grin. This was the first, and I think the only instance we met with, of a like meanness after a bargain had once been concluded; for however variable and extravagant an Arab may be in his previous demands, yet when an agreement had been actually made, we usually found them faithful to their engagements.

Setting off at once, we returned by our road of last evening to the junction of the two Wadys in the little plain South of Santa Hanneh, half an hour from Beit Jibrîn. Here turning into the more eastern valley at 6 o'clock, we followed it up on the way to Idhna. I know not when I have felt more the excitement of suspense, than while traversing this short distance. A question of some historical moment was depending on the circumstance, whether we reached Idhna at 8 o'clock. If so, our researches after the long lost Eleutheropolis would be crowned with success; if not, we were again afloat, and certain of nothing.

In this valley also there were occasionally traces of an ancient road, skirted by walls which probably enclosed fields. Our general course all the way to Idhna was E. S. E.E. The valley became narrower as we advanced, with green bushy hills on both sides. The hills round about had evidently once been terraced for cultivation; but the tillage is now confined mostly to the bottoms of the vallies. At a quarter past seven, we passed a well in the valley, and the ruins of a village called Beit 'Alâm, on a low mound at our left.

Soon after this we saw a man walking before us with a gun; a suspicious circumstance in these days, when the people had been all disarmed. Sending forward a man to reconnoitre, we found he was a peaceable Fellâh from Dûra in the mountains. The inhabitants of that village, in their quarrels among themselves, had recently employed fire-arms; thereby showing

to the government that they still possessed them, although they had formerly professed to give them all up. In consequence of this, the governors of Gaza, Jerusalem, and Hebron, were now at Dûra, demanding from the inhabitants their arms. Every man was required to bring in a gun; no matter whether he possessed one or not. This poor fellow, who had none, had been searching after one for three days in the plain, and had finally purchased a miserable old thing for sixty Piastres. He was now returning home in order to surrender it to the governors.

At 7h 50', we came to the head of the valley; and here in the midst of a rocky tract of gradual ascent was a large public well. The stones round about it were much worn, by the friction of the ropes in drawing water. It now wanted but ten minutes of 8 o'clock; and as yet nothing was to be seen of Idhna. But as we reached the top of the ascent, the village lay before us, somewhat lower down on the other side; and precisely at 8 o'clock we entered the place and dismounted at the house of the Sheikh. We thus found Idhna to be just two hours, or six Roman miles, from Beit Jibrîn; which is the specified distance of Jedna from Eleutheropolis.

At a later period we visited Beit Nusîb, lying near the other road from Beit Jibrîn to Hebron, not far from Terkûmieh. This latter village is reckoned at two and a half hours from Beit Jibrîn, and Năsîb is apparently a little less distant; corresponding well to the account of Jerome respecting Nezib, that it lay seven Roman miles from Eleutheropolis towards Hebron.

ELEUTHEROPOLIS.

I have thus detailed all the circumstances of direct evidence, which led us to the conviction, that Eleu

theropolis must have been identical with Beit Jibrîn, the ancient Betogabra. The latter was the earlier native appellation, for which (as in so many other cases) the Greek name Eleutheropolis was officially substituted; yet the ancient name maintained its place in the mouths of the people, and the later one at length fell into disuse and was forgotten. An exact parallel is presented by the cases of Lydda, Emmaus, Jerusalem, and several other cities; which after having been for centuries officially known as Diospolis, Nicopolis, and Ælia, afterwards resumed their native names, while the others sunk into oblivion. In these and similar instances, there is indeed historical testimony to the identity of the native and foreign appellations; while in the case of Eleutheropolis and Betogabra, it happens, that no such incidental testimony exists. But on the other hand, as we shall see, there also exists none more direct against the identity; and the accidental silence of history cannot weigh against the mass of positive evidence.

Our conviction of the identity of Eleutheropolis with Beit Jibrîn, was derived solely and exclusively from the specifications of Eusebius and Jerome, respecting the distances of various places from the former, the sites of which we were able to ascertain. These, as we have already seen, were the following:

In respect to these places, it is to be remarked, that the distances specified are not to be regarded as definitely exact, or as having been accurately measured; unless perhaps, in the case of those which might

happen to lie directly upon a great road.

Now such

a road from Eleutheropolis to Nicopolis, let the former have lain where it may, certainly did not pass through Beth-shemesh and Zorah; it ran without doubt among the hills near the plain, and crossing the mouth of Wady es-Surâr, passed along near the mountains to the city in question. At the tenth mile from Eleutheropolis, a traveller would see Beth-shemesh and Zorah on his right; one in the mouth of Wady es-Surâr, and the other on the high hill further North. To Jerusalem there appear to have been two roads. One seems to have followed the Nicopolis road until it approached Wady es-Surâr; and then turning through the hills to or near Beth-shemesh, went up the Sărâr, where we have seen there is still a neglected path; this would pass at or near Jarmuk, which could not well have been seen from the Nicopolis road. The other probably was nearly the same as the present road through the Wady el-Musŭrr; on this Socoh would be visible and not from the former.-From Eleutheropolis to Hebron there must also have been two roads, as there are now from Beit Jibrîn; for from no conceivable position of Eleutheropolis, could a traveller pass by or even see both Jedna and Nezib on one and the same route to Hebron; inasmuch as they both lie among the hills, nearly two hours apart in a direction from North to South, and are not visible from each other.2

These things being premised, and making all due allowance for the merely approximate specifications

1) See pp. 340, 349.

2) There are doubtless also corruptions in the Onomasticon. Thus according to Eusebius, Nezib was nine miles from Eleutheropolis, while Jerome gives it at seven, which appears to be correct.-In respect to Jedna the specification

of six miles rests on the authority of Eusebius; Jerome's article reads as follows: "Jedna, in deserto ab Eleutheropoli lapide pergentibus Chebron." Here "lapide" is without any adjunct, and the word "deserto" should doubtless be read "sexto."

of Eusebius and Jerome, it appears from our routes and examination, as already detailed, that the space actually travelled over by us, in connection with short estimated distances from the first four places, Zorah, Beth-shemesh, Jarmuk, and Socoh, renders it certain, that Eleutheropolis could not have lain at the most more than half an hour further North or further South than Beit Jibrîn.' In like manner, the ascertained distances of Jedna and Nezib show, that it could have lain neither further East nor further West than the same place. Further, we had now traversed the country by five different routes (and later by a sixth) on the North, West, South, and East of Beit Jibrîn, anxiously searching out every trace of former sites; and had found nothing, which with the slightest degree of probability, could be tortured into the site of Eleutheropolis. Indeed, in no other position do all these distances from various known points meet at all; while in Beit Jibrîn they come together of themselves, and all the other circumstances likewise correspond.2 Further, the Itinerary of Antoninus places Eleutheropolis at twenty-four Roman miles from Askelon, which nearly coincides with the true distance of Beit Jibrîn.3

Such is the amount of the direct and positive topographical evidence, in favour of the identity of Eleutheropolis and Beit Jibrîn; and in the absence of collateral historical testimony, I can hardly conceive of a case more strongly supported. Future travellers, by

1) Pages 352, 359.

2) Thus if the site of Eleutheropolis were to be assumed at Kudna, then Socoh becomes less than six, and Jedna more than nine miles distant; the latter besides not then being on any direct road to Hebron. So too of any other position. See more in Note XXXII, at the end of the Volume; where also the vary

ing specifications of the Itinerarium Antonini are considered.

3) See above p. 360. Antonin. Itin. ed. Wess. p. 200. Reland Pal. p. 420. The same Itinerary sets Eleutheropolis at XX Roman miles from Jerusalem, which should probably read XXX; an X having been lost. This would correspond well with the actual distance.