just enumerated as incident to a straight course; but it also receives some support from another incidental remark of the Jewish historian. Having described the manner in which the Romans, after many fierce assaults, got possession of the second wall, he informs us, that Titus immediately caused all the northern part to be thrown down; but placed troops in the towers along the southern part. Had the wall run in a direct course from Hippicus to Antonia, the writer could well have spoken only of the eastern and western parts.1

The same hypothesis seems to receive further confirmation from a fact which we noticed near the Damascus Gate; and which apparently has not been mentioned by any writer. Every traveller has probably observed the large ancient hewn stones, which lie just in the inside of that gate towards the East. In looking at these one day, and passing around them, we were surprised to find there a square dark room adjacent to the wall; the sides of which are entirely composed of stones having precisely the character of those still seen at the corners of the temple-area,large, bevelled, with the whole surface hewn smooth, and thus exhibiting an earlier and more careful style of architecture than those remaining in the tower of Hippicus. Connected with this room on the West side is a winding staircase, leading to the top of the wall,

1) I owe to a friend the suggestion, that this second wall may have been that mentioned by Josephus, as having been built in the time of the Maccabees in order to cut off the Syrian fortress (anga) from the city and from the temple. This fortress, according to Josephus, stood on Akra overagainst the temple; and the wall was drawn through the midst of the city; Joseph. Antiq. XIII. 5. 11. But according to the writer of the

first Book of Maccabees, the fortress was in the city of David, on Zion; and a high wall or bulwark (üwos μiya) was erected between it and the city; 1 Macc. xii. 35-37. The account of Josephus must therefore be regarded as doubtful; and further, the wall thus built seems at any rate to have been only temporary. See Crome, art. Jerusalem, p. 291, seq. in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclopädie. See also above, p. 410, Note 2.

the sides of which are of the same character. Following out this discovery, we found upon the western side of the gate, though further from it, another room of precisely the same kind, corresponding in all respects to that upon the eastern side; except that it had been much more injured in building the present wall, and is in part broken away. Of the stones, one measured 74 feet long by 3 feet high; and another 6 feet long by a like height. Some of them are much disintegrated and decayed; but they all seem to be lying in their original places, as if they had never been disturbed or moved from the spot where they were first fitted to each other.-The only satisfactory conjecture which I can form respecting these structures is, that they were ancient towers, of a date anterior to the time of Herod, and probably the guard-houses of an ancient gate upon this spot. This gate could have belonged only to the second wall.1

Except these, no traces whatever of the second wall are visible, so far as we could discover. Heaps of rubbish out of various centuries, and modern houses, cover the whole ground.2

Third Wall. This began also at Hippicus;3 ran northwards as far as to the tower Psephinos; then passed down opposite the sepulchre of Helena; and being carried along through the royal sepulchres, turned at

1) Another conjecture is indeed possible, viz. that when Adrian rebuilt the city, the Romans may have taken stones from the ruins of the temple and built these towers. But this seems inconsistent with the style of architecture, the evident fitting of the stones to each other, and also with their decay apparently in their original places. Nor is such a conjecture supported by any thing analogous in other parts of the city.

2) In describing the siege of Je

rusalem by Herod, before the third wall was built, Josephus speaks also of a first and second wall; Antiq. XIV. 16. 2. But his first wall there is evidently that to which the besiegers first came, and which they first took, viz. the second wall of the text above, which was then the exterior wall on this part. By the second wall in the same passage, he obviously means the wall around the court of the temple.

3) Joseph. B. J. V: 4. 2.

the corner tower by the Fuller's monument, and ended by making a junction with the ancient wall in the valley of the Kidron. This wall was commenced by the elder Agrippa under the emperor Claudius; but he desisted from it for fear of offending that emperor; and it was afterwards carried on and completed by the Jews themselves, though on a scale of less strength and magnificence. Before the erection of this wall, the buildings of the city had extended themselves far to the North, covering also the hill Bezetha; and were "wholly naked" of defence.

The tower Psephinos, as we have seen, must have stood upon the high ground N. N. W. of the N. W. corner of the modern city. The tomb of Helena, if not identical with the present Tombs of the Kings, (as is most probable,) was doubtless near them.2 The wall is not said to have been carried so far as this monument; but only passed opposite or overagainst it. Of the other points mentioned, nothing definite is known. The conclusion is a probable one, that the wall passed from Psephinos in an easterly or northeasterly direction to the brow of the Valley of Jehoshaphat; and thence along that valley, until it met the ancient wall coming up from the South on the East of the temple.

In correspondence with this conclusion, we suppose that we found traces of the foundations of Agrippa's wall on its N. W. part. I first came upon them accidentally, in returning one evening with Mr. Whiting from the Tombs of the Kings along the path leading up to the Yâfa Gate. A few days after, in passing the same way with Messrs. Smith and Lanneau, we

1) As Claudius ascended the throne in A. D. 41, and Agrippa is generally held to have died in A. D. 44, the date of the commencement of this wall is pretty VOL. I.

59

definitely fixed. It was begun ten or twelve years after our Lord's crucifixion.

2) See "Tombs of the Kings," further on.

examined them more leisurely. On the East of the said path, in the field about half way between those tombs and the N. W. corner of the city, we noticed foundations, which belonged very distinctly to the third wall; consisting of large hewn blocks of stone, of a character corresponding to other works of those ages. On the right of the path, and running up the hill in a line with the above, were other similar foundations; and still further up were stones of the like kind apparently displaced. By following the general direction of these, and of several scarped rocks which had apparently been the foundations of towers or the like, we succeeded in tracing the wall in zigzags in a westerly course for much of the way to the top of the high ground. Here are the evident substructions of towers or other fortifications, extending for some distance; and from them to the N. W. corner of the city, the foundation of the ancient wall is very distinctly visible along the hard surface of the ground. Within the corner of the modern walls is also a trace of the ancient one; to which we shall recur again presently.1

The next day, April 28th, we took measurements of these foundations, so far as we could determine the various points, as follows; beginning at the N. W. corner of the city.

6. N. 20° E. 465

7. N. 75° E. 264

To the foundations of a large tower.

Across other foundations of towers, etc.

To another point; the intervening wall not traceable.

To foundations, etc.

To the path.

Along the path.

To the end of the large hewn stones first seen.

In the courses No. 5 and 6, there was some uncertainty. Hewn rocks lay to the West in a line with

1) See below, under "Walls of the Middle Ages."

the course No. 7. We therefore returned to the end of No. 4, and measured new courses as follows:

5. N. 40° E.

6. N. 75° E. 200 feet. 7. N. 75° E. 264

To hewn rocks, apparently the foundation of a

tower.

To the path, at the end of the former No. 6.

To the hewn stones, as before.

Beyond this point we were unable to trace any thing; unless perhaps the foundation of a tower hewn in the rock towards the N. E. but quite uncertain. A like search along the brow of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, was also in vain. Indeed, the level ground on this side of the city has now been ploughed over for ages, and the stones carried off or thrown together to form terraces; so that all traces of former foundations have nearly disappeared. Many ancient cisterns however still remain; and marble tesserae are often picked up.

Circumference of the Ancient City. The ancient southern wall, we know, included the whole of Zion; the eastern wall ran probably along or near the bottom of the Valley of Jehoshaphat; while, as we have now seen, the northern wall passed some forty or fifty rods N. of the present city. Hence I am disposed to allow full credit to the assertion of Josephus, that the ancient city was 33 stadia in circumference, equivalent to nearly 3 geogr. miles. The present circumference, as we have seen, is about 2 geogr. miles; but the extent of Zion now without the walls, and that of this tract upon the North, are sufficient to account for the difference.

Walls of Adrian, and of the Middle Ages. The new city of Elia, erected by Adrian on the ruins of Jerusalem, would appear to have occupied very nearly the limits of the present city. The portion of Zion which now lies outside, would seem then also to have been excluded; for Eusebius and Cyrill in the fourth century