Slike stranica
PDF
ePub

mentioned from very early times, in Christian descriptions of the city1; and, as I have already intimated, the consonant traditions of Christians, Jews3, and Moslems'.

perhaps the East gate of the Inner Temple, afterwards called the Gate of Nicanor. Midd. 11. 4, Vol. v. p. 327, i.e. the Corinthian Gate of Josephus, Bell. Jud. Lib. v. cap. v. sect. 3. I could rather believe with Abarbanel and others, that this Gate Shushan is identical with the of 2 Kings xi. 6, called in the parallel place 2 Chron. xxiii. 5. Tipy i.e. the Gate of the Foundation; the reason of which would be obvious. See L'Empereur's Plan of the Temple, prefixed to the Tract Middoth in his edition of the Mishna, Vol. v. p. 323.

This is, no doubt, the "Porta Speciosa" of Prudentius (cited above, p. 338, n. 2.), and it retained the name there assigned to it for centuries. Antoninus Placentinus (cir. A.D. 600), entering Jerusalem from the Valley of Jehoshaphat writes, "Portam civitatis (quæ cohæret portæ speciosæ, quæ fuit Templi, cujus liminare et tribulatio stat) ingressi sumus in sanctam civitatem." Sect. XVII. Ugolini Thes. Tom. VII. p. mccxiii. The transference of the "Porta Speciosa" to the West of the Temple is much later. Will. Tyrensis, VIII. iii. p. 748 in Bongar.

2 To those already cited, add those adduced by Adrichomius, Theat. Terræ Sanctæ. Jerusalem, No. 156, p. 167. Those later than the Crusades are too numerous to refer to.

3 Benjamin of Tudela, A. D. 1160, calls it the Gate of Jehoshaphat, and places the Gate of Mercy on the West

of the Temple area. See Asher's ed. Vol. I. p. 70. Rabbi Petachia, (cir. A. D. 1175,) speaks of it as yo

the "Gate of Mercy." He says that it was then blocked up with stones, and the Christians desiring to remove the obstruction, were miraculously prevented. Itin. in Ugolini Thes. Tom. VI. p. mccvii. Parchi, A. D. 1322, speaks of them, under the same name, as always closed by two iron doors. He thinks they may be the two gates built by Solomon, one of which was destined for bridegrooms, the other for mourners, or those who were under excommunication. But he speaks of the Gate Shushan, as a distinct gate (perhaps the Saracenic gate mentioned above), on this same eastern side, closed by large square stones, a bow-shot distant from the high closed Gates of Mercy. Zuntz, in Asher's Benj. Tud. Vol. 11. pp. 397, 8. Ishak Khelo, A.D. 1334, speaks of two Gates of Mercy, one on the East, the other on the West, of the Temple, so reconciling Benjamin of Tud. with R. Petachia. He gives the same account of the former as Parchi. See Chemins de Jérusalem, Ed. Carmoly, in his Collection of Jewish Travels, Brussels, 1847, pp. 233, 7,9. Uri de Biel (A. D. 1564) has the same tradition, and speaks of them as Jewish masonry. Tombeaux des Patriarches, ibid. p. 438, and Hottinger's Cippi Hebraici, p. 41.

4 See Edrisi and Mejr-ed-din, cited below, p. 358, note 4, and 359, note 6.

represent it as a gate of the Jewish Temple. It was probably the place of the Beautiful Gate celebrated in the Acts, which the Sacred narrative would lead us to connect with Solomon's Cloister".

It doubtless suffered materially at the time of the combustion of the eastern cloisters in the Jews' revolt against Sabinus, but may have been sufficiently restored to be fit for use, although the cloister was allowed to continue in ruins".

Neither is there anything in its architecture that militates against this supposition; for although the interior arrangement and decoration have undergone, as was natural, many changes in the lapse of ages, yet the strictly constructive part is apparently as early as the Christian era, and has been so regarded by modern artists. The exterior walls above the doorway on either face are mere patchwork, of much later date than the arches themselves, as is obvious to a mere tyro in architecture; and the dome-vaulting of the present chamber is certainly not earlier than Justinian; but the capitals of the Corinthian pilasters, in pure classical taste, may well be coeval with Herod's Temple: and the double archway in the exterior wall is not of later date. Such, at least, is the opinion of Mr. Catherwood, and others, who have had the opportunity of examining its architectural features more closely than ordinary travellers are permitted to do. They all agree in assigning it a Roman origin; and if it did not belong

See Acts iii. 2, 11.

See Joseph. Ant. xvII. x. 11. Bell. Jud. 11. iii. 3; and conf. Ant. xx. ix. 7.

7 Thus Mr. Fergusson remarks on the "regular Corinthian pilasters;" he says,

"On the outside the order has almost classical forms and proportions." p. 98. 8 Bartlett's Walks, pp. 171, 2, 178. And Dr Robinson's B. R. 1. pp. 437, 8; embodying a statement from Mr. Bonomi the architect.

to the later Temple, it is impossible to say when it was erected: for no evidence whatever has been, or can be, adduced in support of either hypothesis advanced by Dr. Robinson-that it served as an eastern gate to Antonia', or that it formed the principal approach to Hadrian's Pagan Temple, when the area of Antonia was thrown into the Temple-area. The theory of Mr. Fergusson, who ascribes a Constantinian origin to this antiquity, has already been disposed of, and will probably find but one advocate, to whose mind "it appears as clear as the sun at noon-day3."

The reasons assigned for the blocking up of this Gateway are variously stated by Christians, Jews, and Moslems. Mejr-ed-din informs us that "these are the

1 Bib. Res. 1. p. 437. The assertion "that the walls of the Haram were at this time rebuilt," at least is equally unsupported. The Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus does not seem to have been a very imposing building; to judge from the representation on the coin. It was probably only a tetrastyle shrine, like that of Venus on Calvary.

2 This second theory is reasserted with great confidence in Theol. Rev. p. 626, where it is said that this Gateway "is usually referred by architects to the time of Herod." The projection mentioned in confirmation of this is not noticed by Mr. Tipping or the Engineers; nor is the break, mentioned by both these at 913 ft. from the S.E. angle, noticed by Dr Robinson. He supposes that the projection, mentioned by Mr. E. Smith, (extending about 174 ft. along the wall, i. e. from 963-1137, about the middle of which stands the Golden Gate,) was the S. E. tower of Antonia, 70 feet high, mentioned by

Josephus, J. W. v. vi. 8; but, he adds, "it is not necessary to suppose that this tower extended over this whole projection." Ergo, cadit quæstio-the projection, supposing it to exist, proves nothing.

3 Fergusson's Essay, p. 99. This author has, however, one remark worthy of notice. It is this, that the Golden Gate is evidently not meant for defence; has no flanking towers; is entirely open from side to side: "but was a propylæon or festal entrance to some public building." The inner face of the Gateway still stands, and the arches appear to correspond with those on the outer face. See Mr. Catherwood's sketch in p. 94 of the Essay. I could believe that the eastern cloister, 45 feet (30 cubits) wide, ran through this gateway; and that the north and south walls are a mere blocking up of the intercolumniar space. The Gate is 70 feet interior length.

Edrisi merely speaks of it as the

two gates spoken of in the Koran, the interior, (i. e. the western,) called the Gate of Mercy; the exterior, (i.e. the eastern,) the Gate of Torment, as opening on the Valley so called. They exhibit within the only remains of Solomon's work to be found about the enclosure. He learnt from an ancient, that this Gate had been closed by Omar Ibn-Khatab, and shall only be opened at the end of the world, when Jesus the Son of Mary shall descend upon the earth. It appears," he adds more reasonably, "that they have been blocked up for fear, and for the security of the Sanctuary and the city, because they open towards the desert, and would not be of much service, except to facilitate the entrance of the Bedawîn." Consistent with the former part of this tradition is the story reported by Bonifacius', who was assured by a learned Moslem doctor, that this Gate was kept closed for some great king, though he would not say what king. Nor does the latter part militate against another report of Quaresmius; only that the Christians have, with pardonable partiality, substituted themselves for the Bedawîn, and by confounding the traditionary with the historical reason, have represented that this Gate is kept closed for fear of a powerful king who shall take Jerusalem and become Lord of all the earth".

Having thus disposed of the Golden Gate, and shewn reason, from it and from other considerations, to

"Gate of Mercy," commonly closed, and only opened on the Feast of Palms, A.D. cir. 1150. Jaubert's Translation, Vol. 1. pp. 341, 344. So also Ibn-elWardi, p. 180, ed. Koehler.

In Mines d'Orient, Tome 11. p. 96. He wrote A. D 1495.

6 In Quaresmius, Vol. 11. p. 332. Ibid. p. 340, after Radzivil. There is a curious coincidence, whether designed or not I cannot say, between this tradition and Ezekiel's notice of the Eastern Gate in his prophetic vision, xliv. 1-3.

believe that the northern boundary of the present area is identical with that of the Temple, we must submit Josephus and the Rabbies to another test, and consider what objections there will be to cutting off a space from the southern end of the present enclosure, so as to square the width determined now, as of old, by the valleys; for unless the two accounts, of the proportions in which these writers agree, and of the dimensions in which they differ, be wholly and entirely false, we are not at liberty to suppose that both its northern and southern limits are identical.

Still the ancient remains on the South of the Haram, commencing with the south-east angle, continued through the large substructions within the same, and the vaulted passage beneath El-Aksa, to the fragment of the massive arch at the western extremity, have been thought to present incontrovertible evidence that the outer court of the Temple did extend thus far1; and a coincidence has lately been observed between the measures of Herod's Royal Cloister, described by Josephus, and the substructions within the S. E. angle, which seems to afford decisive evidence that the latter were arranged with a view to the former. As it is the only argument of any weight, I will here consider it; and if I am not able to answer it fully, I must leave the reader to determine whether the coincidence, remarkable as it undoubtedly is, may not, after all, be

1 Mr. Catherwood, e. g. gives up Josephus altogether. Bartlett's Walks pp. 171, 175, and solves the difficulty by supposing that the Temple-area occupied the whole modern Haram. Hrr. Krafft and the Reviewer in the Neues Repertorium agree with me that the

Temple extended as far North as at present, but carry Herod's Royal Cloister along the south wall of the Haram. Robinson's theory has been stated; and Dr Schultz professes not to have directed his particular attention to this branch of the subject.

« PrethodnaNastavi »