JERUSALEM. 
Wretched representations given of them in books of travels 
convey no idea adequate to the appearance they exhibit.* 
There is a certain air of grandeur, and of sublimity, express¬ 
ed by their massy structure, by the boldness of their design, 
and by the sombre hue prevailing not only over the monu¬ 
ments themselves, but over all the surrounding rocks whence 
they were hewn, which is lost in the minuteness of engraved 
representation.f In order to form the sepulchres of Absalom 
and of Zechariah, the solid substance of the mountain lias it¬ 
self been cut away ; sufficient areas being thereby excavated, 
two monuments of prodigious size appear in the midst; each 
seeming to consist of a single stone, although s anding as if 
erected by an architect, and adorned with columns! appearing 
to support the edifice, whereof they are in fact themselves in¬ 
tegral parts ; the whole of each mausoleum being of one en¬ 
tire block of stone. These works may therefore be considered 
as belonging to sculpture rather than to architecture; for, im¬ 
mense as are the tombs, they are sculptured instead of being 
built. The Doric order appears in the capitals of the co¬ 
lumns: hence it has been inferred, that some persons have 
decorated these places according to the rules of Greek architec¬ 
ture since they were originally constructed ;$ but there is not 
the slightest reason for this conjecture. The columns are of 
that ancient style and character which yet appear among the 
works left by Ionian and Dorian colonies, in the remains of 
their Asiatic cities; particularly at Tel mess us, where even 
the inscriptions denote a period in history long anterior to the 
cera when such a modification of these ancient structures 
might have taken place. It has never yet been determined 
* The engravings in Pococke’s second volume of his “Description of the East,”’ 
Jjond. 1745, may be considered as affording the most faithful delineation of these 
monuments; but they are by no means adequate to the effect produced, by the 
originals. 
fMons. De Chateaubriand, considering these monuments as designed by Jews, 
who had adopted something of the Grecian model, is particularly happy in-de¬ 
scribing the singular taste which resulted from the alliance. “ But” (Trav. vol. IT. 
p. 102, Load. 1811.) “in naturalizing at Jerusalem the architecture of Corinth and 
Athens, the Jews intermixed with -it the forms of their peculiar style. The tombs 
?n the valley of Jehosaphat display a manifest alliance of the Egyptian and Grecian 
taste From this alliance resulted a heterogeneous kind of monuments, forming, as it 
were, the link between the pyramids and the parthenon ” This observation is not 
less remarkable for its truth than for the judicious taste which it displays. 
|“The ornaments of this sepulchre (Absalom’s) consist of twenty-four semi 
columns of the Doric order, not fluted, six on each front of the monument.” Char- 
teauhriand’s Travels, vol. II. p. 100. Lond.1811. 
§ See Pococke’s Descript, of the East, vol. II. Lond, 1745. Pococke described the 
columns as of the Ionic order, and so designed them According to notes/in (he au¬ 
thor’s journal, they are Doric.;- and they are *o described by Moas. De Chateau- 
tynaatf. See Trav. in Greece, Palaest. &t c. p. 100., Loud, 161!. 
