50), mention this gate and the place of St. Stephen's martyrdom, as upon the North side of the city. The tradition of the monks on this point, was changed ap parently between the middle of the fourteenth and that of the fifteenth century; since they now, as we have seen, call the eastern gate of the city by this name, and show the place of martyrdom near it.2 The same northern gate is also sometimes called the Gate of Ephraim, in reference to its probable ancient name.3 Arabic writers give it the name of Bâb 'Amûd el-Ghurâb of which the present Arabic form, Bab el-'Amûd, is only a contraction.-Further East was the Porta Benjaminis, Gate of Benjamin, corresponding apparently to the present Gate of Herod.

Towards the East there seem to have been also at least two gates. The northernmost, corresponding to the present Gate of St. Stephen, is described by Adamnanus as a "small portal from which steps led down into the Valley of Jehoshaphat." The crusaders called it the Gate of Jehoshaphat, from the valley.

1) Adamnanus 1. c. Will. Tyr. VIII. 5, "porta quae hodie dicitur Sancti Stephani, quae ad Aquilonem respicit." IX. 19. Gesta Dei, etc. P. 572. Marin. Sanut. III. 14. 7.-That Stephen was here stoned is expressly said; Will. Tyr. VIII. 2, "a Septentrione-ubi usque hodie locus in quo protomartyr Stephanus a Judaeis lapidatus." Gesta Dei, p. 572. Brocardus c. VIII. fin. Rud. de Suchem in Reissb. des h. Landes, p. 846.

2) St. Stephen's Gate appears on the East side of the city, as at present, in the Journals of Steph. von Gumpenberg, A. D. 1449; Tucher, A. D. 1479; Breydenbach and F. Fabri, A. D. 1483, etc. See Reissb. des h. Landes, pp. 444, 665, 111,252.-Quaresmius gravely undertakes to remove the idea of any change of place, by supposing that the present gate formerly faced to

wards the North! Elucid. II p. 295.

3) Brocardus c. VIII. fin. Marinus Sanutus calls it, probably er roneously, the Gate of Benjamin; de Secret. III. 14. 8.

4) Edrisi ed. Jaubert, p. 341. Hist. of Jerus. in Fundgr. des Or. II. p. 129.

3) Adamnanus, as above. Brocardus c. VIII. fin. The latter writer calls it also Porta Anguli. Comp. De Salignaco, Tom. VIII. c. 5. It is not mentioned by Edrisi. Mejr ed-Din in his Hist. of Jerusalem speaks here of two gates; Fundgr. des Orients, II. p. 129.

6) Will. Tyr. XI. 1. Gesta Dei per Fr. p. 572. Benj. de Tudela par Barat. pp. 88, 91.-Brocar dus speaks of another gate further North, which he calls the Dunggate; c. VIII. fin.

Arabian writers mention it as Bâb el-Ŭsbât, Gate of the Tribes, another form of the modern Arabic name Bâb es-Subât.' The four lions sculptured over the present gate on the outside, as well as the architecture, show that this structure did not proceed from the Muhammedans, and must be older than the present walls. Not improbably the earlier "small portal" on this spot, was rebuilt on a larger scale and thus ornamented by the Franks, when they built up the walls of the city, either about A. D. 1178 or in A. D. 1239.2— The other gate on this side is the famous Golden Gate, Porta aurea, in the eastern wall of the Haram eshSherif; now called by the Arabs Bâb ed-Daharîyeh, but formerly named by the Arabian writers Bâb erRahmeh, "Gate of Mercy." The name Porta aurea as applied to this gate, I have not been able to trace back further than to the historians of the crusades.1 It probably comes from some supposed connection with one of the ancient gates of the temple, which are said to have been covered with gold. We have seen above, that it is apparently of Roman origin. This gate was already closed up in the times of the crusades; but was thrown open once a year on Palm-Sunday, in celebration of our Lord's supposed triumphal entry through it to the temple. It remains still walled up; because (according to the Franks) the Muhammedans

1) Edrisi ed. Jaubert, I. p. 344. Hist. of Jerus. in Fundgr. des Or. p. 129.

2) See above, pp. 468-470. 3) Edrisi ed. Jaubert, I. pp. 341, 344. Hist of Jerus. in Fundgr. des Or. II. p. 96.

4) Will. Tyr. VIII. 3. Gesta Dei, etc. p. 572.-Quaresmius professes to quote Jerome for the name, but gives no reference whatever; Elucid. II. p. 336. The name Porta aurea occurs indeed in Hegesippus de Excidio Hieros.

lib. V. c. 42, in the Biblioth. Max. Patrum, Tom. V. p. 1203. But the author is there obviously speaking of a gate of the ancient interior temple or fane itself.

5)Joseph. B. J. V. 5. 3. It may perhaps have been regarded as the ancient Porta orientalis; see Lightfoot Opp. I. p. 555, seq.

6) See above, p. 437.

7) Gesta Dei par Francos, p. 572. xxiv. Edrîsi ed. Jaubert, p. 541.

believe that a king is to enter by it, who will take possession of the city and become Lord of the whole earth. But Muhammedan writers describe it as having been closed up for the security of the city and sanctuary; because it is on the side towards the desert, and there would be no great advantage in having it open. Some say it was walled up by Omar; and will not be opened again until the coming of Christ.2

On the South side were likewise two gates. Of the easternmost, the present Dung Gate of the Franks, I find no mention earlier than Brocardus, about A. D. 1283, who regards it as the ancient Water Gate. It may have been the Porta Tecuitis of Adamnanus. An Arabian writer speaks of it in the fifteenth century as the Bâb el-Mughâribeh, its present native name.'Further West, between the eastern brow of Zion and the Porta David (Yâfa Gate), there was according to Adamnanus, no gate in his day. Yet the crusaders found one here, which they call the Gate of Zion, corresponding to that which now bears the same name. It is also called by Arabian writers, Bâb Sahyûn; though the present native usage gives it the name of David.s

Thus it appears, that before the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem by Suleimân in the sixteenth century, the principal gates of the city were much the same as at the present day.

1) Quaresmius II. p. 340.
2) Hist. of Jerusalem in Fundgr.

des Orients, II. p. 96.

3) Brocardus c. VIII. fin. 4) Hist. of Jerus. 1. c. p. 129. 5) Adamn. ex. Arculf. I. 1. 6) Will. Tyr. VIII. 6, 19. Gesta Dei, etc. p. 572.

7) Edrisi ed. Jaubert, p. 341. Hist. of. Jerus. 1. c. p. 129.

8) In Wilken's Geschichte der Kreuzz. III. ii. p. 315, mention is made of a Gate of St. Lazarus in the southern wall; but of this I have found no further notice.

IX. SUPPLY OF WATER.

Jerusalem lies in the midst of a rocky limestone region, throughout which fountains and wells are comparatively rare. In the city itself, little if any living water is known; and in its immediate vicinity are only the three small fountains along the lower part of the Valley of Jehoshaphat. Yet with all these disadvantages of its position, the Holy City would appear always to have had a full supply of water for its inhabitants, both in ancient and in modern times. In the numerous sieges to which in all ages it has been exposed, we nowhere read of any want of water within the city; while the besiegers have often suffered severely, and have been compelled to bring water from a great distance. During the siege by Titus, when the Jews, pressed with famine, had recourse to the most horrible expedients, and thousands daily died of hunger, there is no hint that thirst was added to their other sufferings. Yet when Antiochus Pius had previously besieged the city, his operations were at first delayed for want of water; and Josephus regards it as the result of a divine interposition, that the Romans under Titus were not in like manner straitened.2 So too in the siege by the crusaders, A. D. 1099, the inhabitants were well supplied; while the besiegers were driven to the greatest straits by thirst under the burning sun of June.3 Thus in every age the truth of

1) Joseph. B. J. V. 12. 3. 13. 4, 7.

2) Joseph. Ant. XIII. 8. 2. J. V. 9. 4. p. 350. ed. Haverc.

V.

B.

3) Albert. Aq. VI. 22, in Gesta Dei, etc. p. 280. Will. Tyr. VIII. 7, "Interea siti fatigabatur exercitus vehementissima.-Augebat denique sitis importunitatem, et angoris geminabat molestiam, aestatis inclementia et ardens Junius,"

etc. The distress of the host appears to have been very great. On the other hand, the inhabitants, he says, were abundantly supplied, both with rain-water and that brought by aqueducts from abroad; in which way two immense reservoirs (maximae quantitatis) near the enclosure of the temple were supplied; VIII. 4 fin. Comp. also VIII. 24.

Strabo's brief description has been manifest: "Jerusalem, a rocky well-enclosed fortress; within well-watered, without wholly dry."

It becomes therefore a matter of some historical importance, as well as interest, to ascertain as far as possible, how this supply of water has been furnished to the city. To this inquiry I address myself here, in giving an account of the Cisterns, the Reservoirs, and the Fountains, in and around the city, with some notices of the aqueduct from Solomon's Pools.

CISTERNS. The main dependence of Jerusalem for water at the present day is on its cisterns; and this has probably always been the case. I have already spoken of the immense cisterns now and anciently existing within the area of the temple; supplied partly from rain water, and partly by the aqueduct. These of themselves, in case of a siege, would furnish a tolerable supply. But in addition to these, almost every private house in Jerusalem, of any size, is understood to have at least one or more cisterns, excavated in the soft limestone rock on which the city is built. The house of Mr. Lanneau in which we resided, had no less than four cisterns; and as these are but a specimen of the manner in which all the better class of houses are supplied, I subjoin here the dimensions:

This last is enormously large, and the numbers given are the least estimate. The cisterns have usually merely a round opening at the top, sometimes built up

1) Strabo's still briefer text is as follows: XVI. 2. 40, tà 'Iεgoσόλυμαἦν γὰρ πετρώδες εὐερκὲς

ἔρυμα· ἐντὸς μὲν εὔυδρον, ἐκτὸς δὲ παντελῶς διψηρόν.

2) See above, pp. 445, 446.