angles to the southern wall, and bounding the solid | eter (Ant. xv. 11, § 5), so that, if this were so, the space. Beyond this point the Haram area is filled foundations must have been practically about half up with a series of light arches supported on square piers (shown in the annexed woodcut, No. 3), the whole being of so slight a construction that it may be affirmed with absolute certainty that neither the, Stoa Basilica, nor any of the larger buildings of the Temple, ever stood on them. The proof of this is not difficult. Taking Josephus's account of the great Stoa as we find it, he states that it consisted of four rows of Corinthian pillars, 40 in each row. If they extended along the whole length of the present southern wall they must have been spaced between 23 and 24 feet apart, and this, from our knowledge of the works of the ancients, we may assert to be architecturally impossible. But, far more than this, the piers that support the vaults in question are only about 3 feet 6 inches by 3 feet 3 inches square, while the pillars which it is assumed they supported were between 5 and 6 feet in diam

the area of the columns they supported. Even this is not all: the piers in the vaults are so irregularly spaced, some 17, some 20 or 21, and one even 30 feet apart, that the pillars of the Stoa must have stood in most instances on the crown or sides of the arches, and these are so weak (as may be seen from the roots of the trees above having struck through them) that they could not for one hour have supported the weight. In fact there can be no doubt whatever that the buildings of the Temple never stood on this frail prop, and also that no more solid foundations ever existed here; for the bare rock is everywhere visible, and if ever more solidly built upon, the remains of such constructions could not have disappeared. In so far, therefore, as the southern wall is concerned, we may rest perfectly satisfied with Josephus's description that the Temple extended east and west 600 feet.

The position of the northern wall is as easily fixed. If the Temple was square it must have commenced at a point 600 feet from the southwest angle, and in fact the southern wall of the platform which now surrounds the so-called Mosque of Omar runs parallel to the southern wall of the inclosure, at a distance of exactly 600 feet, while westward it is continued in a causeway which crosses the valley just 600 feet from the southwestern angle. It may also be mentioned that from this point the western wall of the Haram area no longer follows the same direction, but inclines slightly to the westward, indicating a difference (though perhaps not of much value) in the purpose to which it was applied. Moreover the south wall of what is now the platform of the Dome of the Rock runs eastward from the western wall for just 600 feet; which again gives the same dimension for the north wall of the Temple as was found for the southern wall by the limitation of the solid space before the commencement of the vaults. All these points will be now clear by reference to the plan on the next page (wood-cut No. 4), where the dimensions are stated in English feet, according to the best available authorities, not in Greek feet, which alone are used in the text.

The only point in Josephus's description which seems to have misled topographers with regard to these dimensions is his assertion that the Temple extended from one valley to the other (Ant. xv. 11, § 5). If he had named the valley or identified it in any way with the Valley of Kedron this might have been a difficulty; but as it is only a valley it is of less importance, especially as the manner in

which the vaults extend northwards immediately beyond the eastern wall of the Temple is sufficient to show that such a depression once existed here as to justify his expression. But, whatever importance may be attached to these indefinite words, they never can be allowed to outweigh the written dimensions and the local indications, which show that the Temple never could have extended more than 600 feet from the western wall.

It has been objected to this conclusion that if the Temple were only 600 feet square, it would be impossible to find space within its walls for all the courts and buildings mentioned by Josephus and in the Talmud. This difficulty, however, has no real foundation in fact, and the mode in which the interior may have been arranged, so as to meet all the exigencies of the case, will be explained in treating of the TEMPLE. But in the mean while it seems impossible to escape from the conclusion that the square space indicated by shading in the plan (wood-cut No. 4) was the exact area occupied by the Jewish Temple as rebuilt by Herod, and as described by Josephus. [Against this view, see § IV. Amer. ed.]

II. Hippicus. - Of all the towers that once adorned the city of Jerusalem only one now exists in anything like a state of perfection. Being in the centre of the citadel, on one of the most elevated points of the city, it strikes the traveller's eye whichever way he turns; and from its prominence now, and the importance which Josephus ascribes to the tower Hippicus, it has been somewhat hastily The reasons, assumed that the two are identical. however, against this assumption are too cogent to

III. Walls. Assuming therefore for the present that the Kasr Jalud, as these ruins are now popularly called, is the remains of the Hippicus, we have no difficulty in determining either the direction or the extent of the walls of Jerusalem, as described by Josephus (B. J. v. 4, § 2), and as shown in Plate I.

allow of the identity being admitted. Josephus" is a corner tower," and just such a one as would gives the dimensions of the Hippicus as 25 cubits, naturally be taken as the starting-point for the or 37 feet square, whereas the tower in the citadel description of the walls. Indeed, if it had hapis 56 feet 6 inches by 70 feet 3 inches (Rob. Bibl. pened that the Kasr Jalud were as well preserved Res. 1st ed. i. 456), and, as Josephus never dimin- as the tower in the citadel, or that the latter had ishes the size of anything Jewish, this alone should retained only two or three courses of its masonry, make us pause. Even if we are to assume that it it is more than probable that no one would have is one of the three great towers built by Herod, as doubted that the Kasr Jalud was the Hippicus; far as its architecture is concerned, it may as well but with that tendency which prevails to ascribe a be Phasaëlus or Mariamne as Hippicus. Indeed its name to what is prominent rather than to what is dimensions accord with the first named of these far less obvious, these remains have been overlooked, better than with the last. But the great test is and difficulties have been consequently introduced the locality, and unfortunately the tower in the into the description of the city, which have hitherto citadel hardly agrees in this respect in one point seemed almost insuperable.« with the description of Josephus. In the first place he makes it a corner tower, whereas, at the time he wrote, the tower in the citadel must have been in a reëntering angle of the wall, as it is now. In the next he says it was "over against Psephinus (B. J. v. 4, § 3), which never could be said of this tower. Again, in the same passage, he describes the three towers as standing on the north side of The first or old wall began on the north at the the wall. If this were so, the two others must have tower called Hippicus, and, extending to the Xystus, been in his time in the centre of the city, where joined the council house, and ended at the west Herod never would have placed them. They also cloister of the Temple. They also cloister of the Temple. Its southern direction is are said to have stood on a height, whereas east-described as passing the Gate of the Essenes (probward of the citadel the ground falls rapidly. Add ably the modern Jaffa Gate), and, bending above to these that the position of the army of Titus when the fountain of Siloam, it reached Ophel, and was he sat down before Jerusalem is in itself almost joined to the eastern cloister of the Temple. The sufficient to settle the point. After despatching importance of this last indication will be apparent the 10th Legion to the Mount of Olives he located in the sequel when speaking of the third wall. himself with the principal division of his army opposite the Tower Psephinus, but his right wing "fortified itself at the tower called Hippicus, and was distant in like manner about two stadia from the city" (B. J. v. 3, § 5). It is almost impossible to apply this passage to the tower in the citadel, against which no attack ever was made or intended. Indeed, at no period of the siege did Titus attempt to storm the walls situated on the heights. His attack was made from the northern plateau, and it was there that his troops were encamped, and consequently it must have been opposite the angle now occupied by the remains called the Kasr Jalud that they were placed. From the context it seems almost impossible that they could have been encamped in the valley opposite the present citadel.

These, and other objections which will be noticed in the sequel, seem fatal to the idea of the tower in the citadel being the one Josephus alludes to. But at the northwestern angle of the present city there are the remains of an ancient building of beveled masonry and large stones, like those of the foundations of the Temple (Rob. Bibl. Res. i. 471; Schultz, 95; Krafft, 37, &c.), whose position answers so completely every point of the locality of Hippicus as described by Josephus, as to leave no reasonable doubt that it marks the site of this celebrated edifice. It stood and stands "on the northern side of the old wall "on a height," the very highest point in the town "over against Psephinus

a * Nothing could seem to be more palpable to an observer, than that in the Town of David, so called, in the present citadel of Jerusalem, we have the remains of one of the three great Herodian towns, spared by Titus, when the city was demolished (B. J. vi. 7, § 1). No theory, which would make it more modern, can explain the structure. Its lower part bears every mark of antiquity, and its cubic solidity (an unusual feature) accords with Josephus's description of these

The second wall began at the Gate Gennath, in the old wall, probably near the Hippicus, and passed round the northern quarter of the city, inclosing, as will be shown hereafter, the great valley of the Tyropoon, which leads up to the Damascus Gate; and then, proceeding southward, joined the fortress Antonia. Recent discoveries of old beveled masonry in the immediate proximity of the Damascus Gate leave little doubt but that, so far at least, its direction was identical with that of the modern wall; and some part at least of the northern portion of the western wall of the Haram area is probably built on its foundations.

The third wall was not commenced till twelve years after the date of the Crucifixion, when it was undertaken by king Herod Agrippa; and was intended to inclose the suburbs which had grown out on the northern sides of the city, which before this had been left exposed (B. J. v. 4, § 2). It began at the Hippicus, and reached as far as the tower Psephinus, till it came opposite the monument of Queen Helena of Adiabene; it then passed by the sepulchral monuments of the kings a well-known locality-and turning south at the monument of the Fuller, joined the old wall at the valley called the Valley of Kedron. This last is perhaps the most important point in the description. If the Temple had extended the whole width of the modern Haram area, this wall must have joined its northern cloister, or if the whole of the north side of the Temple were covered by the tower Antonia it might

towers. (B. J. v. 4, § 3.) If it was either of them, it
must have been Hippicus, for Phasaëlus and Mariamne
lay east of it, and there could not have been a fortress
west of this point. Its position relative to the site of
the Temple, and to the wall which stretched between
them, along the northern brow of Zion, harmonizes
with this view. The ruins of Kul'at el-Jâlûd offer no
rival claim - suggesting nothing more than a modern
bastion and an ancient wall.
S. W.

the Haram area, and consequently that neither was the "pool of Bethesda " its northern ditch, nor the rock on which the governor's house now stands its rock foundation. With the Temple area fixed as above, by no hypothesis could it be made to stretch as far as that; and the object, therefore, which many topographers had in view in extending the dimensions, must now be abandoned.a

The direct evidence seems so nearly balanced, that either hypothesis might be adopted if we were content to fix the position of the hill Acra from that of this valley, as is usually done, instead of from extraneous evidence, as we fortunately are able to do with tolerable certainty in this matter.

In all the transactions mentioned in the 12th and 13th books of the Antiquities, Josephus commonly uses the word "Akра as the corresponding term to the Hebrew word Metzûdah, translated stronghold, fortress, and tower in the books of the Maccabees, when speaking of the fortress which adjoined the Temple in the north; and if we might assume that the hill Acra and the tower Acra were one and the same place, the question might be considered as settled.

"

It is more than probable that this was so, for in describing the upper market place," which was called the "citadel" by David (B. J. v. § 1), Josephus uses the word opoúpiov, which he also applies to the Acra after it was destroyed (Ant. xiii. 16, § 5), or Bápis, as the old name apparently immediately before it was rebuilt by Herod, and by him called the Antonia (Ant. xviii. 4, § 3).

V. Hills and Valleys. Notwithstanding the very great degree of certainty with which the site of the Temple, the position of the Hippicus, and the direction of the walls may be determined, there are still one or two points within the city, the positions of which have not yet been fixed in so satisfactory a manner. Topographers are still at issue as to the true direction of the upper part of the Tyropoon Valley, and, consequently, as to the position of Acra, and various smaller points dependent on the fixation of these two. Fortunately the determination of these points has no bearing whatever on any of the great historical questions arising out of the topography; and though it would no doubt be satisfactory if they could be definitively settled, they are among the least important points that arise in discussing the descriptions of Josephus. It is also only by assuming that the Acra was The difficulty of determining the true course of on the Temple Hill that we can understand the the upper part of the Tyropoon valley is caused by position of the valley which the Asmoneans filled our inability to determine whether Josephus, in up. It certainly was not the northern part of the describing the city (B. J. v. 4, § 1), limits his de- Tyropoon which is apparent at the present day, scription to the city of Jerusalem, properly so called, nor the other valley to the westward, the filling up as circumscribed by the first or old wall, or whether of which would not have joined the city to the he includes the City of David also, and speaks of Temple (B. J. v. 4, § 1). It could only have been | the whole city as inclosed by the third or great | a transverse valley running in the direction of, and wall of Agrippa. In the first case the Tyropoon nearly in the position of, the Via Dolorosa. must have been the depression leading from a spot opposite the northwest angle of the Temple towards the Jaffa Gate; in the second it was the great valley leading from the same point northwards towards the Damascus Gate.

"

It is true that Josephus describes the citadel or Acra of Jerusalem (Ant. xiii. 4, 9) as situated in the "lower city" (ev Tỷ кάтw Tóλeι, xii. 5, § 4, B. J. i. 1, § 4), which would equally apply to either of the assumed sites, were it not that he qualifies

the Temple, and at the same time lying close to it (Ant. xii. 9, § 3), which can only apply to a building situated on the Temple Hill. It must also be observed that the whole of the Temple Hill is very much lower than the hill on which the city itself was located, and, consequently, that the Temple and its adjuncts may, with great propriety, be called the lower city, as contradistinguished from the other half, which, from the superior elevation of the plateau on which it stands, is truly the upper city.

The principal reason for adopting the first hy-it.by saying that it was built so high as to dominate pothesis arises from the words of Josephus himself, who describes the Tyropoon as an open space or depression within the city, at "which the corresponding rows of houses on both hills end " (B. J. v. 4, § 1). This would exactly answer the position of a valley running to the Jaffa Gate, and consequently within the old walls, and would apply to such a ravine as might easily have been obliterated by accumulation of rubbish in after times; but it is not so easy to see how it can be made applicable to such a valley as that running towards the Damascus Gate, which must have had a wall on either side, and the slope of which is so gradual, that then, the rows of houses" might though it by no means follows that they must have run across it without interruption. We cannot indeed apply the description to this valley, unless we assume that the houses were built close up to the old wall, so as to leave almost no plain space in front of it, or that the formation of the bottom of the valley was originally steeper and narrower than it now is. On the whole, this view presents perhaps less difficulty than the obliteration of the other valley, which its most zealous advocates are now forced to admit, after the most patient search; added to the difficulty that must have existed in carrying the old wall across its gorge, which Josephus would have hinted at had it existed.

as now,

a The opposite view, namely, that the fortress Antonia apparently occupied the whole northern part of the present Haram area, is strongly presented by

If we adopt this view, it will account for the great leveling operations which at one time have been carried on at the northwestern angle of the Haram area, and the marks of which have been always a puzzle to antiquaries. These are utterly unmeaning on any hypothesis yet suggested, for so far from contributing to the defense of any work erected here, their effect from their position must have been the very reverse. But if we admit that they were the works which occupied the Jews for three years of incessant labor (Ant. xiii. 7, § 6) after the destruction of the Acra, their appearance is at once accounted for, and the description of Josephus made plain.

If this view of the matter be correct, the word aμpíкuρтos (B. J. v. 6, § 1), about which so much controversy has been raised, must be translated