layers of stones, one upon another. Of these the lowest is composed of courses of massive masonry, in which are inserted stones of a smaller size, which again form the basis of a thick layer of mortar, studded with the stones of the superficial coat, consisting of small pebbles, or quarries, set thickly, but not closely, so as to afford a strong hold to the exterior cement, which was profusely spread over these pebbles'. The east end of this pool is close to the city-wall, leaving only a narrow causeway between, which forms a communication from S. Mary's Gate with the Haram, through the Gate of the Tribes.

Having thus again reached the north-eastern corner of the enclosure, where our survey of the exterior commenced, I must endeavour to assign the various points which we have noticed, within and without the enclosure, to their respective places in the topography of the ancient city; a difficult task indeed; and if my deductions from existing phænomena should not prove more felicitous than those of earlier writers, I fear that the results will be far from satisfactory. In this case, however, as in many others, it is much more easy to detect and expose the errors of others than to discover and establish the truth. Still, as it will serve to familiarize the reader with the bearings of the question, and to demonstrate the nature of the difficulties in which it is involved, I shall examine, by the way, some modern theories and if I succeed in proving them to be untenable, because inconsistent with historical evidence or existing monuments, I shall at least have cleared the ground for a new hypothesis, which must then be sub

1 Mr. Wilde has given a woodcut of his description. Narrative, Vol. 11. sketch of this masonry in illustration p. 398.

jected to the same test, and accepted or rejected on its own intrinsic merits.

But as a few preliminary notes on the site of the Temple and its later history will much facilitate our subsequent enquiry, I shall address myself to this, when I have premised that in speaking of the Jewish Temple, I must be understood always (unless the contrary be distinctly stated) to refer to it in its latest aspect, as it was left by Herod the Great: For, as Josephus and the Rabbinical writers are well-nigh the sole authorities for any particulars of the arrangement and construction of the Temple, and as their accounts relate neither to the Temple of Solomon, (though they undoubtedly borrow much of their language, and probably something more, from that building,) nor to the restoration of Zerubbabel and Joshua, but to the Herodian structure, our enquiry is necessarily restricted to the last; for it were a vain attempt to recover, from the scanty records of the Scripture-narrative, the particulars of the Solomonic Temple2. There is another observation which it is important to bear in mind in investigating this subject. It is this; that the technical language of ancient writers is liable to considerable misconstruction, and we must carefully guard against the notion, that the terms popularly employed in a translation are exact equivalents to those of the originals. It may frequently happen, on the other hand, that the terms employed by the writers were not technical terms at all, but simply accommo

Josephus published his Jewish War at Rome cir. A.D. 75, and his Antiquities at the same place, cir. A.D. 93. The Tracts of the Mishna are of various and mostly of uncertain date,

but the earliest are subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. The Middoth may be referred, with considerable certainty, to the end of the second century.

dations of ordinary language; for it must not be supposed that Josephus or the authors of Middoth, Yoma, and other Tracts of the Mishna, were professional architects, or thoroughly versed in the clerical language of the masonic craft.

With these preliminary remarks, I proceed to a general description of the arrangement of Herod's Temple, referring to the former volume for an account of the site and its original dedication to this sacred use', and not designing here to enter into details of its architecture, of which we know next to nothing2.

The Temple, then, in its widest signification (rò iepòv), consisted of two Courts, one within the other, though the interior is sometimes further subdivided, and distributed into four other courts3. The area of the outer Court, (or Temple, as it is sometimes called,) was in great part artificial; for the natural level on the summit of the Mount being found too small for the Temple with its surrounding chambers, courts, and cloisters, was gradually increased by mechanical expedients1. This extension was commenced by Solomon, who raised from the depth of the eastern valley a wall of enormous stones,

1 Vol. 1. pp. 15, 16.

2 Except that the Royal Cloister at the South was Corinthian: Ant. xv. xi. 5.

3 Viz., sometimes into 1, the Women's Court; 2, the Court of Israel; 3, the Court of the Priests; 4, the Inner Temple, as in Middoth; sometimes the Court of the Priests is regarded as Tρirov iepóv, as in Ant. XI. xi. 5.

The process is described by Josephus, Ant. Lib. VIII. cap. iii. sect. 9; and xv. xi. 3: and Bell. Jud. v. v. 1. Hrr. Krafft (p. 57, note 1,) says that

a Leyden MS. of Josephus reads ἠλιβάταις πέτραις for κατὰ λίβα ταὶς πέτραις, in the second passage here referred to. This would make very good sense, and the received reading makes none; for the context shews that the embankment was not on the South but on the East, as is further proved by the passage in the Wars, and by a comparison of Ant. xx. viii. 7 with xv. xi. 3. Besides, there was no valley on the South, whereas the Valley of Jehoshaphat is on the East. See Bib. Res. 1. p. 429, note 2.

bound together with lead, within which he raised a bank of earth to a level with the native rock. On this was erected a cloister, which with its successors ever retained the name of "Solomon's Porch"," in memory of the great king who had first reared it on an artificial embankment. This process was continued by subsequent kings, so that the dimensions of the area were continually enlarged until the days of Herod the Great, who, not satisfied with a complete reconstruction of the Holy House, further enlarged the outer court to double its former extent", and adorned it with stately cloisters", that it might be in better keeping with the Temple which he had erected.

Of these cloisters the Royal Portico on the South deserves a fuller notice, as one of the most remarkable of all Herod's magnificent works. It consisted of four rows of Corinthian columns, distributed into a central nave and lateral aisles-if I may be allowed, for convenience, to use terms (intelligible to all, though not so applied until a much later period,) borrowed from Christian Churches, which certainly borrowed much of their architectural arrangement from this and other Basilicas. width and 50 in height, and the nave was half as wide again as either aisle, and double the height,

John x. 23; Acts iii. 11; v. 12. Lightfoot's Chorographical Inquiry Cap. VI. Sect. 11. Vol. x. p. 350, &c. Pitman's ed.

This is not admitted by Dr Robinson (see B. R. Vol. 1. pp. 418, 427, 452.) Josephus says (Bell. Jud. Lib. 1. cap. xxi. ap. init.) ПevтEKαideKÁTY γοῦν ἔτει τῆς βασιλείας, αὐτόν τε τὸν ναὸν ἐπεσκεύασε, καὶ τὴν περὶ αὐτὸν ανετειχίσατο χώραν τῆς οὔσης διπλα

Each aisle was 30 feet in

σίαν, ἀμέτροις μὲν χρησάμενος τοῖς ἀναλώμασιν ἀνυπερβλήτῳ δὲ τῇ πολυτελείᾳ.

7 Fully described in Ant. xv. xi. 5. 8 So also Dr Robinson understands the term εὖρος μὲν ἡμιόλιον—i.e. 45 ft. Bib. Res. 1. p. 429. Krafft, however, makes it 67 ft., and in all 127, instead of 30 × 2+45=105 feet. Topographie, P. 70.

thus rising into a clerestory of unusually large proportions. The shafts of the columns were monoliths of white marble, 27 feet in height, and of such ample circumference, that it required three men with their arms extended to compass them. They had a double base moulding and Corinthian capitals; the roofs of the cloisters were of cedar elaborately carved. The cloisters on the other three sides of the area were only double, and their entire width only 30 cubits. This outer court had four gates on its western side, towards the city'. It had also gates in the middle of the South side2, and one entrance on each of the other sides3.

Such was the first enclosure, in the midst of which and not far from it was the second', to which was an ascent by a few steps. This court had a wall and cloister of its own, and was entered by one great gate at the East, and three at equal distances in the northern and southern walls. It was distributed into several members, assigned to the various orders of the Hebrew Community, but was all sacred; and inscriptions in Greek and Latin, set on pillars about the wall, forbade foreigners under pain of death to violate the sanctity of the precincts. The Women's Court, occupying the East of this second enclosure, was a square of 135 cubits, with gates in the middle of its four sides, and chambers at the angles, each 40 cubits square, assigned to different purposes. It was on a lower level than the

1 See above, p. 42, note 1.

2 Ant. xv. xi. 5.

3 Proof of this will be adduced below. See Middoth, Cap. 1. Sect. 3.

4 Τοιοῦτος μὲν ὁ πρῶτος περίβολος ἦν· ἐν μέσῳ δὲ, ἀπέχων οὐ πολὺ, δεύτε ρος, προσβατὸς βαθμῖσιν ὀλίγαις κ.λ. Ant. 1. c.

5 ὃν περιεῖχε ἑρκίον λιθίνου δρυο φάκτου, γραφῇ κωλύων εἰσιέναι τὸν ἀλλοενῆ, θανατικῆς ἀπειλουμένης της nuías Josephus, 1. c. This is the same with the δρύφακτος λίθινος τρίπηχυς μὲν ὕψος, κ.λ. Bell. Jud. v. v. 2.

6 The measures and distributions of the Temple, its courts and chambers,