(c) The whole question of the second wall depends largely on what view is taken of the course of the third ivcdl constructed by Agrippa I. The most widely accepted opinion to-day is that this followed much the same course as the present N. wall. It was begun upon the most elaborate plan, but was never apparently finished on the scale designed, because Agrippa feared Claudius CiEsar, 'lest he should suspect that so strong a wall was built in order to make some innovation in public affairs ' {BJv. iv. 2). It was, however, at the time of the siege, over 18 feet wide and 40 feet high, with 90 massive to\yers. It began at the tower Hippicus, and had its N.W. corner at a great octagonal tower, called Pse- phinus, 135 feet high and overlooking the whole city.t From here was an extensive view of Arabia, i.e. the Land of ^loab, at sunrise, ' as well as of the utmost limits of the Hebrew possessions at the sea westwards' {BJ V. iv. 3). The foundations of this tower are supposed to survive to-day just inside the N.AV. angle of the modern city, under the name Kalat cl-Jalud, or Goliath's Castle. From this corner the wall ' extended till it came over against the monuments of Helena, queen of Adiabene, the daughter of Izates' {BJ y. iv. 2). This, however, must be read in the light of the statement of Josephus in another place {Ant. XX. iv. 3) that this tomb is ' distant no more than three furlongs from the city of Jerusalem.' The so-called ' Tombs of the Kings' are now very generally identified as the very notable tomb of Queen Helena, and, that being so, the distance given, 3 stadia or furlongs (700 yards), is a fair description of the distance of this monument from the present north wall near the Damascus Gate. He next states that ' it extended further to a great length, and passed by the sepulchral caverns of the kings' — these last may very well be the extensive caves known as ' Solomon's Quarries.' The wall ' bent again at the tower of the corner,' which then may have been where the present Stork Tower at the N.E. corner of the city is, 'at the monument which is called the monument of the fuller ' — prob- alily destroyed — ' and joined the old wall at the valley called the Valley of the l^Cidron.' This was probably near the present St. Stephen's Gate. The
* PEFSt, 1903, p. 247 footnote.
t It does not appear whether this tower was one of Herod's const ructious or of later date, but the latter now seema the more probable.
PLAN OF JERUSALEM
To sh&v- the pt\fbahlti posiiion, of the. Wa2I& ami Puhlw Bujldm^e duraui the life of Quisle
\ Silvan or f Siloam
?5G
JERUSALEM
JERUSALEM
exact course at the N.E. corner is very doubtful ; it is quite possible that it turned S.E. near ' Herod's Gate.' It will be observed that the description fits in very well ^vith the course followed by the existing N. wall. At the Daniasciis Gate there are unmistakable evidences that a gate at least as ancient as Roman times stood there. The supporters of the view that the second wall ran here lay stress on certain supposed remains of the third wall further north. A candid examination of such of these as survive, and of the accounts, both verbally and in publications, of those that have been removed, does not seem very convincing. One of the best marked pieces, forming the side of & cistern near Helena's Tomb, proved on recent examination to be but a piece of smooth scarp facing towards the city, and not remains of a build- ing at all.
As is clear from the history of the taking of the city, there was another wall, no doubt greatly inferior in strength to those before mentioned, wliich ran along the western side of the Tyropceon, bounding in that direction the ' Upper City ' (Tacitus, Hist. V. 11), and it is probable that some kind of wall, though doubtless only a temporary one, ran along the opposite or eastern side of the valley.
Towers. — Of the great towers the three erected by Herod tlie Great yet remain to be described. Jose- phus, in his iisua"l exaggerated manner, says they ' were for largeness, beauty, and strength beyond all that were in the habitable earth ' {BJ V. iv. 3). They were dedicated to Herod's friend Hippicus, his brother Phasael, and his wife Mariamne, wliom he had murdered. Each of these towers was of solid masonry at the base. The base of Hippicus was about 44 feet square and 50 high, o^■er which was a reservoir and several rooms, and, surmount- ing all, battlements with turrets : the total height was 140 feet. The second tower, Phasael, was 70 feet square at the base and nearly 160 feet high, and, it is said, ' wanted nothing that might make it appear to be a royal palace.' The Mariamne tower was smaller and less lofty, but 'its upper buildings were more magnificent. As to the position of these towers, the present ' Tower of David ' is generally considered to contain the remains of I'hasael, with various Crusading and Saracenic
additions. Hippicus must have been near this