Sakhrah became manifest. The Rock was covered with a dung-heap, which he sedulously set himself to clear away. The question then arose about the proper position of the Mosk. El-Kaab recommended placing it behind the Sakhrah, in order to join the two Kiblahs of Moses and Mohammed; i. e. so that the worshipper might face the sacred places of the Jews and Moslems at the same time: but Omar, disliking this conformity to the Jewish practice, preferred to build the Mosk in front of it; i. e. on the South, that the veneration due to the Kaaba at Mecca might be saved. This was in A. H. 16 or 17, A. d. 637, 8. Between this period and the reign of Abd-el-Melik we have no account of the Mosk. This Khalif proposed to repair the Mosk of Omar, and to build a dome over the Rock, in order to protect the Moslem worshippers against the inclemencies of the season. His object was to divert his subjects from the pilgrimage to Mecca, then in the hands of Abd-ullah Ibn-Zobeir, a rival Khalif; a curious parallel to the expedient adopted by Jeroboam the son of Nebat. The preparations were commenced on a large scale, and the result was answerable to the design. In addition to what has been already stated', the following particulars may be found interesting. The Khalif assembled all the best workmen, from all parts of his dominions, and laid up large sums of money in a treasury on the East of the Sakhrah, towards the Mount of Olives; Abel-mikdam Redjà Hayvet, one of the most learned doctors, was appointed architect, and he was assisted by one Yesid Ibn-Selam, (an affranchised slave of the Khalif, and a native of Jerusalem,) and his two sons. According to one authority, a vaulted crypt was first formed in the Rock 10. The Mosk was commenced in A. H. 69 (A.D. 688), and finished in three years.

Abd-el-Melik furnished the plan of the edifice, and built the small Dome of the Chain, on the East of the great Dome, as a model to the workmen". The other buildings on the South of the Platform, extending

each side of the wall which is nearest to the Valley of Hinnom, then dig and thou shalt find it." In Kemal-ad-din it is, "si a muro, vallem Gehinnom spectante, loco nescio quo, cubitum emensus foderet, ubi sterquilinium esset sacrum illum lapidem inveniret." Lemming, 1. c.

4 See Vol. 1. p. 317. Kemal-ad-din, 1. c. p. 57, and Mejr-ed-din, 1. c. p. 162.

Mejr-ed-din, 1. c. and Eutychii Annales, Tom. 11. p. 365, agree in stating this motive.

Vol. 1. p. 318.

In this agree the three histories : but Kemal-ad-din, p. 57, is the most explicit.

Mejr-ed-din, p. 159, adds the interesting particular, that this worthy had red hair and a white beard. He died A. H. 112, Abd-el-Melik in A. H. 86.

10 Jelal-addin, p. 186. This probably alludes to the present entrance to "the Noble Cave:" see above, p. 342, note 1.

11 So Mejr-ed-din, p. 162; Kemaled-din, with greater probability, (p.57) says, that the Khalif ordered the workmen to furnish a model.

from the "Cradle of Jesus" on the East to the Mosk of the Moghrebins, (i. e. Abu Bekr, for I quote Mejr-ed-din') on the West, were also erected2; and, as 100,000 ducats still remained in hand, the Khalif ordered the Dome to be covered with plates of gold. This was accordingly done in a most magnificent style, and a wooden hoarding protected it from rain and snow during the winter-season.

This last-mentioned fact will serve to explain the description of an Occidental traveller, who visited Jerusalem only a few years after the completion of the splendid structure of Abd-el-Melik, which would otherwise be perfectly unintelligible. It is Arculfus, who (cir. A.D. 697) describes a quadrangular Saracenic Oratory as occupying the place of Solomon's Temple, and situated near the East wall, constructed of upright planks, and large beams over some ruined remains. It was a mean building, but capable of containing three thousand men'; and the same is repeated nearly two centuries later (cir. A. D. 870) by Bernhard the Monk. The earlier traditions of the Moslems also recognise a timber Mosk, and furnish a few more particulars. "At this time there were between the pillars, pieces of wainscot (wood), 6000 compartments of wainscot, and therein 50 doors; and 600 marble pillars, and therein seven galleries for announcing prayer." Then, after a description of the chains and chandeliers, the writer adds, Moreover, there were within the Mosk 15 chapels (to match) to the Chapel of the Sakhrah: and upon the flat roof of the Mosk there were 7700 planks of lead, the weight of every piece 70 pounds, besides that upon the Chapel of the Sakhrah "."

1 See above, p. 308.

5

2 Page 163, the "élevèrent" in this passage may only mean restore, in which sense it is certainly used by the translator in other passages.

3 Quoted in Vol. 1. p. 317, note 4. I have noticed, p. 103, that Mr. Fergusson translates "in vicinia muri ab Oriente," in the immediate vicinity of the southern wall: "subrectis tabulis et magnis trabibus," he renders, "the pillars were connected with beams"; "Vili opere" he does not notice: for wishing to apply the description to the Mosk el-Aksa, it must not be made to appear a timber building nor a mean one. In Vol. I. p. 317, I have copied from Poujoulat an error, which the text forward will correct, as though Arculfus spoke of the original building of Omar, or as though his visit was prior to the erection of the Dome of the Rock.

But that building was completed in A.D. 691-2, and Arculfus was at Jerusalem apparently A.D. 697.

Recueil de Voyages, &c. Tome IV. p. 797. In inferiore vero parte urbis, ubi Templum in vicinia muri ab Oriente locatum, ipsique urbi, transitu pervio, ponte mediante, fuerat conjunctum, nunc ibi Sarraceni," &c. as in Adamnanus, 1. c. This mention of the pons is very remarkable.

All these fifteen domes Mr. Fergusson crowds into the Mosk el-Aksa, i.e. his Dome of the Rock. Essay, p. 139.

This is Beha-ed-din Ibn-Asáker, as cited by Mejr-ed-din, who however, as translated 1. c. p. 158, converts the 6000 panels of wainscot into "columns of wood:" an error corrected by Jelal. addin, (Reynolds's translation, p. 191,) which I fear is also loose and inexact. Okba, as cited by Kemal-ad-din (Lem

I must now attempt to educe order from this unmethodical and undigested mass of materials. Kaab's directions for finding the Sakhrah, it must be confessed, are not at all clear. Only it is certain that the Valley Gehennom, from which he measured, is the Valley of Jehoshaphat, which is always so called in the Mohammedan annals7; and that the Khalif did recover it to his own satisfaction.

First, I gather from these accounts that the Mosk of Omar, whatever its character, was not erected over the Rock, but probably to the South of it; and that the Rock was uncovered and exposed until the time of Abd-el-Melik, who laid the foundations of his new building in the middle of the Haram. Next, I observe that this Khalif's works consisted in part of new erections, and in part of the restoration of old ones. Nearly all the Arabian writers agree in stating that he built the Dome of the Rock: what he repaired is not so clearly stated. The Mosk of Omar, says Mejr-ed-din 10; the Dome of the Rock and the Mosk Beit el-Mukaddus, says Kemal ad-din ", less correctly, apparently confounding the new erection and the restoration: and then, to add to the confusion, he subjoins another tradition, to the effect that Abd-el-Melik erected the Dome Beit el-Mukaddus, and that Said his son restored it 12; and, lastly, the Architects, in their letter, cited by Jelal-addin, report the completion of the erection "of the Chapel of the Sakhrah, and the Sakhrah of the Beit el-Mukaddus, and the Mosk el-Aksa 13"

Now the situation of the small Mosk of Omar (on the East of the present Mosk el-Aksa,) or of the Mosk Abu Bekr (on the West,) would so well answer to the position of Omar's building to the South of the Sakhrah, that I am disposed to credit the Moslem tradition that ascribes one or both of them to him: and to suppose that here was the Mosk of Omar mentioned by Mejr-ed-din as restored by Abd-el-Melik; or this name might have been extended to the whole Church of S. Mary, because

ming's translation, p. 58,) is scarcely less obscure. The numbers entirely agree the word translated "galleries for announcing prayer," by Reynolds, is "oratoria" in Lemming.

7 For proof of this, which is ignored by Mr. Fergusson, p. 136, see Mejred-din, Tome 11. pp. 96, 133, 378, 9, and Ibn Abu-es-Sherif, cap. vii. in Notices des MSS. du Roi, Tome 111. p. 611.

* Jelal-addin, p. 186. I substitute Haram for Mosk to prevent confusion : the original word must be Mesjid, and the practice of rendering this word and Jamy, by the same word "Mosk," is full of inconvenience. See above, p. 297,

note 3.

9 I believe the sole exception to be Abulfeda, Tabulæ Syriæ, p. 87, edit. Köhler. But this is corrected in his Annales Muslemici.

10 L. c. Tome v. p. 162.

11 Ap. Lemming, p. 57.

12 Ibid. So Jelal-addin, p. 185. "It is said, Saíd-Ibn-Abdul-MálikMarwán built the Chapel of the Beitel-Mukaddus, and its outward covering." 13 Reynolds's Translation, p. 186.

14 See above, p. 307, and Ali Bey, p. 217, n. 5. Mejr-ed-din, Tome 11. pp. 84-86.

Omar had prayed there'. The Mosk Beit-el-Mukaddus, mentioned in another tradition as restored by this Khalif, I have already identified with the Church of S. Mary, and proved it to have existed at the time of Omar's conquest; and this Church is perhaps already called the Mosk el-Aksa in the letter of the Architects. Nor is it improbable that, as stated by Mejr-ed-din, the other buildings at the South of the Mosk were built or restored at this time.

I have suggested that the Model Dome of the Chain may have served also for the Treasury; but it is perhaps more likely that the Golden Gate was converted to this purpose; which would account for the features which it has in common with the Dome of the Rock; while the existence of a former Gateway would explain the discrepancies, as the architect had here to accommodate his plan to the existing building.

Arculfus and Bernhard, I have said, saw only the gigantic hoarding of the Mosk, composed of rough timber paneling, which could not have presented a very imposing exterior. The marble columns of this shed were doubtless taken from the ruins of the Temple, which largely contributed to the decoration of the building itself; for we have seen that the columns within the Dome of the Rock have been taken from an earlier building, and are certainly not in their original position, for some of them have neither base-moulding nor regular plinths; only so much of the original columns being employed as was necessary to raise them to the required height. The bungling, untechnical description of Ali Bey enters most into detail. "The capitals of the columns are of the Composite order, richly gilt. The columns which form the central circle have attic bases, but the others which are between the octangular naves, are cut at the lower parts, without having even the listel or fillet which ought to terminate the shaft; and instead of a base are placed upon a cube of white marble. Their proportion seems to be that of the

1 See above, p. 378, and notes. In the passage last cited from Mejr-ed-din, the name seems to be used in this more extended sense. Mejr-ed-din says also, in p. 84, that the Altar of David in the present el-Aksa is sometimes called the Altar of Omar, because it was here that he prayed on the day of the conquest. It appears also from Dr Richardson, that while the Oratory of Omar is still designated by his name, the whole Mosk is so called by the Moslems. Vol. 11. pp. 304, 306.

2 See above, p. 377, n. 5. This great

confusion of names much obscures the history.

3 See above, p. 304.

4 A very curious instance of the manner in which old materials were worked up by the Saracens, may be seen in the Mosk of Amrou at Cairo, where are hundreds of columns of various styles and proportions, some standing on a base-moulding only, others on a proper plinth, others on cubes; while the height of others is eked out by inverted capitals, serving as pedestals. Coste, Architecture Arabe, Pl. II.

Corinthian order, and the shafts are each 16 feet high"." Dr Richardson also remarked, that the capitals of these columns are not strictly conformed to the type of the Corinthian order: he "specially noted that the leaf is raised and turned over; but did not consider it the true leaf of the Corinthian capital "." Another peculiarity in the architecture which deserves to be noticed, is a heavy impost-block above the abacus, whereon rests the horizontal entablature that connects the pillars and supports the discharging arches. This member was never introduced before the time of Justinian. The entablature is loaded with ornament of a mixed character, and the arches throughout the building are all more or less pointed.

This last-named fact might be thought conclusive against Mr. Fergusson's theory, had he not, with his usual sagacity, converted a proof of the later date of the Church into an argument for the earlier origin of the pointed arch. Having established the prevalence of the pointed arch in this building by the testimony of Mr. Arundale, he adds: "I have not myself, I confess, found it before in one of so early a date; but I am delighted to so do now, for every increase of knowledge has enabled me to trace it higher and higher." Other difficulties are disposed of with equal ease; e. g. he writes: "The mode in which the entablature is used here is peculiar, perhaps unique. For though, as for instance, in the Baptistery of Constantine at Rome and elsewhere, we have such an entablature running over a lower and below an upper range of pillars, I know of no instance of a discharging arch being used as this is." And how then is this feature (which is the real peculiarity of the construction) accounted for? "It is exactly such an instance of the use and mixture of two styles of architecture as one would expect to find in an age of transition like that of Constantine, combining the horizontal or trabeate architecture of the earlier age with the arcuate or arched style, which by the age of Justinian had entirely superseded and obliterated the former." It is singular, at any rate, that an expectation so reasonable (if so be) should only be realised here: but still more singular that precisely the same feature in the neighbouring Mosk el-Aksa should be adduced by Mr. Fergusson as a valid argument against its late Roman origin, and a convincing proof of its Mohammedan origin".

Travels, Vol. 11. p. 219.

He calls it a sort of Corinthian capital." He did not remark that it was gilt. Travels, Vol. 11. p. 298. Mr. Catherwood's drawing of the capital and entablature is given in Mr. Fergusson's Essay, p. 104.

7 Essay, p. 112, in a letter from Mr. Arundale.

* Essay, p. 104.

9 Ibid. p. 119; and compare the Frontispiece, "Interior of the Dome of the Rock," with Plate II. p. 143, “Interior of the Mosk el-Aksa," where the construction is precisely similar, only that the arches in the latter are more stilted and more decidedly pointed than in the former.