Inconsiderable in size and paltry in its ornaments, this monument, as Mr. Buckingham observes, is eminently curious. There is no appearance of an entrance into any part of it; so that it seems; if a tomb, to have been as firmly closed as the Egyptian pyramids, and, perhaps, for the same respect for the repose of the dead. It is probable, indeed, that the original style and plan of the building are derived from the country of the Pharaohs; while the Grecian columns and pilasters may be the work of a much later period, when the Jews had learned to combine with the massy piles of their more ancient architecture the elegant lightness which distinguished the times of the Seleucidae.[96]
In the immediate vicinity is the tomb of Jehoshaphat,—a cavern which is more commonly called the Grotto of the Disciples, from an idea that they went frequently thither to be taught by their Divine Master. The front of this excavation has two Doric pillars of small size, but of just proportions. In the interior are three chambers, all of them rude and irregular in their form, in one of which were several gravestones, removed, we may suppose, from the open ground for greater security. Like all the rest, they were flat slabs of an oblong shape, from three to six inches in thickness, and evidently a portion of the limestone rock which composes the adjoining hills.
Opposite to this, on the east, is the reputed tomb of Absalom, resembling nearly in the size, form, and decoration of its square base that of Zachariah already described; except that it is sculptured with the metopes and triglyphs of the Doric order. This is surmounted by a sharp conical dome, having large mouldings running round its base, and on the summit something like an imitation of flame. There is here again so strange a mixture of style and ornament, that one knows not to what age to attribute the monument as a whole. The square mass below is solid, and the Ionic columns which are seen on each of its faces are half-indented in the rock itself. The dome is of masonry, and on the eastern side there is a square aperture in it. Generally speaking, the sight of this monument rather confirms the idea suggested by the tomb of Zachariah, that the hewn mass of solid rock, the surmounting pyramid and dome of masonry, and the sculptured frieze and Ionic columns wrought on the faces of the square below were works of different periods; being probably ancient sepulchres, the primitive character of which had been changed by the subsequent addition of foreign ornaments. There is, besides, every reason to believe that this monument, represented below, really occupies the site of the one which was set up by him whose name it bears. "Now Absalom in his lifetime had reared up for himself a pillar, which is in the King's Dale: for he said, I have no son to keep my name in remembrance; and he called the pillar after his own name: and it is called unto this day Absalom's Place."[97]
Chateaubriand is of opinion, that except the Pool of Bethesda at Jerusalem, we have no remains of the primitive architecture of its inhabitants. This reservoir, a hundred and fifty feet long and forty broad, is still to be seen near St. Stephen's Gate, where it bounded the Temple on the north. The sides are walled by means of large stones joined together by iron cramps, and covered with flints imbedded in a substance resembling plaster. Here the lambs destined for sacrifice were washed; and it was on the brink of this pool that Christ said to the paralytic man, "Arise, take up thy bed and walk." It receives a melancholy interest from the fact that it is probably the last remnant of Jerusalem as it appeared in the days of Solomon and of his immediate successors.
It cannot be denied that the tombs in the Valley of Jehoshaphat display an alliance of Egyptian and Grecian taste; and, in naturalizing in their capital the architecture of Memphis and of Athens, it is equally certain that the Jews mixed with it the forms of their own peculiar style. From this combination resulted a heterogeneous kind of structure, forming, as it were, the link between the Pyramids and the Parthenon,—monuments in which you discover a sombre, yet bold and elevated genius, associated with a pleasing and cultivated imagination.
Our limits forbid us to follow the footsteps of the pilgrim in his minute survey of the "Sepulchres of the Kings," which, it is acknowledged, cannot be traced back to a remoter era than that of the Grecian dynasty at Antioch and Damascus. There are several other tombs and grottoes, to which tradition has attached venerable names, and even consecrated them as the scene of important events; but as they are not remarkable on any other account, we shall not extend to an undue length our description of the holy places under the walls of Jerusalem.
We shall simply remark, that a difference of opinion exists among modern travellers in regard to the extent of the ancient city, the ground which it actually covered, the changes that it has since undergone in point of locality, and hence, in respect to the position of some of the more prominent objects which attract the attention of the inquisitive tourist in our own days. Dr. Clarke has distinguished himself by some bold speculations on this head, the effect of which is to derange all the received notions relative to the scene of the crucifixion and the place of the Holy Sepulchre. It will indeed be readily granted, that it is a matter of very small importance to the faith of a Christian to determine whether the decease which was accomplished at Jerusalem took place on the north-western or the south-eastern extremity of that metropolis. But as the history and tradition of many ages have fixed the spot where the cross was erected and where the new tomb in the rock had its situation, it is requisite that the arguments of a writer who himself pays so little respect to authority should be examined with attention. In this case, it is obvious, an inspection of the ground candidly and distinctly reported is of much more weight than the most ingenious reasoning if destitute of facts; on which account, we are happy to have it in our power to refer to the journal of a learned gentleman hitherto unpublished, who about three years ago travelled in Syria and Palestine.
"We passed by the place of St. Stephen's martyrdom down into the Valley of Jehoshaphat. This valley, independently of associations, is highly picturesque. It is deep and narrow; the lower part is green with scattered olives. The slope up towards the city is also smooth and green, and crowned by the towers and battlements. On ascending the Mount of Olives, which we did towards the south, we had a splendid view of Jerusalem. The chief ornaments are the two domes of the Holy Sepulchre, the mosque of Omar, and another large mosque with a smaller dome; but the white houses make a good show, and the walls are picturesque. On looking at Jerusalem from this place, the great features seemed to me to agree entirely with the established maps, and Dr. Clarke's theory appeared quite untenable. The only difficulty is, that there is no valley which runs up all the way so as to divide entirely Mount Zion from Mount Moriah. A ravine does run far enough to cut off the Temple, but no more. The extent of this difficulty must depend on the description left us of the Tyropaeum and Millo. Was there a deep valley such as time and change might not have obliterated? The people of the convent gave the name of the Mount of Offence to a low hill on the south of the Mount of Olives; but Clarke seems to think that the real Mount of Offence is that divided by Jehinnom from Zion, and called by our guide Monte de Mal Consiglio. We visited the Mohammedan chapel over the place of the Ascension, and saw the alleged print of Christ's foot. We next went to the place called Viri Galilaei (ye men of Galilee), and, after looking in vain for Dr. Clarke's pagan remains, descended towards the Cave of the Prophets. We saw the well where Nehemiah found the fire of the altar, and then went up the Valley of Hinnom; first to the tomb called the Crypt of the Apostles, close to the Aceldama, or Field of Blood. We saw many other grottoes; one had [Greek: taes hagias Sion] inscribed upon it, as had another much farther up. Near this last was that which Clarke maintained to be the Holy Sepulchre. We saw one which would do very well for it; but so would many others. This one was a cave, with a place for a body cut out in the back part of it, but raised like a stone trough, not sunk in the floor. There is, of course, not a shadow of reason for thinking Clarke's cave to be the real one, and very little that I can see for doubting that the nominal Holy Sepulchre is so in fact, or, rather, that it is on the site of the real one, which must have been destroyed when Adrian erected his temple to Venus on the spot. From these caves we went by the Pool of Bathsheba to the Bethlehem Gate, and so along the west side of the town to the Tombs of the Judges and Kings, which lie north or north-west of the city. I observed large foundations of ancient walls and heaps of rubbish west of the modern town, where Clarke seems to assume that there was anciently no part of the city. There and on the north I also observed wells opening into large covered reservoirs for water. We entered only one of the Tombs of the Judges, the rest being insignificant. That one was large, with a pediment which had dentiles and other Greek ornaments. Inside there were at least three chambers, surrounded by receptacles for bodies. In returning we went to the Tombs of the Kings, which, like the others, are cut out of the rock, and, like them too, have Grecian ornaments. There is one large cave; the front has a handsome entablature, the upper part ornamented with alternate circular garlands, bunches of grapes, and an ornament of acanthus leaves; the lower with a rich band of foliage disposed with much elegance."[98]
Hence, it appears that the weight of evidence preponderates decidedly in favour of the common opinions in regard to the form of the ancient city and the places which are usually denominated holy. Why, then, should any one attempt to disturb the belief or acquiescence of the Christian world on a subject concerning which all nations have hitherto found reason to agree? The members of the primitive church had better means than we have of being fully informed respecting the scenes of the evangelical history; and it is manifest that amid all the changes which ensued in Jerusalem, either from conquest or superstition, nothing was more unlikely than that the faithful should forget the sacred spot where their redemption was completed, or that they should consent to transfer their veneration to any other.[99]