later, this convent was no longer in existence.1

Bro

cardus in the thirteenth century does not allude to it; and Rudolf de Suchem in the fourteenth speaks only of three churches, one of which was used by the Arabs as a stall for cattle. In A. D. 1484 Felix Fabri found only the church over the Sepulchre of Lazarus; and this in the days of Cotovicus had been converted into a mosk. Since then the place is often mentioned by travellers; and has been gradually falling more and more into decay.

Of the village of Bethphage no trace exists. In coming from Jericho our Lord appears to have entered it before reaching Bethany; and it probably therefore lay near to the latter, a little below it towards the East. Of course, it could not well have been where Abu Dîs now stands ;3 and still less on the spot which the monks assign to it, half-way between Bethany and the summit of the Mount of Olives, where there is nothing to show that a village ever stood.

We returned to Jerusalem by the somewhat shorter route over the summit of Mount Olivet.

1) Vertot relates, without citing his authority, that in A. D. 1254, the pope granted the Castle (fortified convent) of Bethany, to the Knights Hospitalers; the nuns after the destruction of Jerusalem having retired to Europe. Histoire des Chev. Hospit. de St. Jean, etc. I. p.

400.

2) Matt. xxi. 1. Luke xix. 29. 3) Schubert suggests that Abu Dis may have been the site of the

ancient Bahurim; Reise III. p. 70. This of course is a mere conjecture; though Bahurim was not far from Jerusalem, beyond the Mount of Olives; 2 Sam. xvi. 5. Joseph. Ant. VII. 9. 7. Yet as David came to Bahurim on his way to the Jordan, after passing over the summit of the Mount of Olives, it would seem that this place must have stood further north than Abu Dis. 2 Sam. xvi. 1, 5.

SECTION IX.

EXCURSION FROM JERUSALEM TO BETHEL, ETC.

HAVING thus been for several weeks diligently occupied in investigating the antiquities and interesting features of the Holy City, the time had now arrived, when, according to our plan, it became necessary to extend our researches to other parts of the country. We still regarded Jerusalem as our headquarters; as the central point from which to make excursions; and by varying our routes in going and returning to and from different points, we were enabled to see much more of the country, than would have been possible by merely travelling once or twice along the same road. Our routes often crossed each other; but I do not recollect that we ever passed for any distance over the same ground twice, excepting the short interval between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and one or two like instances. Three times, for example, we were in Hebron; but in no instance did we enter or leave the town by the same route a second time.

Before entering upon the account of our further travels, I must beg the reader to recall to mind the remarks already made upon the mass of foreign ecclesiastical tradition, which has been fastened not only upon Jerusalem and its environs, but also upon the whole country West of the Jordan. Besides this,

1) See the beginning of Sect. VII. Vol. I. p. 371.

many travellers have exercised their own discretion, (not always the most enlightened,) in assigning the ancient Scriptural names of places to such sites as they might happen to fall in with or hear of; without stopping to inquire, whether some other place might not have an equal or better claim to the proposed appellation.1 Others, and especially the older travellers, professedly give a description of the various parts of the Holy Land; but in such a way, that it is usually difficult and often impossible to distinguish what they have actually visited and seen, from that which they have only heard or read of, or relate perhaps merely from conjecture. Very rarely do they mention the modern names of the places, which they thus call only by Scriptural appellations; so that when the same ancient name has a diversity of application, as is often the case, it is only by close attention to minor circumstances, that we can determine what modern place is meant. Thus, for instance, under the name of Shiloh, it is difficult to tell whether a writer is speaking of Neby Samwil, or of one of the various other points which have been assumed as its site. The true site appears to have been visited by no traveller.2

I have made these observations in order to draw the reader's attention to the confusion and discrepancies which prevail among the books of travels in Palestine; and also in order to found upon them this

1) An instance of this is furnished by Dr. Clarke; who is very much disposed to convert the fortress Sânûr, (which he writes Santorri,) between Nâbulus and Jenîn, into the ancient city of Samaria; because he saw no other appropriate site for the latter town upon that route. Yet, as he admits, Maundrell and others had a century before found the name of Sebaste (Samaria), and described its site upon another route. The VOL. II.

14

same is mentioned by Maundeville and William of Baldensel in the 14th century; and also by several other travellers. Clarke's Travels, etc. 4to. Part II. Vol. I. p. 504.

2) These remarks apply particularly to the tract of Brocardus, the travels of Breydenbach, and other like works. Even Cotovicus is not wholly free from the same fault; and Pococke's writings must be used with great caution.

further remark, viz. that if a traveller at the present day is unable to find many of the ancient places mentioned and described by earlier writers, the reason often lies not in his own ill-success; but in the fact, that those writers have described places which they never visited, and which in all probability no longer existed in their day.

As a preparation for our further journies in Palestine, my companion had taken great pains to collect from various quarters the native names of all the places in those parts which we hoped to visit. This practice he had commenced so early as the year 1834, during a journey through Haurân and the northern parts of Syria; and had afterwards continued it with express reference to our proposed investigations in Palestine. In Jerusalem itself, there was frequent opportunity of making the acquaintance of intelligent Sheikhs and other persons from the towns and villages in that and other districts; and they were in general ready to communicate all they knew respecting the places in their own neighbourhood. This mode of obtaining information we preferred to a direct application to the government; not wishing in any way to awaken distrust or risk a denial. The lists of names thus made out, were in some respects more complete than any which the government could have furnished; inasmuch as the latter has to do only with inhabited towns and villages, while our attention was directed in at least as great a degree to the deserted sites and ruined places of which the country is so full. The lists thus obtained were afterwards enlarged and corrected by our own observations and further inquiries; and subsequently revised and copied out by my companion. In this form, although far from complete, they are nevertheless more so than any thing of the kind which has hitherto been attempted in Palestine

and Syria; and by the advice of eminent scholars they are subjoined in the Second Appendix to the present work. They are to be regarded only as the first step towards a collection, which may hereafter become of great importance to biblical geographers.

Our first excursion from Jerusalem was towards the N. E. into a region which, so far as I know, has never been visited by any Frank traveller. We returned on the second day by a more western and better known route.

Our friends had heard, that villages existed in that quarter, bearing names which might be regarded as the Arabic forms of Anathoth, Gibeah, and Bethel; but none of them had ever yet visited these places. They had however become acquainted in Jerusalem with some of the native Christian priests from Taiyibeh, a large village three hours or more N. E. of elBîreh, and from Râm-Allah, another village just west of the latter place. It was therefore proposed that some of our friends should join us in the excursion, in order that while they thus afforded us countenance and aid, they might also return the visits of the priests, and awaken in them an interest for the distribution of books and the diffusion of instruction. The party, as at length made up, consisted of Messrs. Lanneau, Nicolayson, Paxton,' and ourselves; in all six persons, besides one of our servants. We were all on horseback, with an extra mule for the tent and bag

1) The Rev. J. D. Paxton, also an American, resided for nearly two years at Beirût, and has since published a work entitled: Letters on Palestine and Egypt, written during a residence there in the years 1836-7-8. Lexington, Ky. 1839, 8vo. Reprinted Lond. 1839. This gentleman married the widow of Dr. Dodge, a former missionary in Syria; but was not himself

connected with any Mission.-In his Letters, Mr. Paxton makes no allusion to his excursion with us; but introduces the names of the places which he now saw for the first time, into a letter dated Oct. 1836; thus leaving upon the mind of the reader the impression, that he became acquainted with them nearly two years earlier. Lett. XV. p. 169. Lond.