mile from the walls. This place does not exhibit a single CHAP.XVII. sepulchral chamber, as in the instances so lately described, but a series of subterraneous chambers, extending in different directions, so as to form a sort of labyrinth, resembling the still more wonderful example lying westward of Alexandria in Egypt, by some called the "Sepulchres of the Ptolemies." (Each chamber contains a certain number of receptacles for dead bodies, not being much larger than our coffins, but having the more regular form of oblong parallelograms; thereby differing from the ordinary appearance presented in the sepulchral crypts of this country, where the soros, although of the same form, is generally of very considerable size, and resembles a large cistern. The taste manifested in the interior of these chambers, seems also to denote a later period in the history of the Arts: the skill and neatness visible in the carving, is admirable, and there is much of ornament displayed in several parts of the work (863). We observed also slabs of marble, exquisitely sculptured: these we had never seen in the burial-places before mentioned. The entrance is by an open court, exca{vated in a stratum of white lime-stone, like a quarry. It is a square of thirty yards. Upon the western side of this area appears the mouth of a cavern, twelve yards wide, exhibiting, over the entrance, an architrave, with a beautiful sculptured frieze. Entering this cavern, and turning to the left, a second architrave appears above the entrance to another cavern, but so near to the floor of the cave as barely to admit the passage of a man's body through the aperture. We lighted some wax tapers, and here descended into the first chamber. In the sides of it were other square openings, like door-frames, offering passages to yet interior chambers. In one of these we found the operculum of a white marble coffin[864]: this was entirely covered with the richest and most beautiful sculpture, but, like all the other sculptured work about the place, it represented nothing of the human figure, nor of any animal, but consisted entirely of foliage and flowers, and principally of the leaves and branches of the vine.

As to the history of this most princely place of burial, History of that we shall find it difficult to obtain much information. That Cemetery it was not what its name implies, is very evident; because

CHAP.XVI. the Sepulchres of the Kings of Judah were in Mount Sion. The most probable opinion is maintained by Pococke[865], who considered it as the, Sepulchre of Helena, Queen of Adiabene. De Châteaubriand has since adopted Pococke's opinion[866]. But both these writers, speaking of the Pyramids mentioned by Josephus at Helena's Monument[367], have overlooked the testimony of Eusebius upon the subject, and of his commentator Valesius. According to Eusebius[868], Conspicuous Pillars, rather than Pyramids, XTHAAI AJADANEIZ, denoted, in his time, the site of Helena's burial-place and it may be urged, that Stela [869] are indeed very appropriate characteristics of the exterior of an antient sepulchre, and more reconcileable with the account of their subsequent disappearance. Valesius[870] com. menting upon these words of Eusebius, is at a loss to reconcile the Stélæ with the Pyramids noticed by the Jewish Historian. "Twice," says he, "does Josephus in the same book, call them Monuments (Mvncia), Rufinus uses the word Sepulchre; and Jerom[871] calls it a Mausoleum, which still existed in his time." Valesius then proceeds to cite Pausanias[872]; who, speaking of the two most memorable sepulchres that were known, mentions those of Mausolus in Caria, and that of Helena in Judæa. But Villalpandus notices a pyramid yet visible at these caves (873); meaning probably, a pillar with a pyramidal summit. Josephus describes the Sepulchre of Helena as being to the north of the city (874); and although he mentions the "Royal Caves" immediately after the notice of Helena's Sepulchre, the circumstance of his allusion to the Pyramids at the latter(875), one of which actually seen by Villalpandus (878), having since disappeared, and thereby warranted the possible annihilation of the other two, is deemed sufficient by Pococke to identify the place alluded to by the Jewish historian. Indeed it seems evident, that by the "Royal Caves" nothing more is intended by Josephus than the regal Sepulchre of Helena he had before mentioned; thus repeated under a different appellation. "The third wall," says he (877) "began at the tower Ilippicus; whence extending to the north, to the tower Psephinus; then reaching onward, opposite to the Sepulchres of Helena, queen of Adiabene, and mother of king Izates; and being prolonged

م

by the Royal Caves (i. e. Cryptæ of Helena's sepulchres) it CHAP.XVII. bent with a tower at the corner, near the monument called the Fuller's" The Historian, in this passage, is not necessarily referring to two distinct places of burial; the "Sepulchre of Helena," and the "Royal Caves," are, in all probability, only different names of the same place. Nothing seems to have excited more surprise than the doors of these chambers, of which Maundrell published a very particular description (878). Only one remained hanging in his time. "It consisted of a plank of stone, about six inches in thickness, carved so as to resemble a piece of wainscot. This turned upon two hinges, which were of the same entire piece of stone with the door." Maundrell afterwards explains the method by which this work was accomplished[879]. The same sort of door exists among the sepulchres at Telmessus, and is described in a former part of this volume[880]. But the Antients possessed the art of being able to close these doors in such a manner, that no one could have access to the sepulchres, who was not acquainted with the secret methed of opening them, unless by violating the sepulchre, and forcing a passage through their stone pannels. This has been done by the moderns, in some instances, at Telmessus, with a view to rifle the tombs ; and the doors though broken, still remain closed, with their hinges unimapaired. Pausanias, describing the Sepulchre of Helena at Jerusalem, mentions this contrivance[881]: It was so contrived, that the door of the sepulchre, was of stone, and similar in all respects to the sepulchre itself could never be opened, except upon the return of the same day and hour in each succeeding year; it then opened of itself, by means of the mechanism alone; and after a short interval, closed again. Such was the case at the time stated: had you tried

to

open it at any other time, you would not have succeeded, but have broken it first, in the attempt." Pausanias here evidently alludes to the art thus possessed, and to a door like that which Maundrell has described as belonging to this sepulchre. When doors of this kind were once closed, it was not very probable that any one would attempt to open them by violence; although certain instances did occur of the plunder of tombs, as in the example afforded by Josephus in the history of Herod (882). But such conduct was

CHAP.XVII. always considered to be, in a very high degree, impiམཁསན ous (883); and the superstition mentioned by Quaresmius,

Mosque of
Omar.

as recorded by Livy (884) which considered a ruined sep-
ulchre an ill omen, must have tended, together with the
veneration in which tombs were held, towards their con-
stant preservation.

After leaving these Tombs, we again made the circuit of
the whole city, keeping as close to the walls as possible,
and remaining all the while on horseback. In this manner
we were exactly one hour and a half employed, from the
time we left the Gate of Damascus until we returned to it
again, our horses proceeding at a foot's pace. When we re-
gained the city, we waited upon the Governor, to thank him
for the civilities we had received. Upon this occasion we
used all the interest we had with him, by means of Djezzar
Pachas own interpreter, to obtain admission into the Mosque
of the Temple of Solomon, or mosque erected upon the site
of that temple by the Caliph Omar, in the seventh cen-
tury (885). He entreated us not to urge the request, saying
his own life would certainly be required as the price of our
admission; we were therefore compelled to rest satisfied
with the interesting view it afforded from his windows,
which regarded the area of the temple. The sight was so
grand, that we did not hesitate in pronouncing it the most
magnificent piece of architecture in the Turkish empire;
and, considered externally, far superior to the mosque of
Saint Sophia in Constantinople. By the sides of the spa-
cious area in which it stands, are certain vaulted remains;
these plainly denote the masonry of the antients; and evi-
dence may be adduced to prove that they belonged to the
foundation of Solomon's Temple. We observed also that
reticulated stucco, which is commonly considered as an evi-
dence of Roman work. Phocas believed the whole space
surrounding this building to be the antient area of the tem-
ple(886); and Golius, in his Notes upon the Astronomy of
Alferganes [887], says, the whole foundation of the ori
ginal edifice remained[888]. As to the mosque itself,
there is no building at Jerusalem that can be compared
with it either in beauty, or riches. The lofty Saracenic
pomp so nobly displayed in the style of the building; its
aumerous arcades; its capacious dome, with all the stately

decorations of the place; its extensive area, paved and CHAP.XVII. variegated with the choicest marbles[889]; the extreme neatness observed in every avenue towards it; and lastly, the sumptuous costume observable in the dresses of all the Eastern devotees, passing to and from the sanctuary, make it altogether one of the finest sights the Mahometans have to boast.

We afterwards visited the Greek and Armenian convents. Greek and The former consists of many separate establishments, which, Convents. Armenian though small, are well supported. The Armenian Monastery is well worth seeing, being the largest in Jerusalem; it is maintained in a degree of splendor, accompanied at the same time with neatness, cleanliness, and order, very surprising in this part of the world, and particularly so, because every thing belonging to it is Oriental. The ' Patriarch makes his appearance in a flowing vest of silk, instead of a Monkish habit, and every thing around him bears the character of Eastern magnificence. He receives his visitors in regal stateliness; sitting amidst clouds of incense, and regaling them with all the luxuries of a Persian Court. We conversed with him for some time, and were much struck with his polished manners and sensible conversation. He seemed to be quite as well aware of what was passing in the Western world, as if he had regularly received the Gazettes of Europe, and had himself figured in the Cabinets of its Princes[890]. The approaching downfall of the State of Turkish empire is an event which of course every reflecting Politics in mind must contemplate with eagre anticipation; and every means conducive to this end is hailed as an instrument in the hand of God. Whether the armies of France or the fleets of England occasion signs of its approximation, the univer sal Church of Syria howsoever disturbed and divided by ́. seets,—Armenians, Georgians, Greeks, Abyssinians, Copts, Nestorians, Catholics, Syrians, Druses, Maronites, together with all distinctions of Jewish worshippers, Samaritans, Karaites, Rabbinists,-are ready to bestow upon them their praises and their blessings. Thus if a Frenchman arrive in Jerusalem, as in the recent instance of De Châteaubriand, they talk to him of the victories of Buonaparté, and the. prowess of Frenchmen in the Holy Land, as if they were preaching for a new crusade. If an Englishman, they lavish

Jerusalem.