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 con sequence 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 the details that have been given respecting the ancient Jerusalem. Let us now consider the measures that we have just announced.

2

Eusebius, in his Evangelical Preparation (book ix. c. 36.) informs us, on the authority of a Syrian land-surveyor, Tou της Συρίας σχοινομέτρου, that the circumference of the area of Jerusalem is twenty-seven stadia. On the other hand, Josephus (War of the Jews, book vi. c. 6.) computes the same circumference at thirty-three stadia. According to the account of the same Eusebius, Timochares wrote, in a history of king Antio. chus 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 circumfe rence 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 τοῦ τῆς Συρίας σχοινομέτρου, qui ambitum Hierosolyma viginti et septem stadiis definivit apud Eusebium.

Thus the twenty-seven stadia Now, the circumference of the

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 oxovoμérgov. 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, two feet, eight 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. will amount to 2,550 fathoms. 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' plan. But it must farther 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 therefore 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 agree ment 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 2,500 fathoms, and will be only some forty. fathoms, under the first amount of this circumference. But we may go still farther, and ascertain that Josephus individually makes use of the measure of the stadium in question, by the fol lowing example:-In his Antiquities, book xx. ch. 6. he says that the Mount of Olives is five stadia from Jerusalem. Now by mea. suring upon M. Deshayes' 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 farther than the summit of the hill. It is not then the effect of chance or an arbitrary employ. ment, but a regular practice that occasions the concordance of the calculation of the thirty-three stadia in the manner that has just been shewn.

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 Mace donian 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 inclosed 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 neces sary 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 twenty-seven ordinary stadia, with which Maundrell's measure exactly agrees; or to 2,600 at most, according to the scale of M. Deshayes' 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 circumfe. rence 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, whe