountains to allow of their access, and thus the church was

built of the dimensions required by the emperor. It was of so great width that timber could not be found suitable for the roof.'... Columns were now required answerable to the beauty of the sacred enclosure, and a quarry of marble was most seasonably and unexpectedly discovered. The buildings were thus adorned with colonnades within and without, especially the cloisters which surrounded the building on all but the eastern side. There was, however, a cloister along the fourth side, called Narthix, entered from near the door of the church, adorned with similar columns, forming a wonderful vestibule (aiλ),1 the gates of which were so magnificent as to prepare the spectator for the wonders of the interior, the propylaeum being an arch of immense height supported by two columns. Advancing forward by this vestibule, the visitor came to two semicircular buildings facing one another on either side of the church: they were hospitals built by the emperor, one for pilgrims, the other for poor invalids. The historian may well add that these buildings cost a considerable sum. Now when we remember that the Mosk el-Aksa [as admitted by Dr. Robinson] 'is universally regarded by oriental Christians, and also by Frank Catholics, as an ancient Christian Church, once dedicated to the Virgin,' that 'earlier travellers' as well as later 'describe it in the same manner,' and that Mr. Bonomi, whose judgment as an artist cannot well be drawn into question, remarks expressly that the structure is similar in appearance to those raised in the early ages of Christianity,' I suppose there can be but one opinion that the Mosk el-Aksa is the church of Justinian; and I apprehend that they who read the above outline of the very minute account left us of that church, will think that it does not deserve to be thrown on one side as 'not very clear,' and

14. θύραι μέταυλοι, janua a vestibulo

ferens in atrium.'-Lexicon."

2 Bib. Res. 438, 439.

SPRING OF AN ANCIENT ARCH-WORKS OF JUSTINIAN. 471

that it no more 'borders on the fabulous,' than the modern descriptions of it, which have been already referred to, to which it answers so exactly, that I am convinced that a comparison of the two descriptions will make the identity so clear, that it will be useless to insist on it. I would merely observe that the present buildings around the mosk are probably remains of the hospitals, modernized and debased, and that the (revos) or sacred precincts, would afford space for the many side buildings' which 'very probably' formed the palace of the Frank kings, during their reign in Jerusalem; for I agree with Dr. Robinson in thinking that the buildings were once more extensive than the present Mosk el-Aksa ;'1 for who that compares the account of the foundations of the enclosure of Justinian, with the description which has been given of the substructions at the south-east and south of the area of the haram, can suppose that it admits of a question that they are identical? Further, have we any right to presume that these vaults were 'probably only repaired' by that emperor, and are to be referred 'partly to Herod, or, with greater probability, to a still earlier date ;'2 without a hint from this, or any other historian, to imply that any such works existed here before,3 and with the decided opinion of three intelligent architects, that they are all of the same date ?"4

So much for the argument from Procopius. If that writer is to be depended upon in this instance, and I see no warrant for making light of his authority, there can be little doubt that Justinian had to do with both great foundations and edifices on the southern side of the Haram, for no site but this, suitable to the descriptions of Procopius, can be

1 Bib. Res. i. p. 443.

2 Ibid. i. 451, 452.

3 Or rather I should say with this historian's plain declaration against

it; for it was altogether strange (παράδοξα καὶ ὅλως ἁγνῶτα). Procopius, de dif. Just. Lib. v. c. 6.

Holy City, pp. 333-335.