Page images
PDF
EPUB

notwithstanding their seven sepulchral chambers and the pyramids with which they were crowned, cannot have belonged to the Asmonean princes.

Josephus afterwards informs us that Helena, Queen of Adiabene, caused three funeral pyramids to be erected at the distance of two stadia from Jerusalem, and that her remains and those of her son Izates were there deposited by the care of Monabazes. The same historian, in his narrative of the Jewish war, tracing the limits of the Holy City, says that the walls passed to the north opposite to the sepulchre of Helena. All this exactly applies to the Sepulchres of the Kings, which, according to Villalpandus, were adorned with three pyramids, and which are yet to be seen to the north of Jerusalem, at the distance specified by Josephus. St. Jerome also speaks of this sepulchre. The writers who have bestowed their attention on the monument under examination, have overlooked a curious passage in Pausanias*: but who would think of Pausanias in treating of Jerusalem! This passage is as follows:

"The second tomb was at Jerusalem. It was the burial-place of a Jewess, named Helena. The door of the tomb, which was of marble, as well as all the rest, opened of itself, on a certain day of the year and at a certain hour, by means of a mechanical contrivance, and shut again soon after. At any other time, had you tried, you would sooner have broken it in pieces than opened it."

This door, which opened and shut of itself by a mechanical contrivance, might, setting aside the touch of the marvellous, almost apply to the extraordinary doors of the Sepulchres of the Kings. Suidas and Stephen of Byzantium speak concerning an Itinerary of Phoenicia and Syria, published by Pausanias. If we had this work we should doubtless find it of great assistance in elucidating the subject before us.

The passages of the Jewish historian and the Greek traveller, taken together, would therefore seem to afford satisfactory evidence that the Sepulchres of the Kings are no other than the tomb of Helena: but in this conjecture we are checked by the knowledge of the existence of a third monument.

[ocr errors]

Josephus mentions certain grottos, which, according to the literal translation, he denominates the Royal Caverns; but, unfortunately, he gives no description of them. He places them to the north of the Holy City, quite close to the tomb of Helena.

It remains then to be ascertained what prince it was who caused these caverns of death to be excavated, how they were decorated, and the remains of what monarchs were there deposited. Josephus, who enumerates with such care the works undertaken or completed by Herod the Great, has not included among these works the Sepulchres of the Kings. He even informs us that Herod, having died at Je

* I have since found that it is mentioned by the Abbé Guenée in the excellent Memoirs of which I have already spoken. He say3 that he purposes to examine this passage in another memoir: he has not done so, which is much to be regretted.'

richo, was interred with great magnificence at Herodium; consequently the Royal Caverns were not the burial-place of that prince. An expression, however, which has elsewhere dropped from the historian, may throw some light on this discussion.

[ocr errors]

Speaking of the wall which Titus erected to press Jerusalem still more closely than before, he says, that this wall, returning towards the north, enclosed the Sepulchre of Herod. Now this is the situa tion of the Royal Caverns: these must, therefore, have been indiscriminately called the Royal Caverns, and the Sepulchre of Herod. In this case, this Herod could not be Herod the Ascalonite, but Herod the tetrarch. The latter prince was almost as magnificent as his father: he built two towns, Sephoris and Tiberias; and though he was exiled to Lyons by Caligula, he might nevertheless have prepared a tomb for himself in his native land. His brother Philip had furnished a model for these sepulchral edifices.

We know nothing of the monuments with which Agrippa embellished Jerusalem.

Such are the most satisfactory particulars that I have been able to meet with relative to this question. I have thought it right to enter into the discusson, because the subject has been rather obscured than elucidated by preceding critics. The ancient pilgrims, who saw the sepulchre of Helena, have confounded it with the Royal Caverns. The modern travellers being unable to find the tomb of the Queen of Adiabene, have given the name of that tomb to the sepulchres of the princes of the house of Herod. From all these accounts has resulted a strange confusion-a confusion increased by the erudition of the pious writers who will have it that the Royal Grots are the burial-place of the kings of Judah, and have not wanted authorities to produce in support of their opinion.

• A critical consideration of the state of the arts, as well as historical facts, obliges us to class the Sepulchres of the Kings among the Greek monuments at Jerusalem. These sepulchres were extremely numerous, and the posterity of Herod very soon became extinct, so that many of these receptacles waited in vain for their tenants. Nothing more was wanting to convince me of all the vanity of our nature, than to behold the tombs of persons who were never born. For the rest, nothing can form a more singular contrast than the charming frieze wrought by the Grecian chisel over the door of these awful mansions, where once reposed the ashes of the Herods. The most tragic ideas are connected with the memory of these princes; we know little of them, except from the murder of Mariamne, the massacre of the Innocents, the death of St. John Baptist, and the condemnation of Jesus Christ. Little would you then expect to find their tombs embellished with light garlands in the midst of the terrific site of Jerusalem, not far from that Temple where Jehovah gave his tremendous oracles, and near the grotto where Jeremiah composed his Lamentations,'

The

The third volume begins with a very interesting commentary on the Jerusalem of Tasso, in which his general geographical accuracy is established, but his mistakes in some particulars are indicated. So fine a poem deserved so sympathetic and so accomplished an annotator.-Then follows a visit to Egypt, and to Barbary, whence the author returns home through Spain. An appendix of instructive papers fills up this final volume, which is certainly the least interesting of the three but M. CHATEAUBRIAND is never dull, even when he talks of himself. Notwithstanding his incessant egotism,-his French affectation of an overstrained sensibility, which is always either in extasy or in agony,-and his egregious vanity,-he delights by a completeness of picturesque expression, which brings before the mind's eye every remarkable feature, natural or artificial, of the region visited; and by a selection of erudite information, which attaches to the picture of the present condition the historical recollection of the past. The pilgrim of a classical enthusiasm, he carries in his hand the taper of piety, to obtain a more scrutinizing view of the holy images and mysterious crypts under the custody of the monastic guardians; and he has repaid to religion the exacted service, by this valuable illustration of her territorial and monumental antiquities. His glowing eloquence must warm even the sceptic to applause; and his pages, like Belinda's cross, "the Jew may kiss, the Infidel adore."

The translation by Mr. Shoberl is in general executed with propriety, but bears marks of haste, and does not entirely rival the polished diction and elaborate splendor of the original; of which the three volumes have been compressed into two. At p. 382. of the first volume, an unlucky blunder occurs in the note. M.DE CHATEAUBRIAND says (Vol. II. p.137.) that the tradition, which supposes Jeremiah to have been born in the village called by his name, will not stand its ground against criticism: but the reverse is asserted in the English note, viz. that this popular tradition is not inconsistent with criticism.' Moreover, in the appendix to the second volume, the curious itinerary from Bordeaux to Jerusalem, a document prior to the year 1300, has been omitted. These, however, are pardonable faults. The general fidelity both of the translation and of the references renders it desirable that the same hand should undertake the other works of M. DE CHATEAUBRIAND, which are adapted for readers of taste and piety.

ART.

ART. VIII. Histoire de l'administration, &c. &c.; i. e. A History of the Progress of the Art of War, by XAVIER Audouin.

OUR

(Article concluded from the last Appendix, p. 511.)

UR review of M. AUDOUIN'S voluminous performance has been already brought down to the boasted æra of Louis XIV. We must not flatter ourselves with finding him, as he proceeds, either less diffuse or more sprightly than in the early part of his work but his access to official documents, and his indefatigable spirit of research, are productive of communications of considerable utility, and intitled in some degree to the attention of our readers.

The slow progress in the exchange of the antient armour for the musket was remarkable so late as the first part of the reign of Louis XIV. Old officers thought that they had conceded a great deal in permitting one half of the French troops to be armed on the new plan; the consequence of which was that, while this half was good for very little but attacks, the other half was accustomed to confine itself to the defensive. It is singular that the Germans, who are in general so much wedded to old routine, should have taken the lead of the French in this respect: but the impetuosity of the latter could never be properly reconciled to fire-arms, till the fire-lock was made of a much lighter shape than on its first adoption. This improvement took place under Louis XIV., and was followed, gradually, by the introduction of the bayonet. So imperfect was the first mode of using the bayonet that, instead of being screwed on the outside of the barrel of the musket, it was fixed in the inside, and was regularly taken out on firing. At the battle of Steinkerk, a great part of the French infantry was armed with pikes and heavy muskets, and became first accustomed to the firelock and bayonet by stripping them from the slain of the allies. The consequence of the adoption of the bayonet was to render unnecessary those thickened ranks of infantry, which were calculated for the use of so long a weapon as the pike. In the cavalry, the change produced was of an opposite nature. Armed with a long lance, the horsemen of former days could attack only in a single line; and, having no chance against solid bodies of infantry defended by projecting pikes, they confined their operations, in a great measure, to the cavalry of the enemy. After having adopted fire-arms, they were formed into squadrons, and rode to the attack in several lines; but, finding that the infantry still retained great advantages, particularly by occupying a much smaller space of ground, the formation of a body of dragoons, or of foot-soldiers carried on horseback, took place. This name, attributed by

some

some to a fantastic origin, is in fact derived from the German, dragen, to carry. In addition to a sword and fire-arms, they took with them, at the saddle-bow, a hatchet or shovel to clear the way for the army. Posted in front of a camp, they were the foremost in the charge. During several years, they were considered as belonging to the infantry: but, before the end of Louis XIV.'s reign, their constitution had approximated to its present state, and they were accounted a part of the cavalry.

It has become so common among our sprightly writers to ridicule the military force of the Dutch, that few among us are aware that, in the middle ages, the Batavian knights ranked among the most formidable horsemen in Europe. In later times, Prince Maurice of Nassau was considered as the ablest General of his age; and his brother, Frederic Henry, attained considerable eminence as a writer on tactics. Maurice and Gustavus Adolphus were the first Generals, in modern days, who applied to the practice of war the knowlege derived from the study of the antients. The effect of cannon was during some time so much dreaded, as to prevent all recourse to artificial positions of defence: but, when intrenched camps were adopted, the Dutch were consulted as most skilful in this branch of tactics. -It was under Louis XIV., towards the close of the seventeenth century, that the projection of hand-grenades was introduced; a service of so much danger, in the rude state of the science of artillery, as to require the most intrepid among the soldiery, who thence received the name of Grenadiers. This epoch was, likewise, the beginning of the formation of those vast armies which have, in every subsequent war, borne so hard on European population. After the death of Colbert, the forces of the kingdom, which had been confined by his prudence to 160,000 men, were more than doubled; and Marshal Luxemburg was the first French General who saw himself at the head of what we may term a "host of modern warriors." From this commander's predilection for numerous bodies of men, we may safely infer that he had not been educated in the school of Turenne; yet he was an able General, and might have added greatly to the renown of Louis XIV. had he remained longer in favour. Vauban, likewise, one of the greatest ornaments of his age, who, in the words of Fontenelle," was the best of citizens as well as the first of engineers,”—was allowed to pass his latter years in obscurity. M. AUDOUIN is no admirer of the Grand Monarque, whom he charges with manifesting, throughout his whole career, striking proofs of bad education and constitutional haughtiness: but the last fifteen years of this eventful reign call forth a redoubled portion of his invective. That æra belongs, he says, to the annals of women; since the

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »