THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
NN. ——
(1) Artificial devices for the better economy of water, for protecting springs from choking or filth, may still be found at many places, especially since the Roman occupation. Thus, the fountain of Ras el-‘Ain, near Tyre, is encompassed by a basin of masonry twenty-four and a half feet in height; thereby serving to bring the water to the proper conduit level. Similar contrivances exist in the plain of Gennesaret. The springs which feed Solomon’s Pools are provided with reservoir chambers. (2) Wells (be’er) were artificial pits, in which either the surface water or that of some underground spring was stored. From the latter came the characteristic term, ‘‘ wells,’ or fountains, of ‘ living water ”’ (Gen. xxvi. 19). They were frequently quite deep; thus, Jacob’s well, below Mount Gerizim (John iv. 12), shows still a depth of over seventy-three feet. These wells were of more or less adequate masonry, the mouth being covered with stone slabs, while the aperture for drawing was also securely closed (Gen. xxix. 3sqq.; cf. Ex. xxi. 33). The water was drawn up in a pitcher or bucket with a long rope, and there were troughs for the cattle (Gen. xxx. 38). Such wells were especially provided in the arid pasture country (Gen. xxix. 2 sqq.; II Chron. xxvi. 10); or about appropriate sites for caravans (Gen. xxiv. 62; Num. xxi. 16 sqq.; Deut. x. 6). The best-known among the many wells still preserved are those of Beersheba and Jacob’s well. (3) Cisterns (bér) are used for storing rain-water. They are capacious underground cavities. They existed in almost all the old cities: Megiddo, Taanach, Gezer (q.v.); and notably in Jerusalem, where, indeed, every house still has its own cistern. In earlier times, they were hewn out of the rock; later, they were also, sometimes, walled up with masonry. Natural cavities were preferred where available. Particularly renowned are the great cisterns about the square of the Temple, many of which probably date back to the time of Solomon’s fortifications. The largest, called the ‘‘ King’s Cistern,” is forty-two feet deep and 406 feet in circuit. (4) The “ pools ”’ (berekha) are uncovered artificial reservoirs. Where it was feasible, they were hewn out of rock. Topographical depressions were utilized, as, in this case, the construction was simpler, and the water more easily collected. Yet again, the pools are formed by dams made by carrying two stout stone walls across the valley, and then excavating the intervening area down to rock bottom. This was the plan of the socalled “‘Solomon’s Pools.” The dams were filled with rain-water and with spring water, if such was available. In the case of Solomon’s Pools, the water was conveyed in aqueducts from three remote springs. Some idea of the size of the dams may be gained from the dimensions of the nethermost of the three ‘“ Solomon’s Pools,” which is 580 feet long on the lower side, 206 feet broad, and 49 feet in maximum depth. Not a few of Palestine’s numerous dams antedate the Israelitish era. (5) Of the aqueducts, the oldest are the tunnel of Siloam, and ‘‘ Solomon’s ”’ conduit (see JERUSALEM, II., V., § 3). The latter work is probably Herodian. To this period, in turn, belong most of the other constructions of the kind yet surviving in ruins. The Romans, and, following their example, the contem-
porary Jewish princes, expended great pains in behalf of adequate water supplies. The conduits, for the most part, were above ground, merely open gutters, which ran‘along the surface and often made wide détours to avoid depressions. However, the principle of the siphon was also employed with some of the older aqueducts of Jerusalem for spanning a lesser valley, a water-tight carrier being contrived by laying a line of perforated (and cemented) quarry stones across the gap. On the other hand, the Roman conduits, borne by great aqueducts, cleared larger valleys. Hezekiah’s tunnel of Siloam is, of course, underground; and, all in all, a plumb level was maintained, the vertical differential between entrance and exit being about one foot. I, BENZINGER. Breriocrapuy: C. Schick, in ZDPV, i (1878), 132-176; G. Perrot and C. Chipiez, Hist. de l’art dans l'antiquité, vol. iv., Paris, 1887; G. Ebers and H. Guthe, Paldstina in Bild und Wort, i. 110-126, 150-154, Stuttgart, 1883; Benzinger, Archdologie, pp. 207-208.
WATERLAND, DANIEL: English theologian and apologist; b. at Walesby (20 m. s. of Hull) Feb. 14, 1682-83; d. at Twickenham (a western suburb of London) Dec. 23, 1740. He studied at Magdalene College, Cambridge (B.A., 1703; M.A., 1706; B.D., 1714; D.D., 1717); became master of his college (1713), and vice-chancellor of the university (1715); chaplain to George I. (1717); rector of St. Austin and St. Faith, London (1721); chancellor of York (1722); canon of Windsor (1724); archdeacon of Middlesex and vicar of Twickenham, (1730). His significance lies in his defense of trinitarian orthodoxy against Samuel Clarke and Daniel Whitby, and in his check upon the advance of latitudinarianism within the Church of England. He was prolific as an author, his major works including: Vindication of Christ’s Divinity (Cambridge, 1719; an attack upon Clarke and Whitby, ut sup.), with which is to be placed his Answer to Dr. Whitby’s Reply (1720); these two works displayed his ability as an apologist, and led to his next work, Hight Sermons . . . in Defense of the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ (1720; on the Lady Moyer foundation, preached at St. Paul’s); Critical History of the Athanasian Creed (1723; assigns the symbol to 430-440, and makes St. Hilary of Arles its author); Importance of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity Asserted (London, 1734); and Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist as Laid down in Scripture and Antiquity (Cambridge, 1737). Besides these a considerable number of smaller publications is credited to him. In all of these there appear a learning which is deep and accurate, a style terse and vigorous, and an opposition to mysticism and philosophy which compelled him to have recourse to external evidences for his apologetics. His works were collected in 11 vols., Oxford, 1823-28, reprint in 6 vols., 1848, to which was prefixed a Life by Bishop William van Mildert.
BrstiocrapHy: L. Stephen, English Thought in the 18th Century, passim, New York, 1881; J. H. Overton, The Church in England, ii. 227, London, 1897; J. H. Overton and F. Relton, The English Church (1714-1800), passim, ib. 1906; C.S. Carter, English Church in the 18th Century, pp. 31-33, ib. 1910; DNB, lix. 446-448.
WATKINS, HENRY WILLIAM: Church of England; b. at Ty-newydel, Monmouthshire, Jan.