We have yet to consider the measure of fifty stadia ascribed to Hecatæus. We shall not be surprised that this author, who makes the population of Jeru salem amount to more than two millions, about two millions one hundred thousand, should have exaggerated rather than diminished its extent, and that he should have comprised the suburbs or habitations standing without the walls. But what might be correct when applied to the number of the Jews who throng. ed to Jerusalem at the season of the Passover, will by no means hold good respecting the ordinary state of that city. Moreover, if we calculate these fifty stadia by the standard of the last mentioned stadium, which seems the most suitable, the amount will not be more than 2,700 fathoms. Thus this result will not exceed by more than 100 fathoms that which is given by the scale of M. Deshayes's plan.

Confining ourselves to what is most positive in this body of facts, it is evident that the utmost circumference of Jerusalem comprehended no more than about 2,550 fathoms. Not only is this ascertained by actual and positive measurement, but the testimony of antiquity on the subject is precise. In consequence of this measurement, we know that the greatest space occupied by that city, or its length, amounted to no more than about 950 fathoms, and its breadth to about half as much. Its area cannot be computed to exceed one sixth of Paris, admitting into this area none of the suburbs situated without the gates. For the rest, it would not perhaps be correct to infer, from this comparison, a proportionate reduction of the ordinary number of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. With the exception of the space occupied by the Temple, which also had its inhabitants the city of Jerusalem might have been more equally built in every part than a city like Paris, which contains more spacious houses and more extensive gardens, than we can well suppose to have existed in ancient Jerusalem, and which to gether would form the area of a large town.

V-PRECEDING OPINIONS RESPECTING THE Extent of JERUSALEM,

The measure of the area of Jerusalem being deduced from a comparison of the ground itself, with all and each of the ancient measures that are given, it may not be amiss to consider how widely some writers had deviated from the truth in regard to this subject. Villalpando has asserted that the thirty-three stadia assigned by Josephus, referred to the extent of Sion alone, exclusively of the rest of the city. I have calculated that, according to this hypothesis, the circumference of Jerusalem would, in the same proportion, amount to 75 stadia; and without taking any other standard for the stadium than that which seems appropriate to the thirty-three stadia in question, this calculation will give 5,700 fathoms. It will be still worse if we make no distinction of stadia, and employ the ordinary standard, especially as the others have hitherto been but little known. This standard will swell the amount to 7,200 fathoms, which is almost triple the real measure. Now I would ask if the disposition of the ground, and the measure of space adapted to it, can admit of an extent any thing like this calculation? Can we increase the site of Sion? Are we not obstructed on the one hand by the brook Cedron, and on the other by Calvary! This opinion is moreo ver confuted, as the learned and judicious Reland has observed, by Josephus, when he says that the circumference of the lines with which Titus invested all Je

rusalem was thirty-nine stadia. In an accurate calculation of the extent of this eity, we are not obliged to reeur to the expedient usually adopted, when the measures given by the ancients are irreconcilable with an hypothesis, which is to assert that there is an error in one of the figures of the text.

Father Lami, in his great work De Sancta Civitate et Templo, fixes the measure of the circumference of Jerusalem at sixty stadia; founding his calculation on the supposition that the walls contained one hundred and twenty towers, each of which, with its curtain, occupied half a stadium, This number of cubits, from tower to tower, is, to be sure, borrowed from Josephus; but as this same historian speaks of one hundred and sixty-four towers, distributed among three different walls; as the separation of Sion from Acra is comprehended in the extent of these walls; as Acra was divided by an inner wall, and was likewise separated from Bezetha; it is difficult to build any thing positive on such a foundation, and this point would always be involved in great uncertainty, if even the actual measure of the spaces threw no obstacle in the way. It may further be observed, that the learned author whom we have quoted is not consistent, as will be seen from a comparison of his calculation with the plan he has given of Jerusalem. According to all appearance, the stadia which he employs are the ordinary stadia, since he gives no definition of more than one kind of stadium in the Treatise on Measures prefixed to his work. By this standard the circumference of Jerusalem, as calculated by father Lami, amounts to 5,660 fathoms. Now, according to the plan to which I have alluded, the circumference of Jerusalem is to the sides of the square of the Temple as forty-one to two; and the scale which is wanting in this plan is supplied by that with which the author has accompained his particular ground plan of the Temple, the sides of which are estimated at about 1,120 French feet. Consequently the circumference of the city in the plan cannot amount to more than about 23,000 feet, or 3,830 odd fathoms, which are equivalent to only 41 stadia at most. If we morever consider that father Lami's plan exhibits a sort of perspective, and that the quarter of the Temple is thrown into the back ground, whence it must follow that what is seen in the fore ground occupies less space, this would of course occasion a still greater reduction in the calculation of the circumference. M. Deshayes's plan was given to father Lami, and the measure taken on the spot by Maundrell had been published. How happens it that scholars are desirous of owing all to their own researches, and are unwilling to adopt any thing but what immediately belongs to the species of erudition which is their peculiar province ?

These observations on two celebrated authors, and precisely those two that have bestowed the greatest learning and most pains on the illustration of ancient Jerusalem, justify in my opinion the assertion made in the preamble to this memoir, that the extent of this city had not hitherto been determined with any kind of precision, and that it had in particular been exceedingly exagerated,

VI MEASURE OF THE EXTENT OF THE TEMPLE.

Maundrell, who has given the length and breadth of the area of the celebra ted mosque, which occupies the site of the Temple, does not seem to have made just distinction between those two spaces, to judge from the plan of M. Deshayes. He makes the length 570 of his paces, which, according to the standard

followed by him in regard to the circumference, would make 513 English yards, or 240 French fathoms. We find, however, only about 215 on the plan. The error may have proceeded, at least in part, from the circumstance that Maundrell judged the angle of this site nearer to the gate called St. Stephen's; but this error is of no kind of consequence in regard to the circumference of the city= for, in Maundrell's measure the part of this circumference comprehended between the gate above-mentioned and the south-west angle of the city, which is also the south-west corner of the site of the mosque, is found to consist of 620 of that traveller's paces, which, according to his calculation, make 558 English yards, or 272 French fathoms, wanting a few inches. Now the scale of the plan gives 265 fathoms, which are equivalent to about 260, if we strictly adhere to the proportion ascertained to exist between this scale and Maundrell's measure.

In the extracts made from the Oriental Geographers by the abbé Renaudot, the manuscript of which is in my possession, the length of the site of the mosque of Jerusalem is stated at 794 cubits. It is Arabian cubits that are here meant That our attention may not be diverted from our present object by the particular discussion which this cubit would require, I shall at present confine myself to the general result; the details leading to it, and demonstrating its accuracy, shall form the subject of a separate article, to follow the Hebrew measures, Let it here suffice to remark that, an equivocal method of ascertaining the cubit in use among the Arabs, is to deduce it from the Arabic mile. This mile consisted of 4,000 cubits; and as, according to the measure of the earth taken by order of the caliph Al Mamoun, the mile, thus composed, is computed at the rate of 56 2-3 to a degree; it follows that this mile is equivalent to about 1006 fathoms, taking the degree at 57,000 fathoms, to avoid entering into any nice distinctions on the subject of degrees. A thousand Arabian cubits are therefore equal to 250 fathoms, and nine feet more, which we will not here take into the account and if we suppose in round numbers, 800 fathoms instead of 794, the result is 200 fathoms good measure. Thus the calculation of 215 fathoms, deduced from the plan of Jerusalem represented in all these circumstances, is preferable to a higer estimate.

The length of the site of the mosque is, according to Maundrell, 370 paces, or 156 fathoms four feet and a half. Now the measurement of the plan gives about 172. It is here remarkable that Maundrell's measure loses, in breadth," the greater part of what is gained in length. Hence it may be concluded that the want of precision in these measures consists not so much in their general amount as in their distribution. In all probability edifices contiguous to the area of the mosque in the interior of the city have rendered it much more difficult to take its circumference with accuracy than that of the city. Maundrell himself acknowledges that his measure is deduced from a calculation made on the outside; and the details into which we could not avoid entering on this subject will show, that our investigation is conducted with reference to all the data that could be procured, there is no dissimulation or contrivance in our account.

The mosque which has succeeded the Temple is held in extraordinary veneration by the Mahometans. Omar, having taken Jerusalem in the 15th year of the Hegira (A. D. 637,) laid the foundation of this mosque, which was greatly embellished by Abd el Malek, the son of Mervan. The Mahometans have carried their respect for this place to such a length as to place it on a level with their sanctuary at Mecca; calling it Alacsa, which significs extremum, or ulterius,

in contradistinction to that sanctuary: and according to all appearance they have made a particular point of enclosing in its area the whole site of the Jewish Temple-totum antiqui Sacri fundum, says Golius in his learned notes on the astronomy of Alferganes. Phocas, whom I have already quoted, and who wrote in the 12th century, is precisely of the same opinion, that the whole space surrounding the mosque is the ancient area of the Temple ; παλαιον τε μεγάλε vax Sandov. Though this Temple had been destroyed, it was not possible but that vestiges should exist, that at least traces might be discovered of those prodigions works erected to raise the sides of the Temple and its entire area to a level with the ground of the Temple itself situated on the summit of Mount Moria. The four sides forming the circumference of the Temple were turned towards the four cardinal points; and it was the intention that the entrance of the Temple should be exposed to the rising sun, in placing the Sancta Sanctorum at the opposite side. In this conformity with the arrangement of the taber. nacle had been studied, and these circumstances are liable to no difficulties. Now the same disposition of the four fronts is still remarked in the area of the mosque of Jerusalem, the sides of which correspond within thirteen or fourteen degrees, with the four quarters of the compass placed on the plan of M. Deshayes: Supposing even that the position of this compass is dependant on the due northern polarity of the needle, and that allowance ought to be made for a western declination; that, moreover, this position might not be perfectly accurate; the consequence would be a still greater degree of precision in the correspondence of this area with the quarters of the compass. We find in Sandys, an English traveller, a small plan of Jerusalem, which, though far inferior in merit to that of M. Deshayes, nevertheless derives great advantage from the general confor mity with this plan; and according to the points of the compass marked on Sandys's plan, the faces of the square of the Temple corresponds exactly with the letters N. S. E. W.

It would appear that the sides of the Jewish Temple were perfectly equal, and formed a more regular square than the site of the present Mahometan mosque. It is generally admitted that Ezekiel's measure gives 500 cubits to each of the sides. Though in the Hebrew we find reeds for cubits, and in the Vulgate calamos for cubitos, the mistake is obvious, especially as the calamus comprehended not less than six cubits; and besides, the Greek version, executed apparently from a correct text, says expressly, Taxes TTAKOOINS. Rabbi Jehuda, the author of the Misna, and who collected the traditions of the Jews respecting the Temple, at a period not very remote from its destruction (for he lived during the reign of Antoninus Pius) agrees in this point, in his particular treatise, entitled Middoth, or the Measure. It cannot then be doubted that such was in reality the extent of the Temple.

We have a second observation to make, which is, that this measure, so far from answering to the length, is not equal even to the breadth, or the shortest side of the area of the mosque, however disposed we may be to give to the cubit its utmost dimension. Ezekiel, indeed, would lead us to suppose this measure of a cubit rather under than over-rated, as he tells the Jewish captives at Baby. lon (xl. 5, and xliii. 13) that, in the construction of a new Temple, in the reestablishment of the altar, they are to employ a cubit, comprehending a cubit and a hand-breadth : 1 x T anxios xai warts, says the Greek version, in cubito cubiti et palmi. Several scholars, and among others father Lami, have

imagined that the Hebrew cubit might be the same, or nearly the same mea sure as the derah or Egyptian cubit, the use of which, in the measure of the inundation of the Nile, must have preserved its original length without alteration, and rendered it invariable notwithstanding the changes of rulers. Greaves, an English mathematician, and Cumberland, bishop of Peterborough, find, ia the application of the derah, in several chambers of the Great Pyramid, where this measure is used complete and agrees without any fraction, a proof of its high antiquity. It is, moreover, extremely probable that the Israelites, who be came a people merely by the multiplication of a single family, during their abode in Egypt and who were even employed in the public works of that country, borrowed the measures made use of in those works. Prior to this period, the patriarchs of their race, never building, and having even no stationary possessions, it is not likely that they should have for their own use particular measures, fixed and regulated with great precision by certain standards, since things of this kind originated only in the necessity for them. Moses, instructed in all the learning of the Egyptians, must necessarily have derived from their mathematics whatever was connected with it in the sciences which he had acquired. Be this as it may, a circumstance beyond all doubt in the employment of the derah is, that a greater length cannot be given to what is denominated the cubit. Greaves having taken the measure of the derah on the Nilometer of Cairo, has made a comparison between it and the English foot; and supposing this foot to be divided into 1,000 parts, the derah makes 1834 such parts. From the comparison of the English and French foot, by which it appears that the English foot is longer by one sixth of a line than it had before been reckoned, the derah is equivalent to twenty inches and a half good measure of the French foot. Now 500 cubits of the measure of the derah make 10,250 inches, equal to 854 feet, or 42 fathoms, 2 feet. Thus there was just reason to assert that the measure of the Temple is inferior to the area of the mosque; since that measure is not equal to the smallest of the dimensions of this area, or its breadth. How would it be if we were to refuse to the Hebrew cubit, considered strictly as a cubit, the same length as a derah has?

However, when we reflect that the area of the summit of Mount Moria has been made as extensive as it is by dint of art, we can scarcely persuade ourselves that an addition was made in this particular to the labours of the Jewish people, -labours which at different times took up several centuries, as Josephus has remarked. The octagonal building of the mosque being comprehended in the space of about 45 fathoms, according to the scale of the plan; and the kind of inner cloister which surrounds this mosque being about 100 fathoms square; it cannot be presumed that the Mahometans had any motive for extending the outer court beyond the limits which the Jews had been enabled to give it, only by surmounting nature. From these considerations there is every reason to presume that the whole of the space assigned to the mosque and its dependen. cies once belonged to the Temple; and the Mahometan superstition might probably have determined to lose no part of this area, without feeling any de sire to extend it.

Father Lami, in the distribution of the parts of the Temple, distinguishing and separating the Atrium Gentium from that of the Israelites in which respect he differs from Villalpando, judged that this Atrium of the Gentiles was without the place measured by Ezekiel. Now, it appears that the discussions on