The present entrance into the precincts of the Hospital is near the western end of the northern side. Within, a spacious plateau meets the eye, formed by the earth which has accumulated at different periods; in the north-east corner is a very ruinous building; on the east it is bounded by the vaults of the bazaars below; these are very dilapidated and covered by a luxuriant vegetation of creeping plants, which daily makes the ruin worse; on the south are the fallen terrace-roofs of the ancient halls mentioned above; in the south-west corner stand the walls of the Convent of S. John; on the west, the low walls dividing it from the little gardens, terraces, and Mohammedan houses; and on the north, what we have already described. The plateau itself, on which there are no houses, belongs to the Greek Convent of S. Constantine; the building on the north-east is the property of the Governor, and in 1858 would have been sold to the Greeks or the Armenians, if M. Edmond de Barrère, the French Consul, had not actively interposed to prevent it, in the hope that it might one day be restored, if not to the knights of Malta, at least to France. Let us then enter it.

Its plan is that of a poor convent with an inner court, round which still runs a cloister on the level of the ground; though it has been transformed by the tanners, who have made the space between each pair of pillars into shops. The upper floor of the cloister is perfect, with the cells within. Opening into it on the south side is a long hall, little injured, which was probably the refectory; and parallel to this are two smaller chambers, in a tottering condition[452]. On the north of the convent[453] are some ruins of a church, sufficiently perfect to give us an idea of its ancient form. It had three apses at the east end; the southern of these is still standing; the fragments of the others are nearly covered by heaps of earth, as are portions of the side walls. We can ascertain its original length from a part of the west wall, which is still standing, though enclosed in a mass of Arab cottages, against which are the remains of two piers with their bases perfect. From these ruins I can infer that the church was divided into a nave with two side aisles. I consider the remains, both of the convent and of the church, to be the work of the Amalfi merchants. Their architecture, proportions, and masonry are too contracted and insignificant to be of the period of the Crusaders, who however undoubtedly built the great entrance gateway, and perhaps restored the church; this latter point, however, cannot easily be determined, as the building is in such a ruined condition. Close to the apse still standing is a door, leading into a long dark chamber, which is exhibited as the prison in which S. Peter was confined by Herod Agrippa I. The tradition is worthless, and not so old as the time of the Crusaders; who, on their entry into Jerusalem, found on Mount Sion a church dedicated to the imprisonment of S. Peter, standing on the supposed site of the prison. The place may be considered to be the sacristy of the ancient church, which communicated with the convent. At the present time there are some richly ornamented capitals within it of excellent workmanship, together with some cornices; all however are out of their proper places, being either built into the walls or lying on the ground.

These ruins belong to the church of S. Mary the Great. All authors previous to the fifteenth century are unanimous on this point. John of Würtzburg[454], who visited Jerusalem in the second half of the twelfth century, states that "near the Church of the Hospital of S. John is a nunnery in honour of the Virgin, almost close to the end of the church; it is called S. Mary the Great." This, formerly the monastery, was now inhabited by the Sisters Hospitaler under the charge of an Abbess, and was a dependency of the Grand Master of the Order. Agnes was the foundress, as I have already said; and she was succeeded by other ladies of rank: two of whom are mentioned by William of Tyre[455], one called Sibylla, the other Stephania, a daughter of Jocelin (Senior) Count of Edessa. The ruins of S. Mary the Great have been preserved because Saladin founded a hospital there, which he richly endowed; but its revenues are now exhausted. It is not fifty years, since a philanthropic Mohammedan of Jerusalem endeavoured to re-establish the charitable foundations of Saladin, but the managers have again squandered the property. It is now quite deserted and has become a receptacle of filth, waiting every day to be applied to some other purpose.

Let us now look for the position of the Hospital, which is well defined[456]. It occupied a piece of land bounded on the north by the court in front of the door of the Holy Sepulchre and by Palmers Street[457], formerly the Tan-yard Street; on the west by Patriarch Street, or the Christian bazaar; and on the east and south by a small street which, beginning from Palmers Street, opposite to the Sepulchre, ran southward between the convent of S. Mary the Great and the Hospital, and turning to the west led into Patriarch Street[458]. The principal buildings, with the church, were erected between A.D. 1130 and 1140, under the superintendence of Raymond of Puy, Grand Master of the Hospital. William of Tyre relates that they were so large, especially those opposite to the door of the Church of the Sepulchre, that they surpassed it in magnificence; besides which they had a large peal of bells, whose sound drowned the voice of the Patriarch when he was preaching on the Calvary. No part of these splendid buildings now remains perfect; all are a mass of ruins, or covered with earth and Arab cottages. Sir John Maundeville, who visited Jerusalem A.D. 1322, found the hospital still standing, and states that it was supported by 124 columns of stone and 54 pilasters built into the wall[459]. I was therefore very anxious to examine the ground in the hope of finding some remains of these. I carried on excavations for many days in various directions: I forced my way with great difficulty from vault to vault; but found neither fragments of columns nor capitals, only very many pilasters. I discovered a large crypt by chance; for the ground gave way under my feet, and I fell into it; but it was so filled with earth that I could not explore it. When the Greeks remove the ruins in order to build upon this site, it may be possible to discover some remains of the ancient walls, and perhaps to make out something about its arrangement.

CHAPTER V.

The Via Dolorosa is the street our Saviour is supposed to have passed along on his road from the Prætorium to Calvary. The following is the course assigned to it by the only tradition which mentions it. It begins in the street which passes by the northern side of the barrack of the Haram[460], and goes westward till it meets the central valley (Tyropœon), which it follows for a short distance southward; it then turns along the first street to the west, and after going through the Judgement Gate, must have again turned to the south a short distance beyond it, (opposite to the little street running to the north,) in order to reach the Church of the Resurrection, just at the north-east angle inside the Chapel of S. Helena. The last part of its course, if this were its course, is now entirely covered by the buildings of the Greek Convent of S. Charalampes. The present Via Dolorosa is divided into fourteen stations: these are visited with religious care by pilgrims, because they are asserted to be the very places at which the last scenes of the Passion of Christ were enacted. They are as follows:

(i). Prætorium of Pilate (Barrack of the Haram); Jesus condemned to death.

(ii). Site of the 'scala sancta' (near to the north-east corner of the Barrack); Jesus given His Cross to bear.

(iii). A column lying on the ground south of the Austrian hospice (at the north-west corner of the Armenian Catholics' property); Jesus falls the first time.

(iv). South-west corner of the same property (a little street leading to the house of the Governor of the city); Jesus meets His mother.

(v). A stone built into the south wall of the street going up to the Judgement Gate; Simon the Cyrenian assists Jesus to bear the Cross.

(vi). The house of Veronica (in the above street); Veronica wipes the face of Jesus.

(vii). The Judgement Gate; Jesus falls the second time.

(viii). A small aperture in the wall of the Greek Convent of S. Charalampes (west of the above gate); marking the spot where Jesus beheld the women weeping.

(ix). A column lying on the ground by the Copts' convent (at the north-east corner of the Church of the Resurrection); Jesus falls the third time.

(x). A mark on the pavement at the south side of the platform of the Calvary (before the window opposite to the Chapel of the Agony); Jesus stripped of his garments.

(xi). A small square of mosaic work before the Latin altar (also in the south part); Jesus nailed to the Cross.

(xii). A hole at the east end of the north side of the platform of the Calvary, beneath the Greek altar; Place where the Cross was erected. Death of Jesus.

(xiii). In front of the last station (six feet from the Greek altar); Jesus taken down from the Cross.

(xiv). Sepulchre of Jesus Christ, under the middle of the great dome.

This is the description of the stations given by the Latins; but the Greeks and Armenians do not agree with them about all the places; and I attach importance to this fact, since the Greeks have lived in the city for the longest time; and this difference of opinion on their part very much diminishes the value of the tradition. I said that the sole authority for the Via Dolorosa was tradition; because neither the Bible, nor Josephus, nor the configuration of the ground, afford us any positive data to aid in identifying the present road with that trodden by our Saviour on His way to Calvary; and the tradition is of very little weight, as I will presently shew.

Let us then consider in detail the places mentioned above. The Prætorium of Pilate is noticed by the Evangelists, who, however, do not say exactly where it was situated. However, with the help of Josephus I have been able to ascertain its position. In the third chapter[461] I shewed that the tower Antonia occupied the north-west corner of the Haram[462], and that the rock which rises high in the south wall of the barrack was the north side of that fortress. Hence the Prætorium, which was inside the tower[463], cannot be identified with the barrack, which stretches across the greater part of the valley that formerly defended the Temple on the north, and divided it from Bezetha[464]; and consequently is outside the Antonia, and so cannot be on the site of the Prætorium. This therefore I consider to have stood on the surface of rock now exposed at the north-west corner inside the Haram wall[465]. The tradition relating to the Prætorium is very ancient. The Pilgrim of Bordeaux, A.D. 333, says, in his description of the city: "As you go from Sion to the Neapolitan gate, on the right in the valley below are walls where was once the palace of Pontius Pilate." I think that these walls were founded, at least in part, on the rock exposed in the south side of the present barrack, or else he would not have been able to see them; and since this was the north side of the tower Antonia, it is quite possible that they belonged to the Prætorium, and perhaps the projecting rock was mistaken for walls; a thing which is not improbable, since S. Cyril[466] (in the fourth century) in mentioning the Prætorium states that 'it is now laid waste.' Antoninus of Piacenza found there (in the seventh century) a church dedicated to S. Sophia[467], but whether this was built by S. Helena or Justinian I do not know, since it is not mentioned by Eusebius or Procopius. It is more probably the work of the Emperor, who erected other buildings of this kind on Moriah, while the former paid no particular attention to the place. A historian of the first Crusade writes as follows[468]: "The Flagellation and the Coronation (with thorns) of Jesus Christ, within the city, receive the reverence of the faithful ... but it is now not easy to ascertain their true positions; because, above all other reasons, the whole city has been so often destroyed and even razed." It follows then from this passage that the Christians, about eight centuries ago, had doubts of the truth of the tradition. John of Würtzburg, and other authors of the twelfth century, place the Prætorium on Mount Sion, which shews that the traditions at that time were uncertain and confused. From the end of the twelfth century all have agreed in recognizing the barrack as its site. The author of the Citez de Jherusalem[469] clearly indicates its present position: "A little in advance of this street (that of Jehoshaphat, for so the street leading to S. Mary's Gate was then called) was the house of Pilate. On the left hand in front of this house was a gate leading up to the Temple." Quaresmius[470] states that in his day the remains of a church built on the Prætorium were to be seen, consisting of the choir and some of the side-chapels with traces of paintings. Of this only a few fragments now remain in an inner court of the barrack.

From these data it follows that the site of the Prætorium has been known since the fourth century, and that no doubt by tradition; but as there was a great accumulation of ruins upon the place, the position could only be fixed by what remained uninjured, namely the rock; and it might very easily happen that in course of time it should be placed to the south instead of the north of this mark. My opinion as to the position is supported by Josephus, and is not contradicted by the expressions in the authors before the Crusades; for the 'standing walls' could only be on the rock, and the 'waste place' of S. Cyril within the north-west angle of the Haram.

An ancient chapel within the barrack is pointed out as the spot where Jesus was crowned with thorns; possibly it was originally dedicated to the Passion of the Redeemer. Its plan is a square, the length of a side being about 16 feet; above it rises an octagonal dome, supported by a drum of the same shape. Four sides (alternate) of the octagon are replaced in the lower part by small pointed arches, in order to adapt this form of the drum to the square plan of the building. A pointed doorway in the south wall leads into a small square chapel, with a niche on each side. The arrangement of the arches, the form, and the ornamentation of the building, resemble Roman architecture; but the work shews it to be of the period of the Crusades. Quaresmius[471] is the first to mention this chapel; no notice of it occurring in any author anterior to his time. It is now used as a storehouse of barley for the artillery-horses.

Turning to the east on leaving the barrack, we find in its north wall a doorway built up; half of which is Saracenic work in red and white stone. Through it our Lord is believed to have left the Prætorium; and the staircase which was transported to the Church of S. John Lateran at Rome is said to have been the very one by which he descended. When I examined this door at the end of 1854, its lowest part was two feet above the level of the street, having a semicircular step built into the pavement, which was pointed out as a fragment of the sacred staircase. I was surprised that the Christians had not taken care to remove it; especially as they had had an opportunity when the barrack was built by Ibrahim Pasha, who would have readily granted their request. In 1857 the military commandant constructed a raised footpath (one foot high) along by the barrack-wall, and the step was covered up without any one making the slightest attempt to preserve it. The tradition about this place is very untrustworthy; the configuration of the ground does not confirm it, and the Bible does not mention that our Lord ascended or descended any staircase. The present street runs entirely over accumulated rubbish, which at this point is 16 feet thick above the old level of the valley, so that the door must at that time have had a flight of at least 28 steps to form a communication with the bottom of the valley; and the lowest part of the door itself is 15 feet below the level of the inner court of the barrack, which would require 25 steps more; so that altogether there must have been some 53 steps in all. This would not be an unlikely approach to a barrack, but it is most improbable that the Antonia would have had such a weak point in its defences on the most important side as this stone staircase would have been. The valley which divided Moriah from Bezetha has been entirely overlooked by the believers in the 'Scala sancta.' Again, it is well known that the Prætorium was in the interior of the Antonia; how then could this door be in the Prætorium? If the Antonia be placed outside the north-west corner of the Haram, then the Prætorium would have been in the valley, and the fortress could not have been defended on the north, in the way Josephus says it was; and if (as I think) it be placed inside the enclosure, then the gate and staircase could never have occupied the positions now assigned to them. Again, we are told that all this part of the city was utterly destroyed; therefore the Prætorium too must have been swept away, and its ruins have helped to fill up the valley. In fact, the door now shewn is only a fragment of some work of the time of Saladin or Solyman.

Nearly opposite to the door of the 'Scala sancta' is a little opening with an iron grate; this is the entrance to the Chapel of the Flagellation; and beneath the altar in the middle they point out the exact place where the Redeemer was bound to a column to be scourged. Here Quaresmius[472] saw a small but handsome and well-preserved chapel, which had been used as a stable by Mustafa Bey, son of the Governor of the city. Abbé Mariti, who visited it A.D. 1767, says[473], that he saw "a large square hall, covered by a high vaulted roof; the façade resembled that of a church or oratory, and though the walls were very black, traces of pictures could still be discerned on them. They assert that the Saviour was scourged on this spot, but I do not see on what grounds. As this building is in a way connected with the Prætorium, many have given credence to this tradition; though, as I believe, it is only founded on the reverence felt by the Christians for that chamber, which no doubt induced them to build there a chapel in memory of the Flagellation. Many miracles are said to have been performed here. The people of Jerusalem, both Christian and Mohammedan, relate stories about them, which remind us of the mediæval legends. The Mohammedans have converted the place into a stable." The above shews that the tradition itself is not ancient. The Franciscan monks relate that the chapel and the adjoining land, occupied by the hospice, were given to them by Ibrahim Pasha, and that they restored and enlarged the chapel in 1839, aided by the liberality of Maximilian, Duke of Bavaria; but that the expense of laying the foundations was very great, as they were extremely deep, especially on the south side. The place therefore now pointed out beneath the altar cannot be the exact spot where our Saviour stood, because of the great quantity of earth above the rock. How, too, can this site for the Flagellation be reconciled with the position of the 'Scala sancta' or of the Prætorium? It is quite impossible that they can have been connected together in former times, because of the above-named valley. The size also of the tower Antonia is an obstacle, for each of its sides was only half a stadium, whereas, if we accept the traditional site for the Flagellation, the Prætorium alone must have been nearly of that size. The present chapel is dedicated to the Flagellation, and is in no way remarkable: the few remains of antiquity it possesses have been covered over with whitewash, excepting some capitals built into the side walls, which appear to be Roman work.

Quitting the above place and following the road westward, we arrive at the arch of the 'Ecce Homo,' called at the time of the Crusades the 'Porta Dolorosa[474].' It is so named because it is believed that from it our Lord was shewn to the people by Pilate[475]. I have already proved[476] that the arch is much too modern to admit of this being the case; and if it were so, it seems impossible that the place should have been passed over in silence by Eusebius at the time of the Empress Helena, and by other authors after him, like Antoninus of Piacenza, Willibald, and Bernard the Monk. How is it that the writers before the time of the Crusades do not mention it? Had there been any tradition of the kind, it would never have been omitted (at least if they believed in it): so that it seems certain that the belief sprung up during the Crusades, the origin of it, no doubt, being that the arch was at first regarded as dedicated to the Passion of Christ. I have already stated, and now repeat it, that, for military reasons, the Jews would never have allowed this arch to stand during the siege, and that if they had, it would not have escaped the Romans. An author of the present day has attempted to interpret the letters carved on two stones in the north pilaster on the west side; but with regard to that, I will quote the words of the Abbé Mariti[477]. "They have assured me that about sixty years ago (i.e. before 1767) these words were read TOL...TO..., and at a still earlier period TOLLE TOLLE CRUCIFIGE EUM. Others assert that they have read thus TO. C. X. For my own part I have only been able to make out a single O in a clear Roman character; but the stones on which the letters are carved are so much injured that they will soon crumble away, and thus put a stop to all conjectures." As then only one letter could be deciphered at the time of Abbé Mariti, I hope to be believed when I say that even this is now indistinct. But even if the inscription was rightly read as above, that is no proof that the arch was standing in our Lord's life-time; it establishes no more than that some one carved the inscription in remembrance of an event which unquestionably happened in the vicinity.

On some high ground to the north of the arch of the 'Ecce Homo' are a ruinous mosque and a minaret, which are approached by the little street running along the east side of the new buildings of the Daughters of Sion; this, according to tradition, is the site of the palace of Herod Antipas, to which Pilate sent our Lord to be judged by the Tetrarch of Galilee[478]. I have carried on many excavations in order to examine this spot, and have discovered stones of the Herodian period in the lower parts of the walls, besides others scattered about among the ruins, or built into the masonry, and therefore think that this is really the site of the palace; and that it must be the place from which Antigonus went to visit his brother Aristobulus by the way of the subterranean passage, Strato's tower, in which he was murdered[479]. It appears probable that a church was erected here during the Latin kingdom, but it has been so much altered that now it can hardly be recognized. No writer before or after the Crusades mentions it, but the remains, and their position with reference to the subterranean passage and the Antonia, induce me to believe the tradition.

Returning to the arch, and going along the street westward as far as the central valley, we come on the south side to the Station of the First Fall of Christ. The Evangelists make no mention of any falls; but, from reading their narrative, we may well suppose that, worn by the sorrow and agony of that night, He fell many times: still to the faithful heart and thoughtful mind all additions to the sublimity of the Gospel narrative are offensive, while they cannot be instructive to the man in whom these qualities are wanting.

Some yards from this spot, rather to the west, are the ruins of a church, perhaps of the date of the Crusades; said to be on the spot where the Virgin Mary swooned at the sight of her Son's sufferings; to record which a chapel was erected, bearing the name Chapel of the Virgin's Swoon. This had already been destroyed in the time of Quaresmius; but it appears that afterwards the Mohammedans repaired it, converting it into a mosque. The upper part has again fallen to ruin; in the lower is the Agency of the Austrian Lloyd.

Following the street southward from the Station of the First Fall, we come to the spot pointed out as the place where the Virgin Mary met Jesus. There is no mention of this circumstance in the Evangelists; it is therefore only a tradition; and how can it be true of a place in a street which has only existed a few centuries (as is shewn by the houses on each side), and runs over a mass of ruins? Moreover, in this direction the Roman armies under Pompeius, and again under Titus, made their attacks on the Temple; it is therefore very improbable that after the time of the latter there would be any traces of a street left. When Hadrian rebuilt the city he set up idols in the principal sacred places to insult the Jews and Christians; and we may therefore believe that, in laying out the streets afresh, he would have swept away every trace of the tradition, if any had then existed. Close to the station, on the south, is a great pointed arch with delicately executed details, supported by two well-built piers. It dates from the Crusades, and very probably was the entrance to some religious building, erected to commemorate one of the events of the Passion; or perhaps a convent may have been at this place. Arab houses are built on each side of it facing the street, so that nothing can be made out there. I entered these to see if I could ascertain anything, but my examination produced little result, because an Arab wall completely masks it; while a number of small longitudinal and transverse party-walls, all of Arab work, have entirely transformed the appearance of the place. However, in these I found some polished stones, and fragments of ornaments, with mutilated capitals and broken columns; all proofs of the existence of a building of the time of the Crusades. Perhaps a nunnery[480], dedicated to S. John, once stood on this spot, belonging to the Benedictines of Bethany, and used by them as a refuge in time of war. Here the guides not unfrequently point out the house of the beggar Lazarus, opposite to the arch; and also shew the palace of the wicked Dives, at a little distance to the south in the same street. This is a house built of different coloured stones. These 'Jerusalem antiquarians' have converted the parable into a historic fact, and so endeavoured to preserve the traces of the dwellings! I suppose they think that the poor men "full of sores" were of more importance in former times than now. There are still numbers of lepers, who, from morning to evening, wait outside the Jaffa Gate to beg; and many give them an alms, but who now ever bestows a second thought on them, or would remember where they lived? The 'palace of Dives' is a handsome building of the sixteenth century, erected by the liberality of Solyman for a hospital. It is still used for the same purpose by the soldiers belonging to the garrison; but if not soon repaired, it will share the usual fate of Mohammedan government property, and fall into ruins.

The Evangelists tell us that Simon the Cyrenian aided our Lord in bearing His Cross, but do not mention the place where he encountered Him[481]. It very probably was near the present Station, or a little to the south of it, as he no doubt entered the city from the country by the North Gate or Gate of Ephraim (now the Damascus Gate). A small stone built into a modern Arab wall marks the place. We must, however, remember that this street runs upon a mass of rubbish 17 feet thick, as I discovered during the repairs of the sewer; so that the actual site of the meeting is covered up. This remark also applies to the next station. The Mohammedans and Jews are wont to throw dirt at the stone, when they see Christians kneeling before it, so that one frequently finds it necessary to make the fanatics undo their work, reminding the former that Isa (Jesus) was one of their prophets, and the latter that it is no longer the time to renew the ancient scenes of persecution. I mention this to shew how serious quarrels frequently arise in Jerusalem, which are not appeased without much difficulty.

The Evangelists make no mention of Veronica. Much has been written upon this point: some considering her to be the sick woman who was healed by touching the hem of the Saviour's garment[482]; others, a lady of noble birth named Berenice, whose name was changed to Veronica after she became a follower of Christ; deriving the word from Vera-icon (true image)! The tradition of Veronica and the Holy Napkin dates from a very early period in the history of Christianity; as do the different Holy Napkins, which are in existence in various places. In 1854 the walls (Arab work) of the House of Veronica were in a ruinous condition, and were entirely rebuilt by the Mohammedan owner. I then discovered that its foundations rested on made ground, so that they were of no very great age. On digging down for the rock, to lay the new foundations, the workmen came upon large stones, which I consider to be the remains of the second wall of the city, not of any former House of Veronica.

Further on the street is arched over, and in the side-walls are remains of ancient masonry. Here some place the House of the Wandering Jew! This tradition however (or rather legend) is not accepted by the Christians of Jerusalem. The number of stones of ancient Jewish workmanship in the lower parts of the wall and inside the buildings on each side, and the position in the line of the second wall, in its course from the Antonia across the Tyropœon, lead me to think that the Gate of Ephraim formerly stood exactly on this spot. The pointed arches in the doors half buried in the accumulated earth seem to shew that some building occupied this site in the time of the Crusades.

Tradition asserts that the sentence of death was affixed to the Judgement Gate, by which the condemned criminal went out on his way to execution, and that as our Lord passed by here He fell the second time. Adrichomius holds that the name is derived from its being the place where the Sanhedrim assembled to pronounce sentence, but he gives no reason for their meeting there rather than in any other place. I consider that probably it was called the Gate of Ephraim[483] previous to the building of Herod's wall, and that the name was afterwards changed. The Evangelists make no mention either of it or of the second fall of Christ.

Our Lord's meeting with the 'daughters of Jerusalem' is mentioned by S. Luke[484], but, owing to the circumstance that Titus attacked the second line of walls from this side, it is obvious that, even if the event happened in this neighbourhood, all traces of the exact spot must have been swept away in the changes that the place has undergone; so that the tradition is valueless.

The station of the Third Fall needs no comment. With regard to the Calvary and Sepulchre I have already expressed my opinion in the fourth chapter. I believe the other stations to be in the neighbourhood of them, so that while I cannot undertake to fix their exact position, I do not absolutely refuse to give any credence to them.

I hold, therefore, that the present Via Dolorosa is only a representation of the true one; and regard it in the same way as I do the Stations in Churches; that is, as a useful agent in arousing religious feelings, and bringing to remembrance the solemn scenes of the Redeemer's Passion. The changes wrought in the city at its destruction by Titus and rebuilding by Hadrian, and the numerous alterations at other times, the accumulation of rubbish, and, above all, the impossibility of the position of one part of the street, lying, as it would do, in the north ditch of the Antonia, seem to me insuperable difficulties in the way of establishing the identity of this with the road trodden by our Saviour. That I believe to have commenced on the west side of the Antonia, and to have followed the line of the present street of S. Helena's Hospital up to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Along this, in my opinion, the Stations might more reasonably be placed; for, whatever theory be adopted about the tower Antonia, the difficulty of the valley cannot be explained away.

I now pass on to consider the other buildings, religious and civil, in the city; and with this view conduct my reader to S. Mary's Gate, from which point we will begin our examination. Near the gate is the Church of S. Ann, now belonging to France. When I first saw it in 1854 it was used as a shelter for the Governor's horse-soldiers, while the courtyard, all strewed with ruins, was frequented by camel-drivers, who tethered their beasts there, so that it had become covered with filth: and as the Mohammedans took no care of the fabric, it became more ruinous every day, without any attempt at repairing it, even so far as was necessary to keep it in use for a stable. Since the year 1761 it had been abandoned by the Mohammedans, because (as they said) shrieks and howls were heard every time that they went there; and in 1767 they were so fully persuaded of this, that the Santon himself, who was in charge of the place, offered the keys to the Franciscans, by whom (after due consideration of the consequence of accepting them) they were refused. It was then entirely deserted, except that the monks, by permission of the Pasha, continued to celebrate mass in it on the Festival of the Conception, and on that of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, who (according to them) was born there. So matters went on until in 1856 M. de Barrère happily thought of endeavouring to obtain it for the Roman Church, and was so well seconded by his government at Constantinople, that his hopes were realized; for on October 19, 1856, the Sultan granted it to France, and on November 1, M. de Barrère took possession of the building with all formality, receiving the keys from Kiamil Pasha. The repairs were begun about a year ago, and soon Jerusalem will possess a new church, one of the finest in Palestine. Having given this preliminary account, let us examine into the history of its foundation and its vicissitudes.

Some think that it was founded (as usual) by S. Helena; but of this we cannot be certain, as it is not mentioned among the churches built by the Empress, which, according to Nicephorus, exceeded thirty in number. "Moreover this woman, the mother of the Emperor, most pleasing in God's sight, founded more than thirty churches in these Holy Places[485]." In the seventh century the pilgrims speak of a church of the Nativity of the Virgin near the pool 'Probatica.' S. John of Damascus[486] writes thus: "The Virgin was brought forth in the house of 'the Probatica,' of Joachim;" and again, in the First Oration on the Nativity of the Virgin[487]: "Happy be thou in all respects, O Probatica, ancient temple of the seed of Joachim, but now a church!" Phocas mentions it in his description of the remarkable places of Antioch and Jerusalem. Other authors, from Sæwulf to William of Tyre, name it, and all agree in placing it on the same spot, and repeating the tradition; but none of them give us any certain clue to the history of its foundation. As every one expresses his own opinion on this point, I will follow the general example[488]. That the church was in existence before the Crusaders entered Jerusalem is evident from the Arabian historians; for Abulfeda tells us that under the rule of the Khalifs, before the Franks gained possession of Jerusalem, the Church of S. Ann was converted into a college for public instruction[489]. Again, Sæwulf visited it A.D. 1103, that is, in the first four years of the Latin kingdom, when as yet they had not thought about building churches. William of Tyre[490] relates that three or four nuns inhabited the adjoining convent; which is also a proof of its existence previous to the Crusades; because so small a number of sisters would not have had the means of building such a church. Now the remarkable edifices which were erected during the whole period of the Latin kingdom are recorded by several writers; and many manuscripts of this age have come down to us. Considering the importance of this Sanctuary (the supposed birthplace of the Virgin), and the station in life of those who there dedicated themselves to the monastic life under the rule of S. Benedict, we can draw but one conclusion from their silence; namely, that the present building is older than the Crusades. But further, Arda, wife of Baldwin I., being repudiated by her husband, entered the convent A.D. 1104, and liberally endowed it. William of Tyre[491] speaks of her munificence, and also of the unseemly manner in which she quitted the place. Why then does not he mention the church? Jueta or Gioeta, daughter of Baldwin II., in 1130, dedicated herself to the monastic life, and lived in the convent until that of S. Lazarus at Bethany was finished, which was built for her by her sister Milisendis. On this occasion also William of Tyre[492] mentions the buildings, but not the church.

M. de Vogüé[493] writes as follows: "Towards the middle of the twelfth century, John of Würtzburg expresses wonder at the number of the nuns (who followed the rule of S. Benedict), and at their devotion; and mentions the church; meaning, I think, on this occasion, the church now remaining." I cannot agree with this opinion, for the reason that, had the church been rebuilt, the author would not have omitted to mention it, since it would have been one of the first buildings erected under the Latin kingdom. If the plates be examined[494], I need not enter into details, as they will be found sufficiently clear; but will only call attention to the shape of the church (a trapezium)[495]; a plan which I think prevents us from attributing it to the time of the Crusaders. I am therefore induced to consider it as originally a Byzantine building, which was restored by them. From Plate LXIII. we see that the Church of S. Cross has the pointed arch like that of S. Ann, and is still plainer[496]. Now the former was standing when the Persians under Chosroes II. invaded the country; as is stated by Georgian manuscripts in the Greek convent of S. Constantine at Jerusalem. Hence the presence of pointed arches does not forbid us to suppose that S. Ann's Church was also built before the Crusades. M. de Vogüé[497] says "that the last two western piers (inside the church) are much more massive than the rest, and were intended to sustain bell-towers." With this I do not agree, because the difference in size is imperceptible; indeed, perhaps they are even smaller than the rest: and further, I do not find the walls at the north-west and south-west corners sufficiently strong to support towers; on the contrary, through their weakness they have fallen greatly to ruin; and lastly, I find no traces of them on the roof. Until then stronger arguments are brought forward than have hitherto been, I retain the opinion expressed above; which is, I believe, sustained by history and the place itself.

In the church we must not omit to notice the dome as belonging to a date posterior to the original building, but a little prior to the minaret at the south-west corner, a large part of which is still standing.

When Saladin took Jerusalem, A.D. 1187, he established various institutions for the Mohammedans; and among others founded a school, A.D. 1192, in the Church of S. Ann, after repairing the injuries caused by the destruction of the neighbouring convent. The Arabic inscription on the entrance-gate on the west records this event. It runs as follows: "In the name of God, kind and merciful! All the blessings ye enjoy come from God! This sacred Medresse (School) has been founded by the victorious King, our Master, Salah-ed-Din, Sultan of Islam, and of the Mohammedans. Abul Muzafar Yusef, son of Eyub, son of Sciasi, has given life to the empire of the Head of the Faithful. May God bless his victories, and pour out His bounty upon him, in this world and in the next. This institution has been founded for the doctors of the rite of Imam Abu-Abdallah Mohammed, son of Edris-es-Shafei. May God grant him mercy. The year five hundred and eighty-eight[498]." This school was deserted in the fifteenth century, owing to the want of means to carry it on, caused by malversation on the part of its managers. We have seen what its condition was in 1767. In 1842 Tayar Pasha entertained the design of re-opening the school, and with that view ordered the interior to be repaired, and the minaret to be built. The latter however was never finished, because the builders and stone-masons of Bethlehem (some of whom told me the circumstances) got on slowly with the work, and even threw many of the stones prepared for building into the cisterns; acting thus because they were unwilling to see a place sacred to Christians profaned by the Mohammedans. By examining the spot, I proved the truth of the workmen's story; for I found a quantity of prepared materials in a cistern on the west, and also in another on the south of the church. Into these I descended before the place was examined by the three French architects who were sent, one after the other, to Jerusalem to begin the repairs; which are now progressing well under the superintendence of M. Mauss, a young man of distinction and great promise. Within the church, under the choir, is a crypt in which the rock is exposed. There, according to an old tradition, was the abode of S. Joachim and S. Ann; and there the Virgin Mary was born. It was already known in the seventh century, and the first who mentions it is S. John Damascenus[499]. It is difficult to see what authority can be found to establish the truth of the tradition. It is doubtful whether the Virgin was born at Jerusalem or Nazareth; but even supposing she was born at the former place, why did S. Ann live in a crypt? Surely there were houses in Jerusalem! I think that the church was simply dedicated to S. Ann. We find in a manuscript, preserved in the Latin Convent of S. Saviour, that a passage formerly ran from this church to the Tomb of Mary in the Kidron Valley; but all my attempts to discover its opening into the interior of the church were unavailing; perhaps it may be buried under the ruins of the Convent. In the Tomb of Mary, at the extremity of the western arm of the cross, there is a doorway closed with masonry, which cannot be seen from the outside, because of the accumulation of earth. In 1858 a Greek monk was working in a plot of land on the western bank of the Kidron Valley, at no great distance from the tomb, and found a cistern, very long from east to west, hollowed out in the rock, its walls being covered with a strong cement. When I heard of this I went to examine it, and by striking the walls inferred the existence of two openings, one on the east, the other on the west. Perhaps they communicated with the subterranean passage; and the reason why they are in these positions, may be that the cistern was made by widening the passage which was already on the spot. I trust that the architect in charge of the restoration at S. Ann's Church may be able to discover these subterranean passages. I do not describe the insignificant remains of the Convent of Benedictine nuns, because they possess nothing of interest. Not a capital nor a shaft of a column is to be found among the shapeless fragments of ruins, which reveal nothing of their former splendour, nay, not so much as whether they could have been ever beautiful.

The Church of the Magdalene (called Maïmonieh by the Arabs) is situated to the north-west of the Church of S. Ann, and to the south-east of Herod's Gate. According to tradition it stands on the site of the house of Simon the Pharisee, where the penitent sinner washed the Saviour's feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. S. Luke[500] does not mention the place at which this circumstance occurred. The three other Evangelists[501] state that it happened at Bethany, so that I cannot admit the truth of the tradition without denying that of the Bible; consequently I consider the church as only dedicated to the memory of the penitent Magdalene. All that now remains of this building is the porch, part of the choir, and the side walls, which are left standing at irregular heights above the ground; everything else is a heap of ruins, overgrown with creeping plants; and in the middle a potter carries on his craft of making pipes, water-pots, and the like. It is commonly said to be the property of the Greek Convent, but I am not certain whether this is true. I removed the rubbish from the interior to search for the remains of pillars, in the hope of being able to ascertain the plan of the building; but my labours were fruitless, and I must therefore refer my reader to M. de Vogüé's work[502], only observing that the Church of the Magdalene does not (as he asserts) belong to the same class of churches as that of S. Ann, for the former is a rectangle in plan, the latter a trapezium. For the rest I highly appreciate the labour he has bestowed upon the subject; but, as I have not been fortunate enough to verify his discoveries in my subsequent visits to the spot, I cannot say whether the church belongs to the era of the Crusades, or to an earlier period. I cannot however admit that it can be called a French work[503], because the Crusaders were not French alone, but of many different nations. The same author writes, "The only contemporaneous documents which we possess relating to the Magdalene Church are in the account of John of Würtzburg, and in the Cartulary. He tells us that it was served by the Jacobite monks. 'Near the city-wall, not far from S. Ann's on the north, is the Church of S. Mary Magdalene, occupied by the Jacobite monks. These assert that it stands on the site of the house of Simon the Leper.... A cross marked on the pavement of the church indicates (according to the same monks) the spot where Mary knelt at the feet of Jesus[504].' The Cartulary contains the title of an agreement[505] between the Latin Canons of the Holy Sepulchre and the Jacobite monks of S. Mary Magdalene. The document is not dated, but from the signatures it must have been written about A.D. 1160. After Jerusalem had been taken by the Saracens the church was converted into a school, and was called Maïmonieh, the name it still bears among the Mohammedans. 'The school of Maimun' (writes Mejir-ed-Din) 'near to the gate of the city called Sahera, was formerly a Greek church (i.e. Christian): it was endowed in 593 (A.D. 1197) by the Emir Faris-ed-Din-Abu-Said-Maimun, son of Abdallah-el-Kasri, treasurer of King Salah-ed-Din.'" Let us now consider the testimony quoted above. John of Würtzburg undertook his journey after the middle of the twelfth century, and found the Jacobites already established in the Magdalene Church. Now if the church had been built by the Crusaders, the pilgrim would have been sure to mention it, nor would they have been likely to give it up to the Jacobites. I believe that the Canons allowed it to remain the property of the Jacobites, because it had originally belonged to them. It also appears to me that the names of the Canons must be exactly known before it can be proved, on the evidence of the signatures alone, that the agreement was made in A.D. 1160. Again, why are the words of Mejir-ed-Din[506], 'a Greek church,' necessarily to be taken as equivalent to a Christian church? I maintain that Saladin and his followers were too well acquainted with the difference between the Latins and the Greeks to make this slip in a public document. I am therefore inclined to believe that the church had been built before the arrival of the Crusaders, and that possibly it might have been injured during the siege, and repaired afterwards by the Jacobites, who were for that reason allowed to retain it. I cannot adopt any other theory, because I am unable to understand the Crusaders giving a church to the Jacobites, who were considered heretical after A.D. 541, because they maintained that there was but one (the divine) nature in Christ, and were therefore called Monophysites.