But the assumption he has made is by no means a safe one, nor one that can be carried through the treatise in which the information in question is contained. Apart from it, however, there is no thing in what Jerome says to fix the locality of Arimathea, further than that it was not far from Lydda. Paula may have visited it on her way to Lydda, or by an excursion from that city, or on her way from Joppa to Nicopolis, for anything that Jerome says.
The testimony of Josephus furnishes a more serious objection to the identification of Renthieh with Arimathea. The latter town was in the toparchy of Thamna (Meijdel Yaba), and by no straining can this be stretched so far west as to in clude Renthieh. To this objection we have seen no reply, nor can we see how it is to be got over. We feel constrained, therefore, to fall in with the conclusion of Dr. Robinson that the site of the ancient Arimathea has yet to be identified. We may add also, that we are disposed to attach more weight to the objections he has urged against Ramleh being identified with that town, than the writer of the article to which these remarks are supplementary. The statement of Abulfeda is too precise and detailed to be explained away in the manner proposed ; and the objection that Ramah and Ramleh cannot be identified because the names have not the same signification—the one denoting ' hilly,' and the other ` sandy'—cannot be fairly set aside by the supposition that the Moslems sub stituted Ramleh for Rama from some resemblance of sound. Unless we suppose names given abso lutely at random without any local, personal, or circumstantial reason, it seems incredible that a people, hearing a place called a ` should call it ' sandy,' simply because the word `sandy,' in their language, sounded something like the word `hill.' In fine, from the use of the word Ramah, it does not necessarily follow that the town in question was in the mountains. A place may be called Hilltown without being on a moun tain. But if a town were called Hilltown from being on an elevation, no people would naturally change the name to Rilltown simply because ' and ' hill ' sound very much alike.] Ramleh is in N. lat. 31° 59', and E. long. 35° 28', 8 miles S. E. from Joppa, and 24 miles N. W. by W. from Jerusalem. It lies in the fine undulating plain of Sharon, upon the eastern side of a broad low swell rising from a fertile though sandy plain. Like Gaza and Jaffa, this town is surrounded by olive-groves and gardens of vege tables and delicious fruits. Occasional palm-trees are also seen, as well as the kharob and the syca more. The streets are few ; the houses are of stone, and many of them large and well built. There are five mosques, two or more of which are said to have once been Christian churches ; and there is here one of the largest Latin convents in Palestine. The place is supposed to contain about 300o inhabitants, of whom two-thirds are Moslems, and the rest Christians, chiefly of the Greek church, with a few Armenians. The inhabitants carry on some trade in cotton and soap. The great caravan road between Egypt and Damascus, Smyrna, and Constantinople passes, through Ramleh, as well as the most frequented road for European pilgrims and travellers between Joppa and Jerusalem (Ro binson, iii. 27 ; Raumer, p. 215). The tower, of
which a figure is here given, is the most conspicu ous object in or about the city. It stands a little to the west of the town, on the highest part of the swell of land ; and is in the midst of a large quad rangular enclosure, which has much the appearance of having once been a splendid khan. The tower is wholly isolated, whatever may have been its original destination. It is about 120 feet in height, of Saracenic architecture, square and built with well hewn stone. The windows are of various forms, but all have pointed arches. The corners of the tower are supported by tall, slender but tresses ; while the sides taper upwards by several stories to the top. It is of solid masonry, except a narrow staircase within, winding up to an ex ternal gallery, which is also of stone, and is carried quite round the tower a few feet below the top (Robinson, ifi. 32). In the absence of any histo. rical evidence that the enclosure was a khan, Dr. Robinson resorts to the Moslem account of its having belonged to a ruined mosque. The tower itself bears the date 718 A. H. (A. D. 1310), and an Arabian author (Mejr-ed-Din) reports the comple tion at Ramleh, in that year of a minaret unique for its loftiness and grandeur, by the sultan of Egypt, Nazir Mohammed ibn Kelawan (Robin son, in. 38 ; also Volney, ii. 28i). Among the plantations which surround the town occur, at every step, dry wells, cisterns fallen in, and vast vaulted reservoirs, which skew that the city must in former times have been upwards of a leagiu; and a half in extent (Volney, ii. 280).
The town is first mentioned under its present name by the monk Bernard, about A.D. 870. About A.D. 1150 the Arabian geographer Edrisi (ed. Jaubert, p. 339) mentions Ramleh and Jeru salem as the two principal cities of Palestine. The first Crusaders on their approach found Ramleh deserted by its inhabitants ; and with it and Lydda they endowed the first Latin bishopric in Palestine, which took its denomination from the latter city. From the situation of Ramleh between that city and the coast, it was a post of much importance to the Crusaders, and they held possession of it gener ally while Jerusalem was in their hands, and long afterwards. In A. D. [266 it was finally taken from the Christians by the Sultan Bibars. Subsequently it is often mentioned in the accounts of travellers and pilgrims, most of whom rested there on their way to Jerusalem. It seems to have declined very fast from the time that it came into the possession of the Crusaders. Benjamin of Tudela (Itin. p. 7o, ed. Asher), who was there in A.D. 1173, speaks of it as having been formerly a considerable city. Belon (Observat. p. 31 i), in 1547, mentions it as almost deserted, scarcely twelve houses being in habited, and the fields mostly untilled. This deser tion must have occurred after 1487 ; for, Le Grand, Voyage de fol. xiv., speaks of it as a peopled town (though partly ruined), and of the seigneur de Rama' as an important personage. By 1674 it had somewhat revived, but it was still rather a large unwalled village than a city, without anv good houses, the governor himself being miser ably lodged (Nati, Voyage Nouveau, liv. i. ch. 6). Its present state must, therefore, indicate a degree of comparative prosperity of recent growth.—J. K.