Chapter VI (1)

EXCURSIONS IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THE CITY ON THE EAST, SOUTH, AND
SOUTH-WEST--THE VALLEY OF KIDRON, CALLED ALSO THE VALLEY OF
JEHOSHAPHAT, WITH ITS MONUMENTS AND REMARKABLE PLACES--THE MOUNT OF
OLIVES--BETHPHAGE--BETHANY--THE VALLEY OF HINNOM--THE MOUNT OF EVIL
COUNSEL--SOUTH-WESTERN PART OF THE VALLEY OF GIHON--MOUNT
SION--CHRISTIAN CEMETERIES--TOMB OF DAVID, AND SUBTERRANEAN
VAULTS--THE COENACULUM--THE HOUSE OF CAIAPHAS--THE GROTTO OF S.
PETER--THE LEPERS.

As we go out of the eastern gate, called S. Mary's and also S. Stephen's Gate, we see on the left-hand a pool, by name _Birket-Hammam Sitti-Mariam_ (the Pool of the Bath of our Lady Mary). The origin of this name is that it receives the waters of the ditch outside the eastern wall, and then by a conduit supplies a bath inside the city, near the Church of S. Ann. This bath is a favourite with the women of Jerusalem, who attribute to it miraculous virtues; but unfortunately they can only profit by them for a few days in the year, as the neighbouring cisterns and the pool, instead of retaining the water, allow it to escape; since the reservoir and conduits are in a ruinous condition, and the proprietor of the bath is too blind to his own interest to repair them.

On the right of the gate, as we go out, we see a Saracenic monument, which is daily falling to ruin[532]. Some of the Arabs believe that it was built over a sepulchre; others, that it is a monument to mark the spot where the Khalif Omar pitched his tent after traversing the Valley of Jehoshaphat. Whichever be the true account, it ought to be preserved. But the Mohammedan makes no effort to arrest the ravages of time.

Hence a large portion of the Kidron valley is seen at a glance, especially that part which is called the Valley of Jehoshaphat[533], a name derived from the tomb attributed to that king, which is covered with earth on the east of that of Absalom. Adamnanus, the historian of Arculf's travels, is the first to mention the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and his description agrees with that given by Willibald, another author of the eighth century[534]. The celebrity of this valley is due to a belief, widely spread among both Christians and Mohammedans, that it will be the scene of the Last Judgement. This has arisen from the words of the prophet Joel, "I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land"[535]; and again, "Let the heathen be wakened, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat, for there will I sit to judge all the heathen round about[536]." In this same valley many of the ancient Jews, both high and low, have been interred, and the custom still continues; for they possess a cemetery extending along the eastern bank of the valley, while the two on the western belong to the Mohammedans. It appears that the Christians have also used the place for the same purpose, since, in November 1856, when the Greeks were cultivating a plot of ground on the western bank of the valley, a short distance from the tomb of Mary, they found a well-executed slab of Palestine breccia, on which a cross and the following words were carved: "The monument which contains Stephen and Juliana." On its removal the two skeletons were found. As the work went on, fragments of stone, stone crosses, and human bones were found, unquestionable proofs that it was the site of an ancient Christian cemetery. It is then certain that this valley has long been used for the cemetery of the city, as it is at the present day. In the reign of Josiah mention is made of the "graves of the children of the people[537]." Urijah, who was slain by Jehoiakim, was "cast into the graves of the common people[538]." Adrichomius[539] says that "it received the corpses of the common people and of the great." I believe that the ancients had a reason in selecting this place rather than any other for their graves, which was that the winds do not usually blow strongly from this quarter in Palestine, and therefore the effluvia from the cemetery would not be borne into the city, but would be confined to the lower parts of the valley.

It is then to this, also called the Kidron Valley, from the Arab name _Wady Kedron_, that I conduct the reader, in order that we may examine it thoroughly. After descending by the road nearly to the bottom of the slope, we come to a bare patch of yellow limestone-rock, said to be the spot were S. Stephen was stoned. The tradition however does not rest upon a probable foundation, and is more recent than the time of the Crusades; and as no mention is made in the Bible[540] of either the gate or the direction of the place where the Proto-martyr suffered, I must be allowed to doubt its truth. It however is so firmly implanted in the minds of the pilgrims of the different sects who visit the place, that their eyes are able to discover the Saint's effigy on the rock itself; and they forget that even if it had been sculptured there, it would have long ago disappeared under the hammers of the devout believers, who have for some centuries made a practice of breaking off fragments as relics. Several writers have demonstrated the worthlessness of the tradition, by shewing that from the fifth century to the close of the Latin kingdom at Jerusalem, the place of the Saint's martyrdom was believed to be outside the present Damascus Gate, which then bore S. Stephen's name[541]. It is not known for what reason this name was in the fourteenth century transferred to the east gate, which, during the Crusades, had always been called the Gate of Jehoshaphat.

Near this pretended site of the Saint's martyrdom is the opening of a cave, which some consider to have been the entrance into the vaults of a church, erected by the Empress Eudoxia. I endeavoured to clear it out, but was prevented by the quantity of stones and earth it contained; however, I was able to ascertain that it had been an ancient cistern, and did not present any indications of the presence of tombs. I think that the letters at the opening, now scarcely visible, are the work of pilgrims. Eudoxia's church was a little distance from the Damascus Gate (as I will presently explain); and the steepness of the rocks and the unevenness of the surface here precludes us from believing that this can have ever been the site of a church, and there are no traces of ancient walls, nor hewn stones lying about, to shew that any building has been erected here.

Following the road eastward from this point, we arrive at the dry bed of the Kidron torrent, crossed by a small stone bridge, the lower part of which is evidently very ancient. Above this is some masonry of the time of the Crusades, and the rest, including the arch, is old Arab work. In the present day the Kidron is only full of water after a heavy fall of rain, and quickly becomes dry again as soon as this ceases. Kidron is a Hebrew word, meaning 'darkness;' derived either from the former depth of the valley down which it flowed, or from the circumstance that its ancient bed was narrow and choked with projecting rocks, or from the cedar-groves, which some believe to have once flourished upon the slopes of the valley[542]. This torrent is famous in both the Old and New Testament. David crossed it in his flight from his rebellious son Absalom[543]; Asa burnt and destroyed an idol here[544]; Hezekiah and Josiah, in restoring the worship of God, cast down here the uncleanness from the Temple and the broken idol altars[545]. Our Saviour frequently crossed it on his way from the Mount of Olives and Bethany; especially it is mentioned on that night when he went to the garden of Gethsemane[546]. At the present day the Kidron is a means of discovering antiquities, in the following way. In the spring of 1855, after a heavy rain-fall, I noticed that some peasants of Siloam were examining the mud which had been brought down by the torrent. I approached them, and learnt that they were searching for old coins. I at once determined to imitate them, and every year at the time of the heavy rains went to the Kidron with a couple of men, and constructed small dykes to retain the mud; and when the water had fallen, I riddled the soil thus deposited, and always found coins; sometimes of considerable value, such as shekels, medals of Alexander and Antiochus, and of others[547]. The reason that these things are found in the Kidron is that the rubbish from the city, and especially from Mount Moriah, was from the earliest periods thrown down the western bank of the valley; consequently all the ground on that side is artificial and not well consolidated; so that the heavy rains wash down the earth into the torrent, together with the objects hidden in it. There is no difficulty in the process, and the supply is by no means exhausted; so that any collector of Jewish coins may profit by the above description.

After crossing the bridge just mentioned, we see, immediately on our left hand, a cubical building, three of whose sides are buried in the ground, while the façade[548] (on the south) is uncovered. Before this is a little open platform reached by some steps[549]. It is said to cover the tomb of the Virgin Mary, but we have no evidence which enables us to fix the date of its erection. An examination of the tomb itself would lead us to suppose that the buildings around it were contemporaneous with S. Helena: for it is a small chamber hewn in the rock, which I have seen on the inside and outside of the eastern wall, in the lower parts (close to the ground), and underneath the marble slabs covering the Greek altar, which has been constructed upon a shelf along the chamber-wall, originally made to support a corpse, exactly like that in the Sepulchre of Christ. It is, then, beyond all question, an ancient Jewish tomb; and at the erection of the church the rock was hewn away all round, in order to detach it from the main mass (which is seen close by), and isolate it in the middle of the building; just as was done at the Holy Sepulchre. We may therefore infer that this work was contemporaneous with that at the Church of the Resurrection, and that it was executed by order of S. Helena[550], as is stated by Nicephorus Callistus, an author of the fourteenth century. I hold that S. Helena began the work, but did not complete it, because at this time not only was the traditionary site of the tomb a matter of dispute, but also the question of the Assumption of the Virgin was as yet undecided by the learned; a point which was not settled till after A.D. 431, when it was declared by the third General Council, held at Ephesus, that the tombs of the Virgin and S. John were in that city. Besides, if S. Helena had erected a building over the tomb, I cannot account for the silence of Eusebius, the historian of that Empress and her son Constantine, upon that point. I am confirmed in my opinion, that S. Helena did not do more than commence this work, by the fact that neither S. Jerome nor S. Epiphanius, who visited and described Jerusalem, make any mention of this as a sanctuary. Had it then existed, they would not have omitted to name it; especially since, in the fourth century, the belief was widely spread that the Virgin had not died, but had been borne away by the Angels into heaven in her bodily form; and therefore these authors would not have neglected so important a matter as her tomb. Consequently I do not assign the building to the time of Helena.

In course of time, when all questions concerning the Assumption were settled, the Sepulchre of Gethsemane rose in importance; and in the fifth century a church was standing there, which we find mentioned for the first time by S. John of Damascus[551], in connexion with the following incident. The Empress Pulcheria, wife of the Emperor Marcian, was anxious to obtain the corpse of the Virgin to be the chief treasure of the church, which she and her husband together had erected in honour of the Mater Dei, in the district Blachernæ (Constantinople)[552]. Juvenal, Patriarch of Jerusalem, arrived at the capital of the Empire on the occasion of the Council of Chalcedon, held A.D. 451, and had an interview with the Empress, who asked him to search in the church at Gethsemane, which was erected over the spot where the Virgin was buried; and if he discovered the sacred relics, to transport them to Constantinople[553]. The Patriarch, however, answered that the tomb was empty, and that the place was regarded with veneration, because the body of the Virgin had been deposited there for a few days. Indeed, at that time it was commonly believed that she had lain three days in the grave like her Son[554]. We have therefore to enquire who founded this church mentioned by Pulcheria. The authors of the eighth and ninth centuries are silent upon this point, and one only of the tenth, Sayd-Ebn-Batrik (an Arabian) says, that it was the Emperor Theodosius II. Hence Quaresmius[555] conjectures that the monument was built between the years A.D. 429 and 457. This would explain the silence of S. Jerome, who died A.D. 420. Antoninus of Piacenza[556], A.D. 600, speaks of the Holy Virgin's house, whence, he says, she was taken up into heaven. A short time after, A.D. 614, it was plundered by the Persians under Chosroes II.[557] The Khalif Omar, A.D. 636, found the church built over the Sepulchre, and twice visited it for prayer. It was still standing at the end of the seventh century, when it was seen by Arculf, who gives the following description of it: "The lower part, beneath a wonderful stone flooring, is a rotunda. The altar is on the eastern side, and to the right of it there is the hollow Sepulchre of S. Mary in the rock in which she once rested after her burial.... In the upper and round Church of S. Mary four altars are shewn." These words clearly prove that the present church is not the one seen by Arculf: since in that there were two rotundas, which have now disappeared. This is also proved by the following fact, that, in the seventh century, when the Khalif Abd-el-Melik was erecting the great mosque of the _Kaaba_ at Mecca, he commanded the columns to be cut away from the Church of Gethsemane, but rescinded the order owing to the prayers of certain Christians of high rank, who promised some other marbles; so that the church was preserved for that time[558]. In the eighth century it was seen by Willibald[559], who mentions, but does not describe it; and says that the tomb did not contain the corpse of the Virgin Mary, but was dedicated to her burial. He states distinctly that it was in the valley of Jehoshaphat. Bernard the Wise[560], A.D. 870, saw the rotunda, and the tomb within it, and says,--"Besides, in that very village (Gethsemane) is the round Church of S. Mary, where is her sepulchre; which, though unprotected by a roof, is never wetted by the rain." The account shews that it was then in a very ruinous condition. From this time until the arrival of the Crusaders we have no further mention of this monument; and the first to notice it again is Sæwulf, A.D. 1103. At that time service was performed by monks wearing a black habit, of the order of Cluny[561]. "These," according to M. de Vogüé[562], "gave to the church in the valley of Jehoshaphat the form which it has retained up to the present day." But, I ask, did the church of Sæwulf contain the same rotundas as that which Arculf visited, and Bernard saw in ruins? The want of evidence makes the question a difficult one, because in such an interval of time they might have fallen to the ground, or have been altered during the persecutions of Hakem, A.D. 1010. We may then suppose that it might have been repaired, or entirely rebuilt, and its plan changed at that time. If the Khalif had found it standing, he would probably have respected it, on account of the reverence felt for it by the Mohammedan women; which protected it in the days of Saladin, and continues to do so at the present day. Again, Sæwulf relates that, during the siege, A.D. 1099[563], all the churches without the city were completely destroyed. How then did he find it standing in 1103? Were the monks of Cluny installed there at once and enriched by Godfrey[564], so that they were able to rebuild it in four years? Had this been the case, surely Sæwulf would have mentioned it. "The anonymous author of the _Gesta Francorum expugnantium Hierusalem_, who wrote in 1106," M. de Vogüé goes on to say[565], "also states that in his time the church built over the Virgin's tomb by the early Christians was quite in ruins." Now if we are to believe this author, we cannot accept the statement of Sæwulf as exact, that all the churches were destroyed. Consequently, I hold that the monks of Cluny rebuilt it after, not before this time.

I think that the plan of the church in the fifth century was not very different from the present one, because I believe that the great work of making the stairs was executed when the first building was erected, in order to reach the tomb which was situated, as we have seen, low down, being covered, by the lower rotunda, mentioned by Arculf, with the other above it. In confirmation of this, we find mention made of a platform before the building in the year 1100, (perhaps the present one, though it might be somewhat larger,) which was enclosed by a cloister, where were buried Werner de Gray, cousin of Godfrey, who died at Jerusalem in the month of May, A.D. 1100, and the Knight Arnulph, Prince of Oudenarde, who was slain by the people of Ascalon in 1107[566]. Therefore, I consider this platform to be the only natural entrance into the subterranean church, as it still is. With regard to the building of the present walls, and particularly of the vaults, and to the alterations in the plan with reference to the tomb, I agree with M. de Vogüé, that the monks of Cluny rebuilt the church early in the twelfth century, availing themselves (at least in my opinion) of the ancient foundations. Since that period it has been noticed by many authors; and from their remarks it is evident that the work of the monks has not been changed. Indeed Edrisi, A.D. 1154, describes the church under the name of Gethsemane; stating that it was a mile distant from the Gate of Jehoshaphat, and was a very large and handsome edifice. Here M. de Vogüé very justly remarks, that this expression could not have been applied to the ruins seen by the author of the _Gesta Francorum_. John of Würtzburg[567] minutely describes the interior of the church as it was during the twelfth century. The Sepulchre of Mary, he says, was situated in the middle of a cave, with a 'ciborium' over the sacred remains. He also tells us very clearly how the monument was isolated, and in what way this had been effected; and that it was covered with marble, and with many ornaments in gold and silver. He also mentions some inscriptions that were in the church, with many other points of detail. The description of the church given by John Phocas, A.D. 1185, is not less distinct, and is equally applicable to the present monument[568]. "The church, which stands about the tomb of the Mater Dei, is beneath the ground; it has a vaulted stone roof, is prolonged, and rounded at its extremity. The Sepulchre is placed like a tribune, in the middle. It is excavated out of the rock in the form of a rectangle, and the vaulting is with sharp groins. Inside a kind of bench is hewn out of the eastern wall, of the same rock as the monument; on this the Virgin's body was laid, being brought hither from Mount Sion by the Apostles."

In the time of the Latin kingdom a monastery was erected close to the church for the monks who officiated therein. This is frequently mentioned by the historians of the time of the Crusades, in the Cartulary of the Holy Sepulchre, and by Sebastian Pauli, who gives the names of the different Abbots, with dates. One of them, Julduinus, in 1126, was a witness to a deed of gift from Hugo Lord of Joppa (Jaffa) to the Hospital of S. John, in which he is called Abbot of S. Mary's in the Valley of Jehoshaphat[569]. When Saladin took Jerusalem, A.D. 1187, the Saracens utterly destroyed the convent, and used the stones to repair the city-walls[570]; but they spared the church, owing to the reverence with which the Mohammedans (especially the women) regarded the mother of Isa (Jesus). The church then from the time of the Crusades, up to the present day, has not been altered; as is proved by the descriptions of Willibrand, Brocardus[571], Marinus Sanutus, and others, in the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, who all agree on this point. Sanutus[572] states that it was only lighted by an aperture in the vaulted roof, on the side of the Mount (of Olives), and by the staircase; as all the other openings were closed up. Therefore for the last five centuries it has remained in its present condition. After A.D. 1187, the church was for a long time abandoned; and the Christian pilgrims, who desired to visit it, were obliged to obtain the keys from its Mohammedan owners; but, in the year A.D. 1363, it was ceded to the Friars Minors of the Observance[573] by the Sultan of Egypt, at the request of Joan, Queen of Naples. At the same time they obtained permission to rebuild a convent; which is a strong proof that the convent of the monks of Cluny no longer existed. This design, however, was not carried into execution for want of funds. Owing to various difficulties the Franciscans were unable to take possession of their sanctuary before the 30th of March, 1392. The only effect of this concession was to give them the right of performing service in the church, for the Mohammedans were still its owners. This privilege excited the jealousy of the Eastern Christians, who strove by intrigues, backed by large bribes to the authorities in Constantinople, to deprive the Latins of the sanctuary; to whom it rightly belonged, not only by the treaty of 1362, but also as it had been built by the Crusaders. Eventually all the Eastern Christian sects obtained the right of using the place; the Latins, however, retaining the exclusive privilege of performing service in the tomb itself. This also was abrogated by the artifices of the Greeks in 1740; but afterwards the Sultan restored it by a firman to its former owners. Thereupon their enemies, by the aid of calumnies and bribes to the ministers of the Sublime Porte, not only succeeded in retaining possession of the tomb, but also in obtaining the keys of the whole building; which they now hold, enduring with resignation the presence of the Syrians, Armenians, and Copts, who occupy small chapels in the interior of the church. The Latin monks retain the right[574] of performing service during certain days of the year, especially on the Assumption of the Virgin; but they do not avail themselves of it, and justly protest, whenever they have a good opportunity, against the iniquitous usurpation to which they have been subjected.

Let us now proceed to examine the exterior and interior of the building; noticing those parts that are of greater importance, and leaving the explanation of the rest to the Plates[575] and their descriptions. The church has unquestionably been buried by the accumulation of the soil around it; which has partly been deposited by the water running down the slopes of the hill, and by the Kidron torrent; and partly raised by the quantity of rubbish cast down here from the city. I have already said that the church was originally built in a low situation, as is shewn by the great staircase, the platform in front of it, and the windows and doors in it; which prove that it was formerly lighted from without. It was enclosed by an outer wall, whose remains may still be seen projecting from the surrounding earth. This was no doubt erected chiefly with a view of protecting the building against streams of rain-water and land-slips, and preventing its windows from being obstructed. It has however proved an inadequate barrier. The terrace-roof is apparently in the usual style of the country, being nearly flat. It is covered with a strong cement, but this is not sufficient to keep the damp out of the vaults, because it is so overgrown with vegetation, that it resembles a field more than what it really is.

In the interior of the church we see, on the right hand, a door, now closed up, which, in the days when the Latins had possession of the place, communicated with the Grotto of the Agony by an outside passage, which was not, as many assert, subterranean. I am convinced of this, because I have carefully examined the grotto, and found that it has no other entrance than the one still in use, which is now reached by a passage leading from the north-east corner of the platform. This passage is much later than the church, as it was made by the Franciscans about the middle of the eighteenth century, when they were wrongfully compelled to give up the tomb to the Greeks[576]. After descending some steps we come to two chapels; the one on the right dedicated to the tombs of S. Joachim and S. Ann, the other on the left in honour of the tomb of S. Joseph. Most of the monks of all the sects and the ignorant guides inform the stranger that the saints themselves are buried here. On this point neither the Bible nor history give us the slightest clue, either to the time, place, or manner of their deaths, or to the spot where they are buried. The tradition is worthless, as it only dates from the fifteenth century, and has never been mentioned by any author of importance before or since; but only by those who, for the sake of making a book, and acquainting the world that they have been at Jerusalem, publish all that they hear without any inquiry into its truth or falsehood. I maintain that it is impossible these can be the tombs of the parents of the Virgin, because there is not an atom of rock in any part of the place where they stand, not even in the ground; and the tombs themselves are constructed of masonry. Besides, the shape of the two chapels shews that they were built to contain sarcophagi, in which probably (as Abbé Mariti and M. de Vogüé assert) the bodies of members of the families of the Latin kings were deposited. This opinion is confirmed by the testimony of William of Tyre[577], who says: "The Lady Milisendis of blessed memory, who will be a member of the angelic host, lies buried in the Valley of Jehoshaphat on the right hand of the descent to the tombs of the blessed and undefiled mother of the Lord, the Virgin Mary, in a stone crypt guarded with iron gates, and near to an altar; whereon acceptable daily sacrifices are offered to the Creator, for the repose of her soul, and for the spirits of the faithful departed." This description is as plain as it can be, and does not say one word about the parents of the Virgin Mary. In this chapel the staples and hooks can still be seen by which the iron gratings were hung, until no doubt they were carried off by the Mohammedans. Descending still lower almost to the bottom of the steps, we find on the left hand a small doorway leading into a chamber quite dark, with walls of masonry, which is now used by the Armenians as a sacristy. It has a tesselated pavement, and was, I believe, formerly used as a mortuary chapel. Quitting it we enter the transverse arm of the cross, which lies east and west. In the eastern arm[578] the tomb of the Virgin stands by itself, as I have already described it. Near it on the south is a small niche, especially allotted to the Mohammedans, who visit the place for prayer, as I have often seen. This is the only Christian church in Jerusalem in which the Mohammedans abstain from smoking, or from using it, if needful, as a place for conversation; a mark of respect which they do not pay to the Sepulchre of Christ. Inside the north wall, near the tomb, is the grotto, from which water falls down in drops; this is carefully caught by the Greeks, and sold to visitors with the reputation of possessing many virtues. I tasted it in 1857, when I was making a plan of the building, and found it very good[579]. Opposite to the great staircase is the northern arm of the cross. This has been divided by the Greeks into two stories by means of a wooden floor; the lower serving for a sacristy, the upper for the chamber of the lay-brother who takes care of the place. Here also we find a window, closed with masonry, because it is blocked up on the outside with the accumulated earth. At the extremity of the western arm is the walled-up doorway, which I mentioned[580] in speaking of the subterranean passage, said to exist between the Church of S. Ann and this place. The description annexed to the Plan will shew the places where the different religious sects perform their services, and the other points of detail; therefore I pass on at once to the Grotto of the Agony[581], which came into the keeping of the Franciscans A.D. 1392, together with the Tomb of the Virgin, and is still held exclusively by them.

This is said to be the scene of the Agony of Christ on the night before He suffered[582]. It is true that the Evangelists make no mention of a grotto; but tradition and its situation are in favour of this place. Its situation, I say, because it is a stone's throw (according to S. Luke) from the place (also traditional) where the three Apostles awaited him. The tradition is very ancient, and I firmly believe that the Apostles themselves informed the first converts both of this spot and of that where our Lord was betrayed to those who came to take Him prisoner. It seems impossible that His followers would forget the incidents of that night. Gethsemane was outside the city on the slopes of the Mount of Olives, across the Kidron; and its position is clearly defined[583]. We must also remember that there have never been at Gethsemane the same materials for the enemy to lay waste and destroy as there were within the city; so that the spot would not here, as elsewhere, be concealed under ruins and earth.

There was a church at the Grotto of the Agony (perhaps built by S. Helena) which is mentioned by S. Jerome[584], as follows: "Gethsemane is the place where the Saviour prayed before His Passion; it is on the spurs of Mount Olivet; a church is now built over it." Not a vestige of this church now remains. In the seventh century Arculf[585] saw the Grotto, and thus describes it: "In the side of Mount Olivet is a certain cave, not far from the Church of S. Mary.... In it are four stone tables, one of which near the entrance of the cave in the interior is the Lord Jesu's. To which little table His seat is fixed, where He was sometimes wont to recline, together with the Apostles, who sat together at other tables." Epiphanius Hagiopolita, towards the middle of the eleventh century, states that "near the Tomb of the Virgin, is the holy grotto to which Christ retired with His disciples[586]." Now though these two authors do not mention that our Lord withdrew to this place to pray, still that does not contradict the fact, and we may naturally suppose that the Saviour selected a spot which was already well known, and where perhaps he had been wont to teach. Therefore I identify their grotto with that of S. Jerome, which I consider to be the Grotto of the Agony. Sæwulf tells us that it was known by this name before the arrival of the Crusaders; and during the Latin kingdom there was a church there dedicated to S. Saviour, as we find stated in the Citez de Jherusalem[587]: "In front of this church at the foot of the Mount of Olives is a church in a rock, which men call Gethsemane--there was Jesus Christ taken. On another part of the way, as one goes up towards the Mount of Olives as far as a stone's throw, is the church called S. Saviour. There did Jesus Christ pass the night in prayer before He was taken, and there did He let fall the blood-drops from His body as though it had been sweat." All these testimonies, then, go to prove that this is really the Grotto of the Agony. The Plan and Section will make clear its interior, which is excavated from a limestone rock. The Abbé Mariti, who visited it April 30, 1767, endeavoured to discover the inscription mentioned by Quaresmius[588], which Father Nau[589] asserts that he read above the larger altar on the north; but as he could only find some illegible traces of letters, he extracts the inscription from the works of Quaresmius; it ran as follows:

HIC REX (SAN)CTUS SUDAVIT SANGUINEM...
SEPE MORABATUR DU C...
MI PATER SI VIS TRANSFER
CALICEM ISTU A ME.

Quaresmius also states that the Crusaders adorned the vaulted roof with paintings, traces of which he saw. These were also seen by Mariti, but were then nearly obliterated by the action of time and damp. They have now been destroyed by the repairs effected by the Franciscans.

Let us now visit the Garden of Gethsemane[590], which is exactly a stone's throw distant from the Grotto towards the south-east. The entrance-gate is at the south end of the east wall. Gethsemane was a little village, with a garden close to it, to which Jesus was wont to retire[591]. The name is interpreted to mean 'rich earth,' from _Get_ (earth) and _sman_ (rich): by others it is rendered 'olive-mill.' Either of these explanations is appropriate; for the land is very good, and especially suited to olive-trees, which are planted all about the neighbourhood. I cannot say they are cultivated, because the Arabs take no trouble with them after the first planting. The garden belongs to the Franciscans, and a few years ago was enclosed with a wall, in order to preserve its eight old olive-trees from the injuries of ignorant vandalism or mistaken piety. These are highly valued, because their stumps, or at any rate their roots, are believed to have been there at the time of our Saviour's Passion. I do not think this can be said of their trunks, because I think that they could not have escaped at the time when all the wood for a considerable distance round Jerusalem was cut down by the Roman army during the siege, A.D. 70[592]. They are even respected by the Mohammedans, as is shewn by their exemption from the tax, which every fruit-tree pays to the Government[593]: their owners being charged only eight bushels for all the trees. The monks to whom they belong satisfy ordinary pilgrims with flowers grown in the garden, with a few leaves or little slips of the olive, but give to their benefactors and to persons of distinction rosaries made with the fruits, and oil extracted from them.

Outside the south-east corner of the garden-wall a rock is pointed out as the place where the Apostles, Peter, James, and John, fell asleep[594], and where Judas betrayed his Master. The tradition attached to this spot is very ancient; it is mentioned by the Pilgrim of Bordeaux[595], A.D. 333. Sæwulf also mentions it, A.D. 1103, but without alluding to any buildings in connexion with it. The Crusaders, however, certainly erected some memorial there, which is noticed by Brocardus[596], A.D. 1230, under the name of the Chapel of Gethsemane, "placed on a rock on the side of the Mount of Olives, under which the Apostles were overcome by sleep." At a later period Phocas calls it 'the sleep of the Apostles.' Some slight ruins are now seen there, consisting of dressed stones, shafts of columns, and jambs of a door; unmistakeable indications of a chapel. The original one indeed may have been destroyed in 1187, but it must have been rebuilt, because an old Bethlehemite (aged 86) assured me in 1856 that he remembered to have seen there the remains of a small building, inside of which was a stone stained with blood. This I have no doubt was a piece of yellow Palestine breccia with red veins, which abounds in the country. I do not, however, pretend to fix the exact spots in this locality at which the different circumstances of the Agony happened, but simply follow the tradition which in this instance is of great weight.

We will now proceed southward along the east bank of the Kidron, down the so-called Valley of Jehoshaphat. No other spot is better fitted than this to excite high and solemn thoughts in the hearts of even the most indifferent. It is in truth the valley of meditation, of tears, and of death. No living creature disturbs the visitor who comes to muse in its mournful solitude. A city buried under its own ruins, a torrent-bed without water, a few trees with bare branches or but a scanty foliage, naked rocks, barren mountains, mounds of rubbish formed by fallen buildings, graves all around, broken tombs, monuments of martyrs or of prophets, and lastly, the place of the Agony of the Son of God, make up a scene that overpowers the mind with emotion and compels it to solemn reflexion.

The eye, at its first glance towards the slope of the mountain, is arrested by a large space of ground full of graves, each of which is covered by a single stone. Here is the Jewish cemetery. To fill a little trench in this spot numbers of Jews leave their country, and, regardless alike of the toils and costs of the journey, and of the hardships they have to undergo, flock eagerly to Jerusalem to end their days within its walls, and sleep their last sleep in the land of their fathers. Each stone bears an inscription; and among them are some of considerable antiquity, dating from the year 1296. This field of the dead was enlarged in 1858 by the Jews, with the assistance of their European brethren: it therefore stretches away for some distance eastward, rising up the southern slopes of Olivet. Each year they do some work in order to prepare the ground for burials; and by this means, in 1859 and 1860, they found bases, shafts, and capitals of columns, and a considerable number of large dressed stones, on the eastern summit of the mountain. These are, undoubtedly, the remains of some Christian memorials, which were destroyed by the Mohammedans in their successful attacks. When Abbé Mariti visited the Holy City in 1767, the Jews paid a sequin per diem to the Governor as rent for the ground, and in addition each grave was purchased separately. The tax to the Pasha is now no longer exacted, but a payment is made to the Sheikh of the village of Siloam, who nominally takes care of the ground: the graves, however, are still bought, but the price is paid to the Jewish administration, who ask more or less according to the rank of the deceased and to the position chosen.

On the slope above the Kidron, to the west of the cemetery, are four ancient monuments, called the tombs of Jehoshaphat, Absalom, S. James (also called the Retreat of the Apostles), and Zacharias. We will visit these one by one.

First is the tomb of Jehoshaphat, standing at the north-east corner of the vestibule excavated in the rock, which surrounds the tomb of Absalom[597]. The Bible[598] tells us that King Jehoshaphat was buried with his fathers in the city of David, consequently his name has been wrongly given to this tomb. It is indeed possible that he may have caused it to be made, but there is no evidence to prove this. In 1858 only a very small portion of its frontispiece was visible, owing to the accumulation of earth brought down by the rains, and to the heaps of stones, placed there by the Jews to prevent any one from entering it; because they sometimes bury therein the corpses of those who have paid a high price for a place of such distinction, and left enough property to satisfy the greed of the Sheikh of Siloam, who otherwise would not allow them to fulfil the wishes of the deceased. Accordingly I gained over the Sheikh, and during the night, with the aid of some of his peasants, not only laid bare the whole frontispiece, but also opened a small passage to the interior, into which I made my way. However, I was soon driven out again by the insupportable stench from the corpses. Nevertheless, I was determined not to be conquered; I bought permission to enlarge the hole, and some hours later entered again; and though two corpses, in the last stage of decomposition, lay almost across the doorway, I made a sketch of its plan, which will be found sufficiently exact, measurements excepted. These I had not time to take; the reeking mud of bones, rotted by the infiltrated water, emitted an overpowering odour; besides the day was at hand, and before it came the passage must be closed again. The frontispiece, however, was left exposed. The tomb is entirely excavated in the rock, and its frontispiece, 10-1/2 feet long, is in the same style as that at the Sepulchre of the Judges[599]. I will reserve my opinion of its ornamentation till I have described the three other monuments. Dr Isambert[600], of Paris, states that a Roman Catholic missionary, who entered it in 1842, found there a very ancient copy of the Pentateuch. Surely he forgets that the Jews have been in the habit of burying in this place for some centuries, so that his 'very ancient Pentateuch' would not have escaped them! Besides, this book was probably only a Synagogue roll, imperfect copies of which are often buried near the corpses of the Rabbins[601]. Mr Finn, then Her Britannic Majesty's Consul at Jerusalem, informed me that he had learnt from some Jewish traditions that the true position of the tomb of Jehoshaphat was 20 feet to the west, and nearly in front of that of Absalom. Being desirous to verify this statement, I took some labourers, and explored all that part; but found everywhere nothing but solid rock, without the slightest trace of any work.

Let us now proceed to examine the Tomb of Absalom, the most elegant and magnificent of those in the neighbourhood of the city. It is a cubical monolith, each side being about 20-1/2 feet. The tapering columns of the lower part support a Doric entablature, consisting of an architrave, a fillet, and a frieze ornamented with triglyphs (with guttæ) and pateræ on the metopes, above is an Egyptian cornice. All this lower part is hewn out of the solid rock; the rest is masonry[602]. The total height of the monument is 52-1/4 feet, and that of the monolith about 20 feet. These measurements are only approximate, owing to the quantity of small stones, which have raised the general level of the ground, and are difficult to clear away. On the east side is the opening through which the corpses were introduced[603]. It is very small, and was in all probability formerly closed by a stone in the manner usual with the Jews; but I have not been able to determine this point, because the monument is almost buried on that side, and I was reluctant to encounter the expense of removing the earth, and the vexations to be undergone in obtaining the permission. There is a breach in each face of the cube. I entered by that on the north, and found myself in a small chamber, 8 feet square, containing many stones that have been thrown in from without. In the northern wall is a sepulchral niche, and another in the western. In the southern is the opening to a staircase, which would no doubt have led me, had I been able to enter it, to the Tomb of Jehoshaphat. The heaps of small stones, round about the outside of the monument, increase daily, because the Jews, Christians, and Mohammedans, who pass by, hurl a stone at it to mark their abhorrence of David's rebel son. This custom has prevailed for a long time; for Surius[604] relates that it was in force in his days, and that every one on throwing his stone cried out, "At the villain, at the barbarian, at the murderer, who made war against his father!" I believe that the origin of this was, as we are told in the Bible[605] and Josephus[606], that the servants of Joab took the body of Absalom down from the tree, and casting it into a deep dark crevice, covered it up with so great a heap of stones, that they formed a kind of sepulchral mound. This took place in the wood of Ephraim, on the other side of Jordan[607]; it is therefore evident that Absalom was not buried in the present monument. The monolithic portion may indeed date from his time, but the upper story is much later; for we read[608], "Now Absalom in his life-time had taken and reared up for himself a pillar, which is in the King's dale: for he said, I have no son to keep my name in remembrance: and he called the pillar after his own name: and it is called unto this day Absalom's place." There can be no doubt that this part of the Kidron valley was called the 'King's dale,' because we find the 'King's garden[609]' here, which establishes this point. With regard to the monument, Josephus[610] fixes its site by saying that "Absalom had erected for himself a white marble pillar in the King's dale, two stadia distant from Jerusalem, which he named Absalom's Hand, saying, that if his children were killed, his name would remain by that pillar." The white marble is the breccia of Palestine, which can be worked and polished like marble. The monolith supporting the pillar is left, but the rest is gone, perhaps having been destroyed by Joab, when he returned to Jerusalem with his victorious army. I therefore believe this to be the pillar of Absalom mentioned in the Bible, especially as it is two stadia distant from the city.

To the west, and almost opposite to the monument just described, is a little bridge over the Kidron. An uncertain tradition points out this as the place where Jesus crossed the stream on His way to the house of Caiaphas, and also shews on a rock close by the impression made by His knees as He fell. There is no mention of this in the Bible; it is named by Quaresmius[611]. This road, from the garden to the so-called house of Caiaphas (on Sion), is commonly called the 'road of the Capture.' The topography of the ancient city is unfavourable to the story. A few yards to the south of the Tomb of Absalom is the Retreat of the Apostles, or, according to some, the Tomb of S. James[612]. The Arabs call it _Diwan Faroon_ (Divan of Pharaoh); but they cannot tell for what reason. The outer porch is supported by two columns and two pilasters, sculptured from the rock in which the whole monument is excavated. The porch is about 31 feet wide and 9 deep. In the northern wall is a door, leading by a staircase up into the rock above the sepulchral chamber. In the eastern wall is another door leading into the principal room, a square of 13 feet, into which three smaller chambers open, containing each a niche for a corpse. In the south wall of the vestibule is a square door, leading into a corridor connected with the monument on the south. Tradition relates that S. James and the ten other disciples concealed themselves here on the night when our Saviour was taken prisoner in the garden of Gethsemane, and that they remained here until the day of the Resurrection, when He appeared to S. James[613]. Hegesippus[614] says that S. James was buried near the Temple, and that a monument was raised to his memory, which remained until Hadrian rebuilt the city. The Roman martyrology tells the same story. M. Mislin observes, that this site is not opposed to the tradition, because it may be said to be near the Temple; since, at the time of the Saint's death, they did not bury within the walls of the city. On this point I leave the reader to form his own opinion. I myself do not vouch for the tradition; although the Saint may possibly have been interred here, even if the tomb was not originally constructed for him.

The Tomb of Zacharias is a monolith, hewn out of the mountain; so excavated that there is a passage five feet wide round all the sides, except of course the western. Each of its faces is 17-1/2 feet long, decorated with two columns in the middle, and two half-columns each attached to pilasters at the corners, all forming part of the same block[615]. Around it is a number of Jewish graves, which make it impossible to determine its true elevation; but the height of the portion visible above them is 19 feet. The decoration is not completed in every part. On the eastern side the columns are only rough-hewn, and not finished off as on the three other sides. Inside the monolith is a sepulchral chamber connected with the corridor from the Tomb of S. James. This Zacharias is thought to be the son of Jehoiada, who was slain by king Joash between the temple and the altar[616]; with whose death the Jews are reproached by Christ[617]. So the Jews at the present time believe, consequently they hold the place in great veneration, and pay very highly to be interred after death anywhere near it; which is the cause of the accumulation of stones round it. The Pilgrim of Bordeaux calls it the Tomb of Isaiah, and Benjamin of Tudela the Tomb of Hosea.

To the south of this is another tomb almost buried, on which however two columns can be distinguished. By partially uncovering it I ascertained that it was an ancient monument. It might be supposed to be that of Hosea, but I will not undertake to prove it. I am very much disposed to think that the piece of ground containing these four monuments may be the garden of Uzza, in which Manasseh and Amon were buried[618]; or, at any rate, that they were tombs intended to receive the remains of members of the royal family, or of men of distinction in the country. I refer my readers to the excellent description of the four monuments in M. de Saulcy's work[619]. I think that when they were first constructed they were without decorations, and that they were elaborated at a much later period; because on them we find the Greek and Egyptian styles of architecture; consequently I attribute this part to the time of Herod. Dr Robinson[620], struck with the similarity between these and the rock sepulchres of Petra, in the mixture of Grecian and Egyptian architecture, considered the decorations to be perhaps contemporaneous with the Herods, who were of Idumæan origin, or possibly to belong even to the era of Hadrian.