near where the ancient wall must have passed, would answer well to the royal grottos or sepulchres of Josephus; and the present Tombs of the Kings above described, would then correspond to the monument of Helena.

The latter part at least of this hypothesis, is probably well founded. Josephus thrice mentions the sepulchre prepared for herself by Helena during her residence at Jerusalem; once as constructed with three pyramids at the distance of three stadia from the city; again on the approach of Titus to the city from the North in order to reconnoitre, where it is said to be overagainst the gate on that side; and lastly, where he describes the third northern wall as passing overagainst it.' Eusebius also relates that Helena constructed a tomb, of which the "celebrated stelae" or cippi were still pointed out in his day in the suburbs. of Jerusalem. More definite is the passing notice of Jerome, who relates that as Paula approached the city from the North, the mausoleum of Helena lay upon the left or East.3 Now the great northern road at present is unquestionably the same that it ever was; the very nature of the ground not admitting the sup position of any material variation. Thus then, according to the ancient accounts, the tomb of Helena lay on the East of this road, three stadia distant from the ancient northern wall; and we have seen above that the present sepulchre lies on the same side of the way, at the distance of a little more than half an English mile or four stadia from the modern Damascus Gate. But the ancient northern wall, as we know, ran a stadium or more further North than the present

1) Joseph. Antiq. XX. 4. 3. B. J. V. 2. 2. V. 4. 2.

2) Hist. Eccles. Lib. II. c. 12, στῆλαι διαφανείς. See also the note of Valesius on this passage.

3) Hieron. ad Eustoch. Epitaph. Paulae: "Ad laevam mausoleo Helenae derelicto,-ingressa est Jerusolymam urbem." Opp. Tom. IV. ii. p. 673. ed. Martianay.

one; and we have therefore here a very exact coincidence. This fact, taken in connection with the circumstance that the tomb of Helena was celebrated of old, just as the sepulchre in question is to this day the most remarkable object of antiquity round about Jerusalem, seems amply sufficient to establish their identity.

The same conclusion is further strengthened by an historical notice from another quarter, where we should hardly look for any illustration of Jewish antiquities. The Greek writer Pausanias in the second century, in speaking of the sepulchres that he had seen, mentions two as being worthy of particular admiration, viz. that of king Mausolus in Caria, and that of Helena at Jerusalem.1 This latter he describes as remarkable for its door, which was of the same rock, and was so contrived that it could only be opened when the returning year brought round a particular day and hour; it then opened by means of mechanism alone, and after a short time, closed again; had one tried to open it at another time, he must first have broken it with violence. In this exaggerated account, we may nevertheless recognise the carved doors above described in these excavated tombs, and found here in this sepulchre alone; while the passage also shows the celebrity which the tomb of Helena had obtained in foreign lands. Taking all the circumstances together, there seems therefore little room for doubt, that the excavations so long known in modern times as the Tombs of the Kings, ought henceforth to reassume their ancient celebrity as the Sepulchre of Helena.

The three pyramids or stelae by which the tomb was anciently surmounted, were probably erected over the portal on the level ground above; and could hardly

1) Pausan. Graeciae Descript. Lib. VIII. c. 16 fin. See Note

VOL. I.

XXVII, at the end of the present volume.

68

be expected to have survived the ravages of time and of barbarous hands. The earlier pilgrims, before the period of the crusades, make no mention of this tomb; probably because it still bore the name of Helena and was not to them a consecrated object. The same was perhaps the case with the writers of the age of the crusades, who have all passed it over in silence. Only Marinus Sanutus, A. D. 1321, slightly mentions the Sepulchre of Helena on the North of the city; so slightly indeed that it is difficult to say, whether the same tomb is meant; though from its remarkable character this is most probable. After this writer, there seems to be no allusion whatever to this sepulchre until near the close of the sixteenth century, when it is again brought into notice as the Tombs of the Kings, in the tolerably full descriptions of Zuallardo, Villamont, and Cotovicus.2 From that time onward the place has been described by almost every traveller down to the present day. Pococke was the first to suggest, that it might be the Tomb of Helena; but without reference to the exact specification of Josephus and Jerome, and only as a matter of conjecture.3 This was strengthened by Chateaubriand and Dr. Clarke by a reference to the passage of Pausanias above cited; although the former adopts in the end a different conclusion.*

1) Secreta fidel. Crucis III. 14. 9, "contra orientem descendit torrens Cedron, collectis simul omnibus aquis quas secum trahit de partibus superioribus: scilicet Rama, Anathoth, sepulcro Reginae Jabenorum," etc. Further on, the writer again refers to this tomb in connection with that of the Virgin in the valley of Jehoshaphat: "De Sepulcro vero Helenae Reginae, dictum est supra," etc.

2) Zuallardo, A. D. 1586; Viaggio, p. 264. Villamont in Á. D. 1589; Voyages, Liv. II. c. 31. Cotovicus in A. D. 1598; Itin. p. 304.

3) Pococke Descr. of the East, II. p. 20. fol.-Doubdan speaks also of a Tomb of Helena, but distinct from the Tombs of the Kings and on the other side of the road; Voyage, p. 258. See also Van Egmond and Heyman, Reizen I. p. 347. Quaresmius knew nothing of any Tomb of Helena in his day; II. p. 734.

4) Chateaubriand Itin. II. p. 79, seq. Paris 1837. Clarke's Trav els, etc. 4to. Part II. Vol. I. p. 599. -See Note XXVIII, at the end of the Volume.

Tombs of the Prophets.

The excavations commonly known under this name, are situated on the western declivity of the Mount of Olives, a little south of the foot-path leading over from St. Stephen's Gate to Bethany. Pococke describes them as "very large, having many cells to deposit bodies in; the further end of them they call the Labyrinth, which extends a great way; I could not find the end of it; this part seems to have been a quarry." Doubdan compares them with the Tombs of the Judges and Kings; but says the chambers are not square, as in these, but consist of two large and high galleries cut strictly one within the other in a continued curve; the holes or niches for the bodies being on a level with the floor.2 These sepulchres are not often mentioned by travellers, and no exact description of them seems to exist. I regret therefore the more, that we did not visit them.3

1) Descr. of the East, II. p. 29, fol.

2) Voyage, etc. p. 285.

3) See further Quaresmius II. P. 305. Chateaubriand Itin. II. p. 37, Paris 1837. I am not sure, whether these belong among the "certain subterraneous chambers" mentioned by Dr. Clarke on the Mount of Olives; Travels, 4to. II.

i. p. 577. The "subterraneous pyramid" upon the pinnacle of the mountain, which he holds to be a work of pagan idolatry, we did not see; but according to his description, it answers well to one of the ordinary subterranean magazines so common in the villages of Pales

tine.