mosaic-work of a novel description. Moving in a northerly direction we find a large, rectangular cistern, containing of course no water. Further on is a quadrangular inclosure, much more ancient than the other buildings. A wide, deep ditch, dividing it from the remainder of the platform, begins from the left flank of a square, ruined tower, which commands the entire ground. We ascend this tower, and obtain a full view of the oldest portion of the fortress, - marked in the direction from south to north by continuous lines and heaps of large black, irregular stones, the remains of buildings that have crumbled down where they were erected. I have no doubt that this inclosure constituted the original Masada, built by Jonathan. All the remainder was the work of Herod the Great. A circle of ruined walls entirely surrounds the crest of the platform, which contains no other structures beyond those we have mentioned ;- viz. towards the northern point, the palace and a cistern; and towards the south, another cistern and a mass of ruins, belonging perhaps to a barrack. On the southern side of the rock are a well and a vault lined throughout with a hard, smooth cement. In this we easily recognize one of those subterranean magazines in which provisions could be preserved in Masada for centuries without spoiling. Two days actively employed would scarcely have acquainted us thoroughly with Masada." - Vol. I. pp. 226–233.

De Saulcy's view of the sea itself only confirms that of every trustworthy traveller. He was upon its borders at a very propitious period; the air was less heated, the vapor less sulphureous, than in summer. Death did not reign so absolutely, though nothing of life could be found within the leaden waves. Insects were picked from under the beach stones, birds sometimes rested awhile upon the water, a few bushes throve among the crevices of the rocks; still, he describes in very sombre terms the composition of the molten mass.

"I scarcely believe the world produces any water more abominably offensive, though clear and limpid in appearance. At first it seems to have the taste of ordinary salt water; but in less than a second it acts with such nauseous effect on the lips, the tongue, and the palate, that your stomach instantly rejects it with insufferable disgust. It seems to be a composition of salt, coloquintida, and oil; but with this additional property of inflicting an acute sensation of burning. In vain you clear your mouth of this horrible liquid: it acts so violently on the mucous system that the taste remains for many minutes, causing at the same time a powerful contraction of the throat." - Vol. I. p. 249. VOL. LVI.-4TH S. VOL. XXI. NO. II.

22

At the southwestern extremity of the "Asphaltic Lake" is what has always borne the name of "DjebelEsdoum," the Mountain of Sodom, a compact mass of rock-salt, never rising above a hundred yards, of grayish color, in its upper layers tinged with green and red. Here Lieutenant Lynch saw a salt pillar, which he conjectured might memorialize Lot's wife, or some similar calamity. Our French traveller replies, that in the rainy season the American officer might have seen many more wives near this forlorn mourner; as the crumbling of the soil and the winter torrents create numerous pyramids and stalactites of salt. De Sauley's conjecture as to the fate of this ancient lady is one of the most probable that has yet been made.

"Having loitered behind through fright or curiosity, she was most likely crushed by one of those descending fragments, detached by the volcanic heaving of the mountain; and when Lot turned round to look at the place where she had stopped, he saw nothing but the salt rock which covered her body.". Vol. I. p. 270.

In regard to his great claim of discovering Sodom, it is but just to hear what he has to offer in contradiction of the established opinion, though his twelve diffuse pages must be condensed within a reasonable compass.

Josephus mentions that the lake extends as far as Zoara in Arabia, and that in its vicinity is the land of Sodom. We must thus conclude, since Zoar was at the southern extremity, Sodom was likewise there. All scholars agree in opinion, that Sodom was on the western shore of the lake. [?] Genesis expressly tells us that Lot' departed from Sodom when the morning arose, and entered Zoar when the sun was risen"; then the distance from Sodom to Zoar could not exceed a league at the utmost. Any locality on the eastern shore is therefore excluded. Now, if on the very spot where Sodom ought to exist, we find a huge mountain of mineral salt, called Djebel-Esdoum, bearing on its northern declivities the extensive ruins of a town, ruins among

which you can distinguish many foundations of walls, — ruins which the inhabitants of the country are in the habit of calling Kharbet-Esdoum, Ruins of Sodom, and of applying to them the traditions concerning Sodom, if, besides, within a mile and a half we fall in with other ruins called Zouera-et-Tahlah, Lower Zoar, is it possible to question both these identities ?

After proceeding to show that neither Testament asserts the submerging of these towns under the sea, he offers confirmations of his opinion from Josephus, Strabo, Tacitus, and Masoudy, an Arabian writer; upon which he concludes, that we may now consider an important point as perfectly established, namely, that the towns of the Pentapolis were not submerged after their destruction by fire. They therefore could never have been built on the ground which has been hitherto supposed to have been suddenly inundated by the waves of the lake.

"The logical conclusion from what I have stated is this. As it is unquestionable, that, with the exception of Engedi, Masada, Thamara, and Zoar, there has not been since the catastrophe of the Pentapolis any town built on the western shores of the Dead Sea, it necessarily follows that we cannot help recognizing Sodom in the Kharbet-Esdoum of the Arabs, at the foot of the salt-mountain which Galen expressly names Sodoma.

"To contest this discovery, there is but one course, to deny the existence of these ruins, which my companion and my. self have twice visited and examined with the greatest care."Vol. I. pp. 460–472.

Now, it is only fair to admit that this adventurous Frenchman has been rewarded by the discovery of an unknown mass of ruins, such as abound in Syria, the seat of some forgotten city, passed by unconsciously of other travellers, even the learned Dr. Robinson and the intrepid American explorers. But was this the

principal city of the Pentapolis? Are there any sufficient evidences, further than the correspondence of name, that the head-quarters of ancient iniquity are at last ascertained?

When we first heard this report, we wished it might prove true. The palace of Tiglath-Pileser is brought to light, the long-lost Serapion is disinterred, temples of an unknown age are discovered on our own continent; is it not time, we thought, for God "to bring to light the hidden things of darkness"? Unhappily, there is only the similarity of Esdoum with Sodom, and that is offset entirely by contradictory probabilities. Engedi, to be sure, is sufficiently indicated by Ain-Jedy, Emmaus by Amwas, Bethlehem by Beit-Lahm, Beersheba by Beeret-Seba, Hermon by Haramon, Heshbon by Heshban, Hebron by

Hebrum, Siloam by Selwan, Kidron, Endor, and Nain by modern names precisely similar, but in all these cases, other localities help to define their position; they stand at the right distance from undisputed points; their bearings by the compass, their relations to the neighborhood, are all as they should be.

Now the trouble is, we are greatly in the dark as to the surroundings of Sodom, and are likely to remain so. No human hand is able to remove the funereal pall which God has spread over the guilty cities of the plain; nor, for solemity of impression, should we wish it ever removed. It would impair somewhat the awe with which one visits this blasted neighborhood, could he be permitted to turn over the marble cornices and brazen mouldings, and say, "These were Sodom."

As we read the narrative of this appalling judgment, it fell upon "the cities of the plain," upon neighboring towns situated in the fat and well-watered plain of the Jordan. The impression given by the narrative in Genesis, the most reliable guide, opposes M. De Saulcy's selection of a narrow strip of sea-shore, and compels us to look rather for some wide pasture-land, where the numerous cattle constituting the wealth of Lot could find the same abundant nourishment as in Egypt. (Gen. xiii. 10.) If we suppose the sea not to have been salt until some convulsion of nature, of which so many traces still remain, had spread the "slime-pits of Siddim" over the southern banks of the river, still, a ledge at the foot of high mountains could never have furnished room for thousands of cattle, besides the space required by a populous city. If, however, pressed by this difficulty, M. De Saulcy places the town nearer that ancient channel of the Jordan, discovered under the sea by the soundings of the American Expedition, he of course abandons his boasted discovery, and adopts the traditional, almost universal belief.

A second argument is based upon the position assigned in his own map to the sister city, Gomorrah, and another prominent town in the group, Zeboim. Gomorrah M. De Sauley imagines he has found at some nameless and inconsiderable ruins a little south of Jericho, and near the northwestern corner of the sea. Its neighbor, Zeboim, he places where Zoar stands on Dr. Robinson's

chart, on the opposite side of the sea, and near its southern extremity, at the distance of several days' journey from Sodom. Zoar, again, M. De Sauley is led by similarity of name to place just north of Sodom, at a spot named by the Arabs Zouera-et-Tahlah: to this he is guided by the similarity of name, though the fact of two places in Syria bearing the same ancient name, as is true of Cana, Emmaus, &c., shows how little reliance can be had on this alone. Admah, the fifth town of the Sodom cluster, he places west, a little north, the farther side of some high chalk-hills, not near enough, however, to either of the others to form part of their neighborhood. The moment these distances are noted upon M. De Sauley's map, Gomorrah so far to the north, Sodom to the south, Zeboim to the east, and Admah to the west, that a week would be consumed in visiting them in succession, the impossibility of his hypothesis can hardly fail to be felt. The five towns of the Pentapolis, like the ten composing the Dekapolis, must have been in one neighborhood, on one side of the Jordan, bearing one relation to the Moab mountains, which cannot have changed, however the river may have altered its course. In every study of the New or Old Testament geography, towns that are famil iarly classed together are found to be closely grouped, so as to be almost suburbs of one another: so was it with the border towns of the Lake of Galilee.

A third fact, decisive of the question as to the distance of these destroyed cities from one another, is, that their judgment came by one and the same local convulsion, rendered probable by the volcanic character of the soil and the sulphureous exhalations of the vicinity, and confirmed by Lieutenant Lynch's discovery, that one moiety of the sea was sunken by some such disturbance of nature a thousand feet below the other part. Here, on these buried banks of the Jordan, in the neighborhood of what De Sauley is certain was Zeboim, and Robinson is equally certain was Zoar, on the eastern side of what was probably the re-issue of the river from a smaller lake than at present, uniform tradition has located "the five cities of the plain"; nor do we believe that future investigation will fix upon any more probable spot. As to the discovery of Gomorrah at a point named by the natives Kharbet-Goumran, with nothing but its cor