west, which is more correct, particularly in regard to the mo dern city of Jerusalem. According to the account of Brocard, the monk, whom I have already quoted, David's Tower must have been comprehended in the area of Sion, and stood near the angle formed by the valley which separates that mount from Acra, with the western declivity of Sion; a situation' more suitable to Hippicos than to Psephina. We nevertheless meet in the same account with a particular mention of the place which agrees with the site of the Castel Pisano. It is clearly delineated in these words: Rupes illa, super quam ex parte occidentis erat extructus murus civitatis, erat valde eminens, præsertim in angulo ubi occidentalis muri pars connectebatur aquilonari; ubi et turris Neblosa dicta, et propugnaculum valdè firmum cujus ruinæ adhuc visuntur, unde tota Arabia, Jordanis, Mare Mortuum, et alia plurima loca, sereno cælo videri possunt. This latter circumstance, demonstrating the great advantage of the situation of the place, is well calcu lated to determine our opinion respecting the site, which is much more suitable to the ancient tower of Psephina than to the modern Castel Pisano. We will go still farther and observe that this account of Brocard's agrees with what we read in Josephus (Jewish War, book, vi. ch. 6), that, at sun-rise, the tower of Psephina commanded a view of Arabia, the sea and the remotest part of Judea. Though it is not probable that the present castle is the structure which originally occupied this place, and it is erroneous, as Phocas justly remarks, to attribute it to David himself; yet it does not thence follow that it differs from the former in regard to its site. Benjamin of Tudela even asserts that the walls erected by the Jews, his ancestors, were standing in his time, that is, in the twelfth century, to the height of ten cubits.

If we have already discovered such a concordance between Castel Pisano and the tower of Psephina, the following circumstance will incontestibly establish their identity. Josephus expressly says that this tower 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

You

it: Ubi occidental is muri pars connectabatur aquilönari. will remark that, opposite to the north side of Castel Pisano, or the west gate contiguous to that side, we cannot exclude Calvary from the ancient city without turning off to the east. Now, Castel Pisano, to which we have been led by the course of the wall from the Tower of Hippicos, or by a line drawn towards the north, occupies precisely that angle of the ancient area. It must then be admitted that if the site of Hippicos required confir mation, it would receive it from so precise a determination of Psephina in consequence of the coincidence of situation.

As to the name of Castel 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, Paolo 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 later times the name it bears. When Brocard was in the Holy Land, that is, towards the end of the thirteenth century, we find that this castle was called Neblosa, the form which Neapolis 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 for, tifications of Jerusalem to be demolished; and that David, the son of the latter, destroyed, twenty years afterwards, 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 com. plete the boundary on that side, than to carry it on to the tower of Antonia, near the north-west angle of the Temple. Accord ingly, 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 Be zetha is included, gives this angle, and that at a considerable distance from the north-east angle of the Temple, where it ter. minates. 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 suf, ficient. 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 fol. lowing the line of the present inclosure. Josephus asserts that Bezetha corresponds with the Greek appellation of xaivý wódit, 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 inclosed 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 dis

sertation, 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' plan requiring some expla nations, 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. Beside 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 mea sure in ordinary paces, the other in fathoms. I will not, how ever, conceal the circumstance that there is not an exact propor. tion 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 north-east to the north-west angle, 677; on the west side, to the south-west angle, 355; on the south side, 544; and the east side, from the south-east angle to the north-east, 488 ; making a total of 2,004. In these mea. sures 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 compa rison 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 authorise the total rejection of that scale. I assert that the rod of one hundred fathoms appears less equi vocal 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 equi valent 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 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 ease? 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 stan. dards 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.