ruins, which were said to be those of a Khân or inn, where the Galileans anciently lodged when they came up to Jerusalem. Cotovicus in A. D. 1598, calls it Galilee; and says a large building had just before been commenced.-Next comes Quaresmius about 1620, who calls the same point Galilee and also Viri Galilaei, and is in doubt whether this appellation comes from a former village, or a like inn once situated here; or whether, as some said, from the circumstance, that here the two angels met the disciples after the ascension of Jesus, and addressed them: "Men of Galilee," etc. Acts i. 11. See Quaresm. Elucid. Terr. Sanct. II. p. 319. The same writer unites the names Mons Offensionis et Scandali upon the southern ridge; ib. p. 278. Doubdan describes the northern summit in 1652, as called Viri Galilaei and occupied by a large new building not yet finished; Voyage, etc. p. 285. In 1697 Maundrell still gives it the same name; and says a high tower had stood here, which had been thrown down two years before.-Pococke appears to have found the name transferred to another spot lower down; Vol. II. p. 28. fol. So too Turner, Tour, etc. II. p. 256. At present the name Galilee seems to be forgotten; or at least recent travellers do not mention it as applied to this summit, and we heard nothing of it.

Still earlier than Brocardus, Saewulf about A. D. 1103, speaks of the Coenaculum on Zion as then called Galilee, because the men of Galilee" often assembled there; Peregrinat. p. 266.

NOTE XXV. Page 415.

ZION AND AKRA, according to Clarke and Olshausen. Two theories respecting Jerusalem have been broached within the present century, which have made some noise in the learned world; more perhaps from the reputation of the scholars who have brought them forward, than from any intrinsic merit in the theories themselves.

Dr. E. D. Clarke, who visited Jerusalem in 1801, and wrote ten years later, held it as probable, that the Hill of Evil Counsel, now so called, south of the Valley of Hinnom, was the real Mount Sion;" and that which we have called the Valley of Hinnom, he regarded as the Tyropoeon of Josephus. Travels, etc. Part. II. Vol. I. p. 557. 4to. London 1812. He does not however attempt to disturb the site of the temple as commonly assumed; but considers the great Mosk of Omar as occupying the spot, where that ancient structure stood. Ibid. pp. 601, 602. Dr. Clarke apparently did not take the trouble even to think of reconciling his

theory with the other topographical details of the ancient city. He forgot, or did not know, that Josephus, as we have seen in the text, describes the northern part of Zion as lying West from the temple, and connected with it by a bridge, which was not so long but that persons could hold a colloquy across it. Now Dr. Clarke's Mount Zion is more than an English mile distant from the Great Mosk or site of the temple; and between the two lies the whole extent of the high hill, which all travellers but Dr. Clarke do not hesitate to regard as Zion.-The hypothesis is too absurd to admit of further refutation.

The theory of Olshausen has respect to Akra and the Lower City; which in his little tract he holds to have been the same with the narrow ridge south of the Great Mosk, and east of Zion; Topogr. des alten Jerus. pp. 4, 5. But to say nothing of the fact, that a gate led out from the west side of the temple into the "other" or Lower City, as described in the text; I would here only remark, that Akra lay "overagainst" the temple; was naturally higher than Moriah; and was separated from it by a valley. Now, as we have seen, the present narrow ridge of Ophel, S. of the Great Mosk, is not and never was separated from Moriah by a valley; it being only a lower prolongation of one and the same ridge. Nor can it ever have been even so high as the level of Moriah; for at present its upper part, adjacent to the city wall, is at least one hundred feet lower than the area of the mosk; and it continues to slope down rapidly with occasional rocky offsets quite to Siloam. The rocky surface which appears in many parts of it, and indeed its whole aspect, demonstrate that it never was much if any higher than at present.

I carried with me the tract of Olshausen above mentioned, in order to examine his arguments upon the spot. And since this note was written, I have had the pleasure of submitting it, as well as the part of the text to which it refers, to the inspection of Prof. Olshausen himself; and have reason to suppose that the information thus presented, has led him to reconsider his former views.

NOTE XXVI. Page 527.

TOMBS SOUTH OF HINNOM. The language of Dr. Clarke in speaking of the tombs South of Hinnom, is exaggerated and reprehensible. He describes them as "hewn with marvellous art ;" and says that "some of them, from their magnificence and the immense labour necessary to form the numerous repositories they contain, might lay claim to regal honours." Travels in the

Holy Land, 4to. pp. 549, 551. The impression given by this lan guage is false. Labour enough they must indeed have cost; but there is not the slightest trace of magnificence, nor of any particular architectural skill. Such extravagant assertions could come only from one who had a theory to support.

The theory of Dr. Clarke was, that this hill was the ancient Zion; and this hypothesis he founded on the very slender basis of the sepulchral inscription, is άyias Zir, given in the text. The absurdity of it has been sufficiently shown in the preceding

note.

The same traveller also broached another hypothesis not much less extravagant, viz. that a tomb which he entered here was probably "the identical tomb of Jesus Christ!" Page 554. This supposition cannot of course be disproved, any more than it can be proved; but we might with just as much propriety select some fifty or more among the hundreds of sepulchres around the city, as having been the tomb of the Saviour. Besides, the place of crucifixion, so far as we know any thing about it, was near the city, and also near to one of the great roads leading from the gates. It must therefore be sought in all probability on the northern or western side of Jerusalem. The sepulchre was in a garden near the same place. John xix. 20, 41.

Dr. Clarke claims further to have been the first to "discover" the tombs on the south side of the Valley of Hinnom, lying West of the Aceldama and below the villa of Caiaphas, so called. He speaks confidently of "the discovery of antiquities undescribed by any author; and marvellous it is, [he says,] considering their magnitude, and the scrutinizing inquiry which has been so often directed to every object of the place, that these antiquities have hitherto escaped notice." Page 548. Strange indeed it would have been; for they must have been seen by every pilgrim visiting Jerusalem; and even Dr. Clarke himself suggests that Sandys may allude to them in speaking of "divers sepulchres" in this part near the Aceldama; Sandys' Travels, Lond. 1658. p. 145. But had he looked further, he would have found that other travellers have mentioned these sepulchres repeatedly. They have not described them indeed; for that was not the fashion of the early pilgrims. Nor indeed was there any thing about them deserving of special remark, except the inscriptions; and these Dr. Clarke has the merit of being the first to copy.

The following are some of the writers who mention these tombs. Edrisi in the twelfth century, in speaking of the Acel

dama, says, that "there are near it numerous dwellings hewn in the rock and inhabited by hermits;" ed. Jaubert. p. 345. Sir John Maundeville speaks here too of "manye Oratories, Chapelles, and Hermytages, where Hermytes weren wont to duelle ;" p. 93. Lond. 1839. In the same (fourteenth) century, Rudolf de Suchem likewise mentions "the many dwellings of hermits, now forsaken and uninhabited;" Reissb. p. 847. In A. D. 1483 Felix Fabri describes them more particularly as "ancient Jewish sepulchres," which he often visited and entered alone; though some of them were "so deep, that he never ventured to the end of them for fear of losing himself in the dark." They had formerly, he says, been inhabited by the Greek monks. Reissb. p. 256. But to come down later; Pococke in A. D. 1738, after describing the Aceldama and the tombs around it, speaks of the hill of Evil Counsel or Villa of Caiaphas, and then remarks: "I saw several other sepulchral grottos as I descended from this place into the vale that is to the West of the city;" Descr. of the East II. p. 25. fol.-All this is sufficient to show that Dr. Clarke's "discovery" had been at least spoken of more than six centuries before his day; to say nothing of the language of Antoninus Martyr, who also mentions the cells of anchorites near Aceldama.

NOTE XXVII. Page 537.

TOMB OF HELENA. Pausanias. The following is the text of Pausanias; Arcadia, i. e. Lib. VIII. c. 16, Espaiois de Ehirns yvvai κὸς ἐπιχώριας τάφος ἐστὶν ἐν πόλει Σολύμοις, ἣν ἐς ἔδαφος κατέβαλεν ὁ Ρωμαίων βασιλεύς· μεμηχάνηται δὲ ἐν τῷ τάφῳ τὴν θύραν ὁμοίως πάντα οὖσαν τῷ τάφῳ λιθίνην, μὴ πρότερον ἐσανοίγεσθαι πρὶν ἂν ἡμέραν τε ἀεὶ καὶ ὥραν τὸ ἔτος ἐπαγάγῃ τὴν αὐτήν· τότε δὲ ὑπὸ μόνου τοῦ μηχανήματος ἀνοιχθεῖσα, καὶ οὐ πολὺ ἐπισχοῦσα συνεκλείσθη δι ̓ ὀλίγης· τοῦτον μὲν δὴ οὕτω· τὸν δὲ ἄλλον χρόνον ἀνοίξαι πειρώμενος, ἀνοίξας μὲν οὐκ ἂν, κατάξεις δὲ αὐτὴν πρότερον βιαζόμενος. “ Et apud Hebraeos in Solymorum urbe, quam Romanorum Imperator funditus excidit, Helenae indigenae mulieris sepulchrum [miri operis] est ; in eo enim ostium fabricatum est e marmore, uti ceterae sepulchri partes; id anni stato die, atque hora, occulto machinae cujusdam motu aperitur ; neque ita multo post occluditur. Quod si alio tempore aperire conatus fueris, effringas facilius, quam ulla vi recludas."-This passage, I believe, was first brought into notice by Valesius in his Notes on Euseb. Histor. Eccl. lib. II. c. 12.

NOTE XXVIII. Page 538.

The discussions

TOMB OF HELENA. Carelessness of Writers. of Pococke, Chateaubriand, and Dr. Clarke, respecting the Tomb of Helena, exhibit a curious instance of careless second-hand citation. Josephus, as we have seen, describes the sepulchre as having had three pyramids; and Zuallardo in A. D. 1586 gives the first modern account of it in its present state. At that time the Jesuit Villalpandus was preparing at Rome his laborious work: Apparatus Urbis ac Templi Hierosolymitani, which forms the third volume of Pradi et Villalp. in Ezech. Explanationes, etc. III. Tomi, fol. Romae 1594-1604. In this work he speaks of the supposed Tombs of the Kings, and quotes the description of Zuallardo; lib. 3. c. 16. Thus far all is well enough. But Quaresmius, a few years later, in quoting Villalpandus, makes him (not Josephus) speak here of pyramids. Quaresm. Elucid. II. p. 730. Here is the first lapsus; and this Pococke has contrived to increase, by saying, unaccountably, that "Villalpandus, describing them as sepulchres of the kings, takes notice of one pyramid standing over them in his time; the other two probably having been destroyed, as the third has been taken away since his time;" Descr. of the East, fol. II. p. 20. This could have come only from a careless misapprehension of Quaresmius. Then comes Chateaubriand, repeating apparently the words of Pococke: "Ce monument souterrain étoit annoncé au dehors par trois pyramides, dont une existait encore du temps de Villalpandus;" Itin. II. p. 81. Par. 1837. Dr. Clarke improves upon this still further: "The circumstance of his (Josephus') allusion to the pyramids at the Sepulchre of Helena, one of which, actually seen by Villalpandus, having since disappeared, and thereby warranted the probable annihilation of the other two, is deemed sufficient by Pococke to identify the place alluded to by the Jewish historian ;" Travels, etc. 4to. Part II. Vol. I. p. 597. This then is a version from Pococke, and converts Father Villalpandus at once into an oriental traveller! After all this, one would hardly expect to find, that neither Villalpandus, nor his voucher Zuallardo, nor any other traveller of that or a previous age, says one word of any pyramid or pyramids in connection with this spot. Yet such is the naked truth.

But one blunder was not enough for Chateaubriand; and therefore he contrives to commit another still more gross, which has come down through all the editions of his Itinerary to the present day. Speaking of these same tombs, he says: "Arculfe (apud Adamn.) qui les a décrits avec une grande exactitude, (Sepulchra