flanked the angle of the city facing the north and west; and, as we have seen, Brocard thus expresses himself respecting the place which we make to correspond with it Ubi occidentalis muri pars connectabatur aquilonari. You will remark that, opposite to the north side of castle Pisano, or the west gate contiguous to that side, we cannot exclude Calvary from the ancient city without turning off to the east. Now, castle Pisano, to which we have been led by the course of the wall from the tower of Hippicos, or by a line drawn toward the north, occupies precisely that angle of the ancient area. It must then be admitted that if the site of Hippicos required confirmation, it would receive it from so precise a determination of Psephina in consequence of the coincidence of situa

tion.

As to the name of castle Pisano, for some readers may wish to know the reason of this denomination, I confess that I have not met with any particular fact in history that has a direct reference to the subject. It is nevertheless certain, that on account of the part which the Pisans, who were formerly very powerful, took in the holy wars, they had establishments and grants at Acre, Tyre, and other places in Palestine. Paola Tronci, author of the Annals of Pisa, even ascribes to two of his countrymen the honour of having first scaled the walls of Jerusalem, at the time when the city was taken by Godfrey of Bouillon. It may likewise be remarked that the first Latin prelate elevated to the patriarchal chair of Jerusalem was a bishop of Pisa, named Daibert. In my opinion, moreover, the discovery of some escutcheons with the arms of Pisa, in any part of the castle, might have been sufficient to procure it in latter times the name it bears. When Brocard was in the Holy Land, that is, toward the end of the thirteenth century, we find that this castle was called Neblosa, the form which Neopolis commonly assumes in the language of the people of the Levant. It is not surprising that this friar should speak of it as a ruined or extremely dilapidated edifice, since it is certain that about thirty-three years after the taking of Jerusalem by Saladin, in the year of the Hegira 616 and of Christ 1219, Isa, who was nephew to that prince and reigned at Damascus, ordered the fortifications of Jerusalem to be demolished; and that David, the son of the latter, destroyed, twenty years afterward, a fortress which the French had rebuilt in that city.

Leaving Psephina, Josephus continues to trace the area of Jerusalem on the north side. Before Bezetha made an addition to the city, there would have been nothing more to do, to complete the boundary on that side, than to carry it on to the tower of Antonia, near the northwest angle of the temple. Accordingly, no mention is made of that tower in the account of this third wall. Josephus speaks of an angle there to return to the boundary line on the border of the Cedron; and we actually find that the modern area, in which

the site of Bezetha is included, gives this angle, and that at a considerable distance from the northeast angle of the temple, where it terminates. The present wall of Jerusalem, by its removal to a greater distance from the north front of the temple, gives to Bezetha an extent little inferior to that of the lower city, which there is every reason to suppose correct and quite sufficient. Josephus speaks of the royal grots, as being opposite to the gate in this part of the wall, looking to the north. These grots are situated in the vicinity of that called the grotto of Jeremiah, and we cannot approach nearer to this grot than by following the line of the present enclosure. Josephus asserts that Bezetha corresponds with the Greek appellation of nawn Todis, the New City, which is contested by Villalpando and Lami, who produce other interpretations. Agrippa, the first prince of that name, began, during the reign of Claudius, the wall which enclosed that quarter; and what he had not ventured to finish, that is, to raise the new wall to a sufficient height for defence, was in the sequel executed by the Jews. Thus not only the different quarters which composed the city of Jerusalem, in its greatest extent, but even its boundary line, may be ascertained. Before these circumstances had been deduced and collected into one point of view, or were verified by their application to local circumstances, a prejudice respecting the uncertainty of procuring data to convey a just notion of the state of ancient Jerusalem, might induce a belief that it would be difficult to determine its extent, from a comparison with its present and modern condition. So far, however, from any such uncertainty existing, it will be seen, from the sequel of this dissertation, that the measures of the circumference of ancient Jerusalem, borrowed from antiquity itself, produce the same result as is furnished by the present measure and by the very ground. It is obvious that a coincidence of this kind must necessarily presuppose the correctness of the positions in regard to ancient Jerusalem.

III. PRESENT MEASURE OF THE AREA OF JERUSALEM.

The scale affixed to M. Deshayes's plan requiring some explanations, I shall give a faithful account of the remarks which a scrupulous examination has enabled me to make upon it. It exhibits a small rod, described as one hundred paces. Besides this rod is a longer, with the number one hundred, and half of which is subdivided into tens. By a comparison of the length of these two rods, it is easy to perceive that one gives the measure in ordinary paces, the other in fathoms. I will not, however, conceal the circumstance that there is not an exact proportion between these two standards. Following the circumference of the city, the scale of ordinary paces gave five thousand one hundred paces, which, at two feet and a half, the usual way of reckoning, make 12,750 feet, or 2,225 fathoms. Now, by the scale of

fathoms, I reckon no more than about 2,000: that is, on the north side, and from the northeast to the northwest angle, 677; on the west side, to the southwest angle, 355; on the south side, 544; and the east side, from the southeast angle to the northeast, 488; making a total of 2,004. In these measures it has been thought right to take no notice of the projections of the towers, and some small redents, formed by the wall in various places; but all the changes of direction and other windings, have been followed. To enter into the detail of the four principal aspects of the site of Jerusalem, I chose to follow in preference the scale of fathoms, because this scale seems much less equivocal than the other. Notwithstanding this preference, which will be justified by what is to follow, I must, to tell the truth, charge the rod of this scale of fathoms with being incorrectly subdivided in the space taken for fifty fathoms, or for the half of that rod. This part is too short in comparison with the total length of the rod; and I took the trouble to ascertain that, by this portion of the rod, the circumference of Jerusalem would amount to 2,200 fathoms. Though it cannot be denied that these variations affect the accuracy of the scale to the plan of Jerusalem, they are not, however, sufficient to authorize the total rejection of that scale. I assert that the rod of one hundred fathoms appears less equivocal to me than the rest. The measure of the circumference of Jerusalem, in its modern state, and such as it is represented in the plan of M. Deshayes, is given by Maundrell in his Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem, indisputably one of the best works of the kind that exist. This intelligent and very accurate traveller reckoned 4,630 of his paces in the exterior circumference of the walls of Jerusalem; and he remarks that the deduction of one tenth of that number makes the measure of that circumference 4,167 English yards; ten paces being equivalent to nine yards. The English yard consisting of three feet, and two yards making a fathom, the latter must contain 811 lines of the standard of the French foot, according to the most scrupulous evaluation; consequently, the 4,167 yards, or 2,083 and a half English fathoms, must make 1,689,718 lines, which give 140,810 inches, or 11,734 feet 2 inches, or 1,955 fathoms 4 feet 2 inches. Now, if we call this in round numbers 1,960 fathoms, and in like manner take that of the plan of M. Deshayes at 2,000, the mean proportion will be no more than 20 fathoms distant from the two extremes, or about one hundredth part of the whole. And what could be expected to come nearer in such a case? We should, perhaps, find not less variations in the different plans of our own fortresses and frontier towns. It may be considered as a proof of the preference due to the rod of one hundred fathoms, that, though its deviation from the other standards of the scale consists in giving a less value of measure, yet it rather errs on the other side, in comparison with the measure taken on the spot by Maundrell.

IV. MEASURE OF THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF ANCIENT

JERUSALEM.

After having discussed and ascertained the positive measure of the space occupied by the present site of Jerusalem, let us see what measures several writers of antiquity have left us of the circumference of ancient Jerusalem. It may be concluded, both from the preceding investigation of its ancient state, the very disposition of the ground, and local circumstances, which cannot have undergone a change, that there is no reason to apprehend any mistake respecting the ancient limits of this city. They are circumscribed on the spot, not only in consequence of facts which relate to them, but likewise by what is adapted to the place itself. This produced the expression of Brocard: quum ob locorum munitionem, transferri non possit, Jerusalem, a pristino situ. We may therefore judge of its circumference from the plan of the ground with sufficient certainty to trace upon this plan a boundary line, which may be deemed the representative of the true one. Of this any person may convince himself, who will take the trouble to follow upon the plan of the details that have been given respecting the ancient Jerusalem. Let us now consider the measures that we have just announced.

Eusebius, in his Evangelical Preparation, book ix. chap. 36. informs us, on the authority of a Syrian land surveyor, Tou THE Zupias σXONOμErgov, that the circumference of the area of Jerusalem is twenty-seven stadia. On the other hand, Josephus, War of the Jews, book vi. chap. 6. computes the same circumference at thirty-three stadia. According to the account of the same Eusebius, Timochares wrote, in a history of king Antiochus Epiphanes, that Jerusalem was forty stadia in circuit. Aristeas, author of a history of the seventy interpreters who were employed by Ptolemy Philadelphus, agrees with Timochares on the subject of this measure. Lastly, Hecatæus, quoted by Josephus in his first book against Appion, stated the circumference of Jerusalem at fifty stadia. Thus the numbers of the stadia here given vary from twenty-seven to fifty. What a difference! How can any consistency be discovered in statements which vary to such a degree? I know not whether this inconsistency has ever been attempted to be explained. It has hitherto exceedingly puzzled scholars; for example, Reland, one of the most judicious writers of all those who have treated on this subject, and who, after adopting Josephus's measure of thirty-three stadia, thus expresses himself: Non confirmabo sententiam nostram testimonio, TOU TYS Zugias of divoμET YOU, qui ambitum Hierosolymæ viginti et septem stadiis definivit apud Eusebium.

This measure of twenty-seven stadia, the first quoted by us, seems nevertheless to deserve a particular deference, since it is given on the authority of a surveyor, who measured with the cord roousTROU. A smaller number of stadia than in the other measures

indicated, must naturally require the greatest standard of the stadium, which there is no difficulty in admitting to be that of the most common, known by the appellation of the Olympic. Its extent is equal to 94 fathoms, 2 feet, 8 inches, being composed of 600 Greek feet, and the Greek foot being equivalent to 1,360 parts of the Paris foot, divided into 1,440, or 11 inches, four lines. Thus the twenty-seven stadia Thus the twenty-seven stadia will amount to 2,550 fathoms. Now the circumference of the ancient area of Jerusalem, taking the greatest space that it can possibly have covered, will measure about 2,600 fathoms, according to the scale given in M. Deshayes's plan. But it must further be observed that, by Maundrell's measure, which gives only 1,960 instead of 2,000, to the present circumference of Jerusalem, or one fiftieth less, the amount in question of the produce of the twenty-seven stadia will be reduced to 2,550 fathoms. Having thus, for the reader's convenience, divided the length of the boundary of ancient Jerusalem into equal parts, to the number of 51, each of these parts literally occupies the space of 50 fathoms, according to Maundrell's measure; and the worst will be that 49 are equivalent to 50 according to the scale of the plan.

But, you will say, as this number of stadia corresponds with the measure of the circumference of Jerusalem, no attention ought to be paid to any other statement. To this I reply, that the ancients made use of stadia of different measures at different times, nay even at one and the same time. They frequently employed them indiscriminately, and without hinting at any difference of length. They have there fore subjected us to the necessity of seeking, by study and criticism, to discover the kinds most suitable to times and places. We cannot do better than calculate Josephus's measure of thirty-three stadia by the standard of a stadium, shorter by one fifth than the Olympic stadium, and of which I have given some account in my little Treatise on Itinerary Measures. The very shortness of this stadium seems to render it fitter for spaces comprehended within the walls of cities, than for more extensive ones which embrace a whole district or country. The measure of the length of the great Circus at Rome, as given by Diodorus Siculus and Pliny, corresponds only with this, and not with the Olympic stadium. This stadium being equivalent to 75 fathoms, 3 feet, 4 inches, thirty-three stadia of this measure will produce 2,493 fathoms, 2 feet. Now what does this amount want of agreeing with that of the foregoing twenty-seven stadia? some fifty fathoms. A fraction of a stadium, a fathom more if you please in the computation of the stadium, would literally leave no difference in the amount of such a calculation.

It will perhaps be required, that, independently of an agreement between the amounts, reasons should be adduced for believing that the kind of measure is

of itself applicable to the circumstance in question. As the subject that we proposed to treat in this paper must lead to the discussion of the Hebrew measures of length, we shall hereafter find that the Jewish mile is equal to seven stadia and a half; according to the account of the Jews themselves; and this mile being composed of 2,000 Hebrew cubits, that the total amount thence resulting is 569 fathoms, 2 feet, 8 inches; consequently the stadium employed by the Jews is equivalent to 76 fathoms, wanting a few inches, and cannot be considered as differing from that made use of in the preceding calculation. The length in question exceeding by a trifle that before given by this kind of stadium, the thirty-three stadia taken as the circumference of Jerusalem will make more than two thousand five hundred fathoms, and will be only some forty fathoms under the first amount of this circumference. But we may go still further, and ascertain that Josephus individually makes use of the measure of the stadium in question, by the following example. In his Antiquities, book xx. chap. 6. he says that the mount of Olives is five stadia from Jerusalem. Now by measuring upon M. Deshayes's plan, which extends to the summit of that hill, the track of the two ways which descend from it, and continuing this measure to the nearest angle of the temple, we find nineteen parts of twenty fathoms, according to the standard furnished by the rod of 100 fathoms divided into five parts; that is, 380 fathoms, or consequently five stadia of the kind produced above, since the division of 380 by five gives 76. It is clear, that to take the distance in the most extensive sense, its termination cannot be removed further than the summit of the hill. It is not then the effect of chance or an arbitrary employment, but a regular practice that occasions the concordance of the calculation of the thirty-three stadia in the manner that has just been shown.

I now proceed to the statement of forty stadia for the circumference of Jerusalem. The calculation to be made of these requires two preliminary observations. The first is, that the authors who have given this statement, wrote under the Macedonian princes who succeeded Alexander in the East; the second, that the city of Jerusalem, in the time of those princes, did not yet comprehend the quarter of Bezetha, situated to the north of the temple and the tower of Antonia; since Josephus informs us that it was not till the reign of Claudius that this quarter began to be enclosed within the walls of the city. It will appear singular, that, in order to apply to the circumference of Jerusalem a greater number of stadia than the preceding calculations admit, we should nevertheless find it necessary to take that city when confined within a narrower compass. From the plan which is given us, I have found that the exclusion of Bezetha requires a deduction of about 370 fathoms

from the amount of the circumference; because the line which excludes Bezetha, measures no more than about 300 fathoms, whereas that which embraces the same quarter is 666. If the circumference of Jerusalem, comprehending Bezetha, amounts to 2,550 fathoms, according to the calculation of the twentyseven ordinary stadia, with which Maundrell's measure exactly agrees; or to 2,600 at most, according to the scale of M. Deshayes's plan; consequently, by the exclusion of Bezetha, this amount is reduced to about 2,180 fathoms, or 2,224 at the highest.

To these observations I shall add, that, without doubt, a particular stadium was employed in the measure of Alexander's steps; a stadium so short in comparison to the others, that, to judge from the computation of the circumference of the globe given by Aristotle, Alexander's preceptor, 1,111 of these stadia will go to a degree of the equator. Some researches respecting the stadium which may be called Macedonian, will be found in the Treatise on Itinerary Measures. The result given by Aristotle's measure has not there been adopted literally and without scrutiny; but, from a particular standard which seems to have peculiarly and exclusively belonged to this stadium, the length of the stadium is fixed in such a manner that 1,050 are sufficient to make a degree. As a knowledge of the principle of this stadium enables us to calculate it with precision at 54 fathoms, 2 feet, 5 inches, the forty stadia will consequently give 2,176 fathoms. Now, is not this the very same result as the preceding? And by deducting the 370 fathoms, which the exclusion of Bezetha would require, do we not obtain the same amount as is obtained from the first measure of the twenty-seven stadia ?

I shall nevertheless take the liberty of remarking, by the way, that it must not be imagined that there was the least intention of contriving these coincidences respecting the circumference of Jerusalem, in the definitions which have appeared appropriate to each of the measures applied to it. If then these coincidences are the more remarkable, because fortuitous, have we not a right to conclude that the definitions themselves thence acquire the advantage of verification?

We have yet to consider the measure of fifty stadia ascribed to Hecatæus. We shall not be surprised that this author, who makes the population of Jerusalem amount to more than two millions, about two millions one hundred thousand, should have exaggerated rather than diminished its extent, and that he should have comprised the suburbs or habitations standing without the walls. But what might be correct when applied to the number of the Jews who thronged to Jerusalem at the season of the passover, will by no means hold good respecting the ordinary state of that city. Moreover, if we calculate these fifty stadia by the standard of the last mentioned stadium, which seems the most suitable, the amount will

not be more than 2,700 fathoms. Thus this result will not exceed by more than 100 fathoms that which is given by the scale of M. Deshayes's plan.

Confining ourselves to what is most positive in this body of facts, it is evident that the utmost circumference of Jerusalem comprehended no more than about 2,550 fathoms. Not only is this ascertained by actual and positive measurement, but the testimony of antiquity on the subject is precise. In consequence of this measurement, we know that the greatest space occupied by that city, or its length, amounted to no more than about 950 fathoms, and its breadth to about half as much. Its area cannot be computed to exceed one sixth of Paris, admitting into this area none of the suburbs situated without the gates. For the rest, it would not perhaps be correct to infer, from this comparison, a proportionate reduction of the ordinary number of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. With the exception of the space occupied by the temple, which also had its inhabitants, the city of Jerusalem might have been more equally built in every part than a city like Paris, which contains more spacious houses and more extensive gardens, than we can well suppose to have existed in ancient Jerusalem, and which together would form the area of a large town.

V. PRECEDING OPINIONS RESPECTING THE EXTENT OF JERUSALEM.

The measure of the area of Jerusalem being deduced from a comparison of the ground itself, with all and each of the ancient measures that are given, it may not be amiss to consider how widely some writers had deviated from the truth in regard to this subject. Villalpando has asserted that the thirty-three stadia assigned by Josephus, referred to the extent of Sion alone, exclusively of the rest of the city. I have calculated that, according to this hypothesis, the circumference of Jerusalem would, in the same proportion, amount to 75 stadia; and without taking any other standard for the stadium than that which seems appropriate to the thirty-three stadia in question, this calculation will give 5,700 fathoms. It will be still worse if we make no distinction of stadia, and employ the ordinary standard, especially as the others have hitherto been but little known. This standard will swell the amount to 7,200 fathoms, which is almost triple the real measure. Now I would ask if the disposition of the ground, and the measure of space adapted to it, can admit of an extent any thing like this calculation? Can we increase the site of Sion? Are we not obstructed on the one hand by the brook Cedron, and on the other by Calvary? This opinion is moreover confuted, as the learned and judicious Reland has truly observed, by Josephus, when he says that the circumference of the lines with which Titus invested all Jerusalem was thirty-nine stadia. In an accurate calculation of the

extent of this city, we are not obliged to recur to the expedient usually adopted, when the measures given by the ancients are irreconcilable with an hypothesis, which is to assert that there is an error in one of the figures of the text.

Father Lami, in his great work De Sancta Civitate et Templo, fixes the measure of the circumference of Jerusalem at sixty stadia; founding his calculation on the supposition that the walls contained one hundred and twenty towers, each of which, with its curtain, occupied half a stadium. This number of cubits, from tower to tower, is, to be sure, borrowed from Josephus; but as this same historian speaks of one hundred and sixty-four towers, distributed among three different walls; as the separation of Sion from Acra is comprehended in the extent of these walls; as Acra was divided by an inner wall, and was likewise separated from Bezetha; it is difficult to build any thing positive on such a foundation, and this point would always be involved in great uncertainty, if even the actual measure of the spaces threw no obstacle in the way. It may further be observed, that the learned author whom we have quoted is not consistent, as will be seen from a comparison of his calculation with the plan he has given of Jerusalem. According to all appearance, the stadia which he employs are the ordinary stadia, since he gives no definition of more than one kind of stadium in the Treatise on Measures prefixed to his work. By this standard, the circumference of Jerusalem, as calculated by father Lami, amounts to 5,660 fathoms. Now, according to the plan to which I have alluded, the circumference of Jerusalem is to the sides of the square of the temple as forty-one to two; and the scale which is wanting in this plan is supplied by that with which the author has accompanied his particular ground plan of the temple, the sides of which are estimated at about 1,120 French feet. Consequently, the circumference of the city in the plan cannot amount to more than about 23,000 feet, or 3,830 odd fathons, which are equivalent to only 41 stadia at most. If we moreover consider that father Lami's plan exhibits a sort of perspective, and that the quarter of the temple is thrown into the back ground, whence it must follow that what is seen in the fore ground occupies less space, this would of course occasion a still greater reduction in the calculation of the circumference. M. Deshayes's plan was given to father Lami, and the measure taken on the spot by Maundrell had been published. How happens it that scholars are desirous of owing all to their own researches, and are unwilling to adopt any thing but what immediately belongs to the species of erudition which is their peculiar province ?

These observations on two celebrated authors, and precisely those two that have bestowed the greatest learning and most pains on the illustration of ancient Jerusalem, justify in my opinion the assertion made in the preamble to this memoir, that the extent of this

city had not hitherto been determined with any kind of precision, and that it had in particular been exceedingly exaggerated.

VI. MEASURE OF THE EXTENT OF THE TEMPLE.

Maundrell, who has given the length and breadth of the area of the celebrated mosque, which occupies the site of the temple, does not seem to have made a just distinction between those two spaces, to judge from the plan of M. Deshayes. He makes the length 570 of his paces, which, according to the standard followed by him in regard to the circumference, would make 513 English yards, or 240 French fathoms. We find, however, only about 215 on the plan. The error may have proceeded, at least in part, from the circumstance that Maundrell judged the angle of this site nearer to the gate called St. Stephen's; but this error is of no kind of consequence in regard to the circumference of the city: for, in Maundrell's measuse, the part of this circumference comprehended between the gate above mentioned and the southwest angle of the city, which is also the southwest corner of the site of the mosque, is found to consist of 620 of that traveller's paces, which, according to his calculation, make 558 English yards, or 272 French fathoms, wanting a few inches. Now the scale of the plan gives 265 fathoms, which are equivalent to about 260, if we strictly adhere to the proportion ascertained to exist between this scale and Maundrell's meas

ure.

In the extracts made from the Oriental geographers by the abbé Renaudot, the manuscript of which is in my possession, the length of the site of the mosque of Jerusalem is stated at 794 cubits. It is Arabian cubits that are here meant. That our attention may not be diverted from our present object by the particular discussion which this cubit would require, I shall at present confine myself to the general résult ; the details leading to it, and demonstrating its accuracy, shall form the subject of a separate article, to follow that on the Hebrew measures. Let it here suffice to remark that an unequivocal method of ascertaining the cubit în use among the Arabs, is to deduce it from the Arabic mile. This mile consisted of 4,000 cubits; and as, according to the measure of the earth taken by order of the calif Al Mamoun, the mile, thus composed, is computed at the rate of 5€ to a degree; it follows that this mile is equivalent to about 1,006 fathoms, taking the degree at 57,000 fathoms, to avoid entering into any nice distinctions on the subject of degrees. A thousand Arabian cubits are therefore equal to 250 fathoms, and nine feet more, which we will not here take into the account; and if we suppose in round numbers, 800 fathoms instead of 794, the result is 200 fathoms good measure. Thus the calculation of 215 fathoms, deduced from the plan of Jerusalem represented in all these circumstances, is preferable to a higher estimate.