be expected to have survived the ravages of time and of barbarous hands. The earlier pilgrims, before the period of the crusades, make no mention of this tomb; probably because it still bore the name of Helena and was not to them a consecrated object. The same was perhaps the case with the writers of the age of the crusades, who have all passed it over in silence. Only Marinus Sanutus, A. D. 1321, slightly mentions the Sepulchre of Helena on the North of the city; so slightly indeed that it is difficult to say, whether the same tomb is meant; though from its remarkable character this is most probable. After this writer, there seems to be no allusion whatever to this sepulchre until near the close of the sixteenth century, when it is again brought into notice as the Tombs of the Kings, in the tolerably full descriptions of Zuallardo, Villamont, and Cotovicus. From that time onward the place has been described by almost every traveller down to the present day. Pococke was the first to suggest, that it might be the Tomb of Helena; but without reference to the exact specification of Josephus and Jerome, and only as a matter of conjecture.3 This was strengthened by Chateaubriand and Dr. Clarke by a reference to the passage of Pausanias above cited; although the former adopts in the e nd a different conclusion.4 1) Secreta fidel. Crucis III. 14. 9, "contra orientem descendit torrens Cedron, collectis simul omnibus aquis quas secum trahit de partibus superioribus: scilicet Rama, Anathoth, sepulcro Reginae Jabenorum," etc. Further on, the writer again refers to this tomb in connection with that of the Virgin in the valley of Jehoshaphat: "De Sepulcro vero Helenae Reginae, dictum est supra," etc. 2) Zuallardo, A. D. 1586; Viaggio, p. 264. Villamont in Á. D. 1589; Voyages, Liv. II. c. 31. Cotovicus in A. D. 1598; Itin. p. 304. 3) Pococke Descr. of the East, II. p. 20, fol.-Doubdan speaks also of a Tomb of Helena, but distinct from the Tombs of the Kings and on the other side of the road; Voyage, p. 258. See also Van Egmond and Heyman, Reizen I. p. 347. Quaresmius knew nothing of any Tomb of Helena in his day; II. p. 734. 4) Chateaubriand Itin. II. p. 79, seq. Paris 1837. Clarke's Travels, etc. 4to. Part II. Vol. I. p. 599. -See Note XXVIII, at the end of the Volume. Tombs of the Prophets. The excavations com monly known under this name, are situated on the western declivity of the Mount of Olives, a little south of the foot-path leading over from St. Stephen's Gate to Bethany. Pococke describes them as "very large, having many cells to deposit bodies in; the further end of them they call the Labyrinth, which extends a great way; I could not find the end of it; this part seems to have been a quarry. Doubdan compares them with the Tombs of the Judges and Kings; but says the chambers are not square, as in these, but consist of two large and high galleries cut strictly one within the other in a continued curve; the holes or niches for the bodies being on a level with the floor.2 These sepulchres are not often mentioned by travellers, and no exact description of them seems to exist. I regret therefore the more, that we did not visit them.3 1) Descr. of the East, II. p. 29, fol. 2) Voyage, etc. p. 285. 3) See further Quaresmius II. p. 305. Chateaubriand Itin. II. p. 37, Paris 1837. I am not sure, whether these belong among the "certain subterraneous chambers" mentioned by Dr. Clarke on the Mount of Olives; Travels, 4to. II. i. p. 577. The "subterraneous pyramid" upon the pinnacle of the mountain, which he holds to be a work of pagan idolatry, we did not see; but according to his description, it answers well to one of the ordinary subterranean magazines so common in the villages of Palestine. NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS. NOTE I. Page 22. DIOCLETIAN'S COLUMN. See Wilkinson's Thebes and Egypt, Lond. 1835, p. 289. "The pillar of Diocletian has an inscription at its base, and was probably once surmounted by an equestrian statue; as four cramps are still visible on its summit. The length of the shaft is seventy-three feet [a solid block of granite]; the total height ninety-eight feet nine inches; the circumference twenty-seven feet eight inches; and the diameter of the top of the capital sixteen feet six inches. The shaft is elegant and of good style; but the capital and pedestal are of inferior workmanship, and have the appearance of being of a different period. Indeed it is probable that the shaft was of a Greek epoch; and that the unfinished capital and pedestal were added to it, at the time of its erection in honour of Diocletian."-The inscription, as copied by Mr. Wilkinson, "by means of a ladder and chalking out the letters," is as follows; the last word being doubtful: τον τιμιωτατον αυτοκρατορα NOTE II. Page 28. IRRIGATION. On the different machines for raising water in Egypt, see Niebuhr's Reisebeschr. I. p. 148, and Tab. XV. For the Shaduf, see Lane's Mod. Egyptians, II. p. 24.-The waterwheel, Sakich, is usually turned by an ox, and raises the water by means of jars fastened to a circular or endless rope, which hangs over the wheel. The Shadûf has a toilsome occupation. His instrument is exactly the well-sweep of New England in miniature, supported by a cross-piece resting on two upright posts of wood or mud. His bucket is of leather or wicker-work. Two of these instruments are usually fixed side by side, and the men keep time at their work, raising the water five or six feet. Where the banks are higher, two, three, and even four couples are thus employed, one above another. There is nothing now in Egypt which illustrates the ancient practice of "watering with the foot," alluded to in Deut. xi. 10. This is sometimes referred to the mode of distributing water when already raised, among the channels of a field, by making or breaking down with the foot the small ridges which regulate its flow. But this explanation seems not to reach the point; for the passage in question evidently refers to the mode of supplying water, not of distributing it. Possibly in more ancient times the water-wheel may have been smaller, and turned not by oxen, but by men pressing upon it with the foot, in the same way that water is still often drawn from wells in Palestine, as we afterwards saw. Niebuhr describes one such machine in Cairo, where it was called Sakieh tedûr bir-rijl, a watering machine that turns by the foot," a view of which he also subjoins. The labourer sits on a level with the axis of the wheel or reel, and turns it by drawing the upper part towards him with his hands, pushing the rounds of the under part at the same time with his feet one after another. In Palestine the wheel or reel is more rude; and a single rope is used, which is wound up around it by the same process. NOTE III. Page 29. THEBES. THE SEA. Nahum iii. 8. The "Sea" referred to in this passage is the river Nile, which to the present day in Egypt is named el-Bahr, “the Sea," as its most common appellation. Our Egyptian servant, who spoke English, always called it "the Sea." Compare Wilkinson's Thebes, etc. p. 40.-In Egypt the word el-Bahr, implying the Mediterranean Sea, is also commonly used for North; a North-wind is called "Sea-wind," as coming from the Mediterranean. This shows the fallacy of an argument sometimes used to prove, that the Hebrew was the original language of Palestine, viz. that the word sea (□) is also the Hebrew term for West. If for this reason the Hebrew language were original in Palestine, then also the Arabic must have been so in Egypt.-In like manner in Syria the word Kibleh, referring to Mecca, is now universally employed for South. |