LETTER FROM DR. ROBINSON.

The following letter refers to the article in review of Dr. Olin's "Travels in Palestine" in the North American Review for October, 1843, and to the letter from Dr. Olin in reply to that article, which we published in a note to the number for January, 1844.

To the Editor of the North American Review.

DEAR SIR,- I am very reluctantly induced to ask a place in your Journal for the following statement, respecting a single point in the matter recently at issue between the North American Review and the Rev. Dr. Olin. It relates to the bridge which anciently connected the Jewish temple with Mount Zion. As to the other matters in question, I suppose the issue to lie, not with me, but between Dr. Olin and the public, whom the reviewer represents.

In my work on Palestine, after recounting the manner in which I was led to recognize the remains of the ancient bridge so often mentioned by Josephus, and after describing those remains, there is subjoined the following note.

"Since the above was written, I have been informed by both Messrs. Bonomi and Catherwood, the well known artists, that they likewise remarked these large stones in 1833, and recognized in them the beginning of an immense arch. They regarded them, too, as probably among the most ancient remains in or around Jerusalem; but had no suspicion of their historical import." Biblical Researches in Palestine, Vol. I., p. 427.

This note was first written in London, in October, 1840, after an interview with Mr. Bonomi. He spoke of the remains as being the fragment of an arch; but frankly added, "We could make nothing more of them." The note was afterwards submitted in manuscript to Mr. Catherwood, in New York; who kindly showed me his very beautiful drawing of the remains in question, and corroborated the general statement of Mr. Bonomi. The note was printed with his sanction. My work appeared in July, 1841. The facts respecting the recognition of the bridge had been published in this country in October, 1838; and, before the middle of 1839, they had been further spread before the world as widely as the public presses of England, Germany, and the United States could give them currency.

Dr. Olin was in Jerusalem in April, 1840; and in his Travels, published in April, 1843, after describing the ancient remains around the mosque, he has the following passage.

"I could not learn that the most interesting and unquestionable of these remains the massive arch of the ancient bridge- had been so

much as mentioned by any modern traveller, though its existence has long been well known to European and other residents, as well as visiters. At least, this is the impression which I derived from my conversation with Mr. Nicolayson; who told me that Mr. Catherwood had examined the remains of the bridge seven years before." Vol. II. p. 268.

To this passage the reviewer took exceptions; and Dr. Olin, in his reply, uses the following language.

"Mr. Nicolayson was my guide to this monument; and I recorded his statement and my own measurement at the time. I now declare, that I never saw or heard the name of Dr. Robinson connected with this subject in Jerusalem or elsewhere, until I read the 'Researches' nearly two years after my visit. Having no reason to distrust my own information, I of course presumed Dr. Robinson was in an error, in regarding himself as the original discoverer. Mr. Catherwood, who is a professional architect, and the author of Dr. Robinson's plan of Jerusalem, as well as the one always in my hand, in which he had laid down the Temple, Mount Zion, and the valley between them, across which the arch looks directly, could hardly have doubted or been mistaken with regard to its design. Mr. Catherwood has often told me since, that my account is strictly true; and that he, as well as several other gentlemen with whom he conversed in Jerusalem, regarded and spoke of this monument as the remains of an ancient bridge, that connected the Jewish temple with Mount Zion."

It is the testimony here ascribed to Mr. Catherwood, to which I would invite the reader's attention. On comparing it with my note in the Biblical Researches quoted above, the discrepancy is seen to be so striking, that one of three things must necessarily follow, namely: either I was wrong in my statement respecting Messrs. Bonomi and Catherwood; or Dr. Olin was here in the wrong; or Mr. Catherwood at different times had made different statements. It seemed due to Mr. C. as well as to myself, to call his attention to the matter. The article appeared on the 1st of January last; and by the packet of January 6th, I wrote to him on the subject. His reply is so full of frank and honorable feeling, and so creditable to his candor, that I should not feel justified in withholding it from the public. I therefore give it here entire, subjoining a few remarks. The date of the postscript shows why it could not appear in your April number.

Mr. Catherwood was not the author of the plan of Jerusalem in the Biblical Researches; but Mr. H. Kiepert, of Berlin. He made use of the same original as Mr. C. appears to have done, viz., the earlier plan of Sieber, and introduced all Mr. C.'s corrections in and around the haram, which were made from careful measurements. But Kiepert's plan varies very materially from Mr. C.'s, on the south and west, and in the shading of the hills within the city; all these being corrections derived from measurements made with my own hands. - E. R.

"London, 9th February, 1844. "DEAR SIR, Your favor of January 6th reached me but a few days before the sailing of the February steamer, and I was too much engaged to answer it at the moment. I had also to make some inquiries, to refresh my memory, which is not very good, in regard to conversations held many years ago. sorry that any thing I should have said, or omitted saying, should have produced an apparent discrepancy in my testimony regarding the bridge; but I will endeavour to recall to mind and relate all I know of the matter in question.

I am

"Before going to Jerusalem, I was furnished with a manuscript map of the city by Mr. J. J. Scoles, architect, who made it on the spot, and at that time it was the best extant. I also had conversations with Mr. Barry and Mr. Scoles regarding the most interesting points that still remained for investigation. Among other directions, Mr. Scoles told me to look out for the remains of a bridge which joined Mount Moriah to Mount Zion.' He had been unsuccessful in finding it himself; and did not mention to me whence he derived his information respecting it. (I have a note from Mr. Scoles to this effect, dated a few days ago.) This direction was a verbal one, not written down, and which I afterwards forgot altogether; and when I discovered the arch, it was not from purposely looking for it, but casually, in making my survey of the walls surrounding the mosque of Omar.

"I therefore was in error when I stated to Dr. Olin, that others (meaning Messrs. Barry and Scoles) were previously acquainted with the arch in question. Mr. S. has set me right on this point; and I thus rather unexpectedly find myself to have been (so far as I know) the discoverer. I had no doubt, from the moment I saw it, that it had formed part of a viaduct and aqueduct; but I was totally ignorant of its historical importance. I merely looked at it, as an architect, with reference to its position, both to the watercourse from Bethlehem and the deep ground between it and Mount Zion. I do not recollect whether I spoke on the subject to Mr. Bonomi or Mr. Nicolayson; but when Dr. Olin told me that Mr. N. mentioned my name in connection with it, I concluded I had spoken to him on the point; which is very probable, from my having had almost daily intercourse with Mr. N.

"This, therefore, will explain my not having made any observation, when I read your note. I was in doubt, and therefore said nothing; at least, so far as I can recollect. I was, moreover, desirous, that you, who have labored so diligently and successfully in the field of Jewish antiquities, should have the full merit (as is justly due to you) of being the first to publish and bring to light the historical importance of this monument. I

have stated the facts to the best of my recollection and present knowledge; and hope the explanation will prove satisfactory. "I am, dear Sir, very truly yours,

"F. CATHERWOOD.

"P. S.- March 2d. About a week ago I received a letter from Dr. Olin, asking some explanation on this subject; and I thought the best plan would be, to send him a transcript of my letter to you; which I have accordingly done. F. C."

REMARKS.

I. The question here at issue is not, whether these remains have ever been noticed before; for they must have been seen by thousands upon thousands, in the long course of seventeen centuries, and especially in the age of the Crusades. Nor is it, whether they have before been recognized as an arch; for among the multitudes who have looked upon them, it is scarcely possible to suppose, that some one should not have detected their true character in this respect. Yet there is no known testimony extant earlier than that of Mr. Catherwood; so that, in this sense, he is the discoverer, as I have stated in the Researches. Nor is it here the question, whether any one had, or had not, before speculated upon the purpose of such an arch in this place; for among the multitudes of learned men and artists who have visited the city, as, for instance, during the Crusades, we can hardly suppose, that such speculations would not have arisen in some minds; and then nothing would have been more natural than to refer these remains to a bridge or an aqueduct. Yet here, too, there is no recorded testimony in behalf of any one before Mr. Catherwood. The true question at issue is simply this: Had any person, before my visit to Jerusalem, in April, 1838, in any way brought these remains into connection with the important historical fact, made known to us by the Jewish historian, that a bridge anciently existed over the valley between the Temple and Mount Zion? I know of no such person. Had Mr. Scoles found the spot, he very probably would have brought out the result years ago. Or had Mr. Catherwood published his own observations, it is hardly to be supposed, that scientific inquirers would not have quickly perceived their identity with the bridge of Josephus. But he did not do this; and he frankly says of himself, "I was totally ignorant of its historical importance." There is no other person, so far as I know, who can in any way be brought forward in derogation of my right to this very casual honor; and this is all that I have ever claimed for myself in the Biblical Researches or elsewhere. I went to Jerusalem knowing nothing of the existence of any such remains; my attention was

called to them there; and their identity with the ancient bridge instantly suggested itself to my mind.

II. I sincerely regret, that Mr. Catherwood, in his conversations with me, in January, 1841, did not mention that he had, at the time, regarded the arch as having "formed part of a viaduct and aqueduct." Had he done so, I certainly should have stated the fact in connection with my note; both because my only object was, and is, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; and also because, in a matter of so much archæological importance, it is interesting to scholars to be able to trace the progress of discovery. The idea of an aqueduct and viaduct would very naturally present itself to Mr. C.'s mind, not only as an architect, but also from the analogous fact, that the watercourse from Bethlehem is actually carried over the Valley of Hinnom, on the west of the city, in this very manner. But how little stress Mr. Catherwood himself laid upon this hypothesis, as also upon the whole matter, is obvious, not only from his having thus left it to sleep for so many years; but also from the fact, that, on his plan of the city, instead of bringing the said watercourse into the haram in any possible connection with the arch, he actually brings it in from the south, at a point where the ground is nearly a hundred feet below the level of the mosque and of the ancient bridge. The real place of its entrance is along the eastern precipice of Zion, and across the Tyropœon, at an elevation considerably less than that of the bridge.

III. It may be asked, What is here the difference between a bridge and the bridge? Why is not the inference of a scientific architect just as conclusive and important as the testimony of a historian? The reply is, that, while such an inference brings out no result beyond or more important than itself, the identification of the arch in question with a known ancient bridge is at once an immense step gained in the archæology and topography of the Temple and city. For example: travellers have for ages gazed upon many courses of huge stones in the external substructions of the haram; and perhaps all have conjectured, and many have believed, that these had been in some way connected with the Jewish Temple. This, however, was merely matter of credence, and not of demonstration; and it is not too much to say, that not a single point in the topography of the city had ever been certainly and indubitably settled. But the moment we identify this arch with the bridge described by Josephus, the conclusion follows irresistibly, that these courses of stones, with which it is thus connected, are parts of the identical wall existing in the time of Josephus. Similar reasoning applies to the southern and western walls; and hence is demonstrated beyond