the Flood, he thinks that mountain is not high enough to account for the long period that elapsed (Gen. viii. 5) before the other mountains became visible. Now it is evident that these and suchlike theories have been framed in forgetfulness of what the Bible has recorded respecting the locality of Ararat. We may be unable to fix with precision where that region lay, but we can withbut difficulty decide that it was neither in Afghanistan nor Ceylon, neither in Asia Minor nor in Northern India.

The only other passages where 'Ararat occurs are 2 Kings xix. 37 (Isa. xxxvii. 38) and Jer. li. 27. In the former it is spoken of as the country whither the sons of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, fled, after they had murdered their father. The apocryphal book of Tobit (i. 21) says it was eis rà opn 'Apapá, to the mountains of Ararath.' This points to a territory which did not form part of the immediate dominion of Assyria, and yet might not be far off from it. The description is quite applicable to Armenia, and the tradition* of that country bears, that Sennacherib's sons were kindly received by king Paroyr, who allotted them portions of land bordering on Assyria, and that in course of time their posterity also established an independent kingdom, called Vaspurakan (Avdall's Transl. of Chamich's Hist. of Armenia (vol i. p. 33, 34). The other Scripture text (Jer. li. 27) mentions Ararat, along with Minni and Ashkenaz, as kingdoms summoned to arm themselves against Babylon. In the parallel place in Isa. xiii. 2-4, the invaders of Babylonia are described as issuing from the mountains; and if by Minni we understand the Minyas in Armenia, mentioned by Nicholas of Damascus (Josephus, Antiq i. 3. 6), and by Ashkenaz some country on the Euxine Sea, which may have had its original name, Arenos, from Ashkenaz, a son of Gomer, the progenitor of the Cimmerians (Gen. x. 2, 3)-then we arrive at the same conclusion, viz., that Ararat was a mountainous region north of Assyria, and in all probability in Armenia. In Ezek. xxxviii. 6, we find Togarmah, another part of Armenia, connected with Gomer, and in Ezek. xxvii. 14, with Meshech and Tubal, all tribes of the north. With this agree the traditions of the Jewish and Christian churches, and likewise the accounts of the native Armenian writers, who inform us that Ararad was the name of one of the ancient provinces of their country, supposed to correspond to the modern pashaliks of Kars and Bayazeed, and part of Kurdistan. According to the tradition preserved in Moses of Chorene, the name of Ararat was derived from Arai, the eighth of the native princes, who was killed in a battle with the Babylonians, about B.C. 1750; in memory of which the whole province was called Aray-iarat, i. e. the ruin of Arai.

But though it may be concluded with tolerable certainty that the land of Ararat is to be identified with a portion of Armenia, we possess no historical data for fixing on any one mountain in that country as the resting-place of the ark. Indeed it may be fairly questioned whether the phrase in Gen. viii.

* A similar tradition is reported by the Armenian historian, Moses of Chorene, but he dates the event in the reign of Skaïord, the father of Paroyr.

4, Mann Mini, and the ark rested,' necessarily means that the ark actually grounded on the top of a mountain; it may merely imply that after it had been driven and tossed to and fro on the waste of waters, it at length settled, i. e. attained a measure of comparative repose, and became more stationary over (y) the mountains of Ararat, when the waters began to subside. That this may be the import of the expression will be denied by none who are acquainted with the genius of the Hebrew language, and with the latitude of meaning attachable to the verb ma, which (as is observed by Taylor in his Concordance includes whatever comes under the idea of remaining quietly in a place without being disturbed. A vessel enjoys more real rest when becalmed, than when she grounds on the top of a submarine mountain in a troubled sea. What gives plausibility to our conjecture is the fact that whether the rest' was obtained on the bosom of the now calmer deep, or by coming into contact with the dry land, it was nearly three months after this before the tops of the mountains were seen' (Gen. viii. 5); the same mountains being evidently intended as those spoken of in the previous verse, viz. the mountains of Araiat. Now, as the waters were all the while abating (v. 3), it is much easier to reconcile this latter statement with the idea of the ark being still afloat, than with the common belief that it lay on a mountain peak; besides, that by this interpretation we get rid of otherwise inexplicable difficulties. If our supposition be correct, then, for anything that appears to the contrary, the ark did not touch the earth until the waters were abated to a level with the lower valleys or plains, and, consequently, the inmates were not left upon a dreary elevation of 16,000 or 17,000 feet, never till of late deemed accessible to human footsteps, and their safe descent from which, along with all the living creatures' committed to their care, would have been a greater miracle than their deliverance from the flood. By this explanation also we obviate the geological objection against the mountain, now called Ararat, having been submerged, which would imply a universal deluge, whereas by the mountains of Ararat' may be understood some lower chain in Armenia, whose height would not be incompatible with the notion of a partial flood. Finally, we on this hypothesis solve the question:- If the descendants of Noah settled near the resting-place of the ark in Armenia, how could they be said to approach the plain of Shinar (Gen. xi. 2), or Babylonia, from the East! For, as we read the narrative, the precise rest nplace of the ark is nowhere mentioned; and though for a time stationary over the mountains of Ararat, it may, before the final subsidence of the waters, have been carried considerably to the east of them.

The ancients, however, attached a peculiar sacredness to the tops of high mountains, and hence the belief was early propagated that the ark must have rested on some such lofty eminence The earliest tradition fixed on one of the chain of mountains which separate Armenia on the south from Mesopotamia, and which, as they also inclose Kurdistan, the land of the Kurds, obtained the name of the Kardu, or Carduchian range, corrupted into Gordiæan and Cordyæan. This

opinion prevailed among the Chaldæans, if we may rely on the testimony of Berosus as quoted by Josephus (Antiq. i. 3. 6): It is said there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyæans, and that people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they use as amulets. The same is reported by Abydenus (in Euseb. Prap. Evang. ix. 4), who says they employed the wood of the vessel against diseases. Hence we are prepared to find the tradition adopted by the Chaldee paraphrasts, as well as by the Syriac translators and commentators, and all the Syrian churches. In the three texts where 'Ararat occurs, the Targum of Onkelos has 177p Kardu; and, according to Buxtorf, the term Kardyan' was in Chaldee synonymous with 'Armenian. At Gen. viii. 4, the Arabic of ErDenius has Jibal-el-Karud (the Mountain of the

Kurds), which is likewise found in the Book of Adam of the Zabeans. For other proofs that this was the prevalent opinion among the Eastern churches, the reader may consult Eutychius, (Annals,) and Epiphanius (Hares. 18). It was no doubt from this source that it was borrowed by Mahomet, who in his Koran (xi. 46) says, The ark rested on the mountain Al-Judi.' That name was probably a corruption of Giordi, i. e. Gordiæan (the designation given to the entire range), but afterwards applied to the special locality where the ark was supposed to have rested. This is on a mountain a little to the east of Jezirah ibn Omar (the ancient Bezabde) on the Tigris. At the foot of the mountain there was a village called Karya Thaminin, i. e. the Village of the Eighty-that being the number (and not eight) saved from the flood according to the Mo

ammedan belief. The historian Elmacin mentions that the emperor Heraclius went up, and visited this as 'the place of the ark.' Here, or in the neighbourhood, was once a famous Nestorian monastery, the Monastery of the Ark,' destroyed by lightning in A.D. 776. The credulous Jew, Benjamin of Tudela, says that a mosque was built at Mount Judi, of the remains of the ark,' by the Khalif Omar. Macdonald Kinneir, in describing his journey from Jezirah along the left bank of the Tigris to Nahr Van, says, 'We had a chain of mountains running parallel with the road on the left hand. This range is called the Juda Dag (i. e. mountain) by the Turks, and one of the inhabitants of Nahr Van assured me that he had frequently seen the remains of Noah's ark on a lofty peak behind that village. (Comp. Rich's Kurdistan, vol. ii. p. 124.) A French savant, Eugene Boré, who lately visited those parts, says the Mohammedan dervishes still maintain here a perpetually burning lamp in an ora

tory. (Revue Française, vol. xii.; or the Semeur of October 2, 1839.)

After the disappearance of the Nestorian monastery, the tradition which fixed the site of the ark on Mount Judi appears to have declined in credit, or been chiefly confined to Mahometans, and gave place (at least among the Christians of the West) to that which now obtains, and according to which the ark rested on a great mountain in the north of Armenia-to which (so strongly did the idea take hold of the popular belief) was, in course of time, given the very name of Ararat, as if no doubt could be entertained that it was the Ararat of Scripture. We have seen, however, that in the Bible Ararat is nowhere the name of a mountain, and by the native Armenians the mountain in question was never so designated; it is by them called Macis, and by the Turks Aghur-dagh, i. e. The Heavy or Great Moun tain. The Vulgate and Jerome indeed, render Ararat by Armenia,' but they do not particu

larize any one mountain. Still there is no doubt of the antiquity of the tradition of this being (as it is sometimes termed) the 'Mother of the World.' The Persians call it Kuhi Nuch, 'Noah's Mountain. The Armenian etymology of the name of the city of Nakhchevan (which lies east of it) is said to be first place of descent or lodging,' being regarded as the place where Noah resided after descending from the mount. It is mentioned by Josephus under a Greek name of similar import, viz. 'Aπоßaτńρiov, and by Ptolemy as Naxuana.

The mountain thus known to Europeans as Ararat consists of two immense conical elevations (one peak considerably lower than the other), towering in massive and majestic grandeur from the valley of the Aras, the ancient Araxes. Smith and Dwight give its position N. 57° W. of Nakhchevan, and S. 25° W. of Erivan (Researches in Armenia, p. 267); and remark, in describing it before the recent earthquake, that in no part of the world had they seen any mountain whose imposing appearance could plead half so powerfully as this a claim to the honour of having once been the stepping-stone between the old world and the new. It appeared,' says Ker Porter, as if the hugest mountains of the world had been piled upon each other to form this one sublime immensity of earth and rocks and snow. The icy peaks of its double heads rose majestically into the clear and cloudless heavens; the sun blazed bright upon them, and the reflection sent forth a dazzling radiance equal to other suns. My eye, not able to rest for any length of time upon the blinding glory of its summits, wandered down the apparently interminable sides, till I could no longer trace their vast lines in the mists of the horizon; when an irrepressible impulse immediately carrying my eye upwards, again refixed my gaze upon the awful glare of Ararat.' To the same effect Morier writes :- Nothing can be more beautiful than its shape, more awful than its height. All the surrounding mountains sink into insignificance when compared to it. It is perfect in all its parts; no hard rugged feature, no unnatural prominences, everything is in harmony, and all combines to render it one of the sublimest objects in nature.'

Several attempts had been made to reach the top of Ararat, but few persons had got beyond the limit of perpetual snow. The French traveller Tournefort, in the year 1700, long persevered in the face of many difficulties, but was foiled in the end. Between thirty and forty years ago the Pasha of Bayazeed undertook the ascent with no better success. The honour was reserved to a

German, Dr. Parrot, in the employment of Russia, who, in his Reise zum Ararat (Journey to Ararat) gives the following particulars: The summit of the Great Ararat is in 39° 42′ north lat., and 61° 55' east long. from Ferro. Its perpendicular height is 16,254 Paris feet above the level of the sea, and 13,350 above the plain of the Araxes. The Little Ararat is 12,284 Paris feet above the sea, and 9561 above the plain of the Araxes.' After he and his party had failed in two attempts to ascend, the third was successful, and on the 27th September (o. s.), 1829, they stood on the summit of Mount Ararat. It was a slightly convex, almost circular platform, about 200 Paris feet in diameter, composed of eternal

ice, unbroken by a rock or stone on account of the immense distances, nothing could be seen distinctly. The mountain was, it is said, afterwards ascended by a Mr. Antonomoff, but the fact both of his and Parrot's having reached the top is stoutly denied by the natives, and especially by the inmates of the neighbouring convent of Echmiadzin, who have a firm persuasion that in order to preserve the ark no one is permitted to approach it. This is based on the tradition that a monk, who once made the attempt, was, when asleep from exhaustion, unconsciously carried down to the point whence he had started; but at last, as the reward of his fruitless exertions, an angel was sent to him with a piece of the ark, which is preserved as the most valuable relic in the cathedral of Echmiadzin.

Since the memorable ascent of Dr. Parrot, Ararat has been the scene of a fearful calamity. An earthquake, which in a few moments changed the entire aspect of the country, commenced on the 20th of June (o. s.), 1840, and continued, at intervals, until the 1st of September. Traces of fissures and landslips have been left on the surface of the earth, which the eye of the scientific observer will recognise after many ages. The destruction of houses and other property in a wide tract of country around was very great; fortunately, the earthquake having happened during the day, the loss of lives did not exceed fifty. The scene of greatest devastation was in the narrow valley of Akorhi, where the masses of rock, ice, and snow, detached from the summit of Ararat and its lateral points, were thrown at one single bound from a height of 6000 feet to the bottom of the valley, where they lay scattered over an extent of several miles. (See Major Voskoboinikof's Report, in the Athenæum for 1841, p. 157).-N. M.

ARAUNAH (71), or ORNAN (127), a man of the Jebusite nation, which possessed Jerusalem before it was taken by the Israelites. when he understood that it was required for the His threshing-floor was on Mount Moriah; and site of the Temple, he liberally offered the ground to David as a free gift; but the king insisted on paying the full value for it (2 Sam. xxiv. 18; 1 Chron. xxi. 18).

ARBA. [HEBRON.]

ARBELA. [BETH-ARBEL.]

ARCE, or ARKE, by change of pronunciation REKEM; the same as Petra,the capital of Arabia Petræa [PETRA].

ARCH. Arches with vaulted chambers and domed temples figure so conspicuously in modern Oriental architecture, that, if the arch did not exist among the ancient Jews, their towns and houses could not possibly have offered even a faint resemblance to those which now exist: and this being the case, a great part of the analogical illustrations of Scripture which modern travellers and Biblical illustrators have obtained from this source must needs fall to the ground. It is therefore of importance to ascertain whether the arch did or did not exist in those remote times to which most of the history of at least the Old Testament belongs. Nothing against its existence is to be inferred from the fact that no word signifying an arch can be found in the Hebrew Scriptures (for the word so rendered in

Ezek. xl. 16, has not that meaning). The architectural notices in the Bible are necessarily few and general; and we have at this day histories and other books, larger than the sacred volume, in which no such word as arch' occurs. There is certainly no absolute proof that the Israelites employed arches in their buildings; but if it can be shown that arches existed in Egypt at a very early period, we may safely infer that so useful an invention could not have been unknown in Palestine.

4

2

Until within these few years it was common to ascribe a comparatively late origin to the arch; but circumstances have come to light one after another, tending to throw the date more and more backward, until at length it seems to be admitted that in Egypt the arch already existed in the time of Joseph. The observations of Rosellini and of Sir J. G. Wilkinson led them irresistibly to this conclusion, which has also been recently adopted by Mr. Cockerell (Lect. iii., in Athenæum for Jan. 28, 1843) and other architects.

It is shown by Sir J. G. Wilkinson that the arch existed in brick in the reign of Amenoph I., as early as B.C. 1540; and in stone in the time of the second Psamaticus, B.c. 600. This evidence is derived from the ascertained date of arches now actually existing; but the paintings at Beni-Hassan afford ground for the conclusion that vaulted buildings were constructed in Egypt as early as the reign of Osirtasen I., who is presumed to have been contemporary with Joseph. Indeed, although the evidence from facts does not ascend beyond this, the evidence from analogy and probability can be carried back to about B.C. 2020 (Wilkinson's Anc. Egyptians, ii. 116; iii. 316). Sir J. G. Wilkinson suggests the probability that the arch owed its invention to the small quantity of wood in Egypt, and the consequent expense of roofing with timber. The proofs may be thus arranged in chronological orler:

The evidence that arches were known in the

time of the first Osirtasen is derived from the drawings at Beni-Hassan (Wilkinson, ii. 117).

In the secluded valley of Dayr el Medeeneh, at Thebes, are several tombs of the early date of Amenoph I. Among the most remarkable of these is one whose crude brick roof and niche, bearing the name of the same Pharaoh, prove the existence of the arch at the remote period of B.C. 1540 (Wilkinson, Topography of Thebes, p. 81). Another tomb of similar construction bears the ovals of Thothmes III., who reigned about the time of the Exode (Anc. Egyptians, iii. 319). At Thebes there is also a brick arch bearing the name of this king (Hoskins, Travels in Ethiopia).

To the same period and dynasty (the 18th) belong the vaulted chambers and arched door ways (see cut, fig. 4) which yet remain in the crude brick pyramids at Thebes (Wilkinson, Anc. Egyptians, iii. 317).

In ancient Egyptian houses it appears that the roofs were often vaulted, and built, like the rest of the house, of crude brick; and there is reason to believe that some of the chambers in the pavilion of Rameses III. (about B.C. 1245), at Medeenet Haboo, were arched with stone, since the devices in the upper part of the walls show that the fallen roofs had this form (see cut, fig. 3).

The most ancient actually existing arches of stone occur at Memphis, near the modern village of Saqqara. Here there is a tomb with two large vaulted chambers, whose roofs display in every part the name and sculptures of Psamaticus II. (about B.c. 600). The chambers are cut in the limestone rock, and this being of a friable nature, the roof is secured by being, as it were, lined with an arch, like our modern tunnels.

To about the same period-that of the last dynasty before the Persian invasion-belong the remarkable doorways of the enclosures surrounding the tombs in the Assaséef, which are composed of two or more concentric semicircles of brick (fig. 2) (Wilkinson, Anc. Egyptians, iii. 319).

Although the oldest stone arch whose age has been positively ascertained does not date earlier

than the time of Psamaticus, we cannot suppose hat the use of stone was not adopted by the Egyptians for that style of building previous to his reign, even if the arches in the pyramids in Ethiopia should prove not to be anterior to the same era. Nor does the absence of the arch in temples and other large buildings excite our surprise, when we consider the style of Egyptian monuments; and no one who understands the character of their architecture could wish for its introduction. In some of the small temples of the Oasis the Romans attempted this innovation, but the appearance of the chambers so constructed fails to please; and the whimsical caprice of Osirei (about B.c. 1385), also introduced an imitation of the arch in a temple at Abydus. In this building the roof is formed of single blocks of stone, reaching from one architrave to the other, which, instead of being placed in the usual manner, stand upon their edges, in order to allow room for hollowing out an arch in their thickness; but it has the effect of inconsistency,

without the plea of advantage or utility.' Another imitation of the arch occurs in a building at Thebes, constructed in the style of a tomb. The chambers lie under a friable rock, and are cased with masonry, to prevent the fall of its crumbling stone; but, instead of being roofed on the principle of the arch, they are covered with a number of large blocks, placed horizontally, one projecting beyond that immediately below it, till the uppermost two meet in the centre, the interior angles being afterwards rounded off to form the appearance of a vault (fig. 1). The date of this building is about B.c. 1500, and consequently many years after the Egyptians had been acquainted with the art of vaulting (Wilkinson, Anc. Egyptians, ii. 321).

Thus as the temple architecture of the Egyptians did not admit of arches, and as the temples are almost the only buildings that remain, it is not strange that arches have not oftener been found. The evidence offered by the paintings, the tombs, and the pyramids is conclusive for the existence and antiquity of arches and vaults of brick and stone; and if any remains of houses and palaces had now existed, there is little doubt that the arch would have been of frequent occurrence. We observe that Sir J. G. Wilkinson, in portraying an Egyptian mansion (Anc. Egyptians, ii. 131), makes the grand entrance an archway.

After this it seems unreasonable to doubt that the arch was known to the Hebrews also, and was employed in their buildings. Palestine was in deed better wooded than Egypt; but still that there was a deficiency of wood suitable for building and for roofs is shown by the fact that large importations of timber from the forests of Lebanon were necessary (2 Sam. vii. 2, 7; 1 Kings v. 6; 1 Chron. xxii. 4; 2 Chron. ii. 3; Ezra iii. 7; Cant. i. 17), and that this imported timber, although of no very high quality, was held in great estimation.

ARCHELAUS, son of Herod the Great, and his successor in Idumæa, Judæa, and Samaria (Matt. ii. 22) [HERODIAN FAMILY]. ARCHERY. [ARMS.]

ARCHIPPUS ("Aрxiños), a Christian minister, whom St. Paul calls his fellow-soldier,' in Philem. 2, and whom he exhorts to renewed activity in Col. iv. 17. From the latter referthe office of Evangelista sometimes at Ephesus, ence it would seem that Archippus had exercised sometimes elsewhere; and that he finally resided at Colosse, and there discharged the office of presiding presbyter or bishop when St. Paul wrote to the Colossian church. The exhortation given to him in this Epistle has, without sufficient grounds, been construed into a rebuke for past negligence.

ARCHISYNAGOGUS (Gr. άρχισυνάγωγος, called also apxwv tŷs ovvaywyns (Luke viii. 41), and simply apxwv (Matt. ix. 18); Heb. In large synagogues there appears to have been a noon, chief or ruler of the synagogue). college or council of elders (D'Opt = πρεσβύ Tepot, Luke vii. 3) to whom the care of the synagogue and the discipline of the congregation were committed, and to all of whom this title was applied (Mark v. 22; Acts xiii. 15; xviii. 8, compared with v. 17). Their duties were to preside in the public services, to direct the reading of the Scriptures and the addresses to the congregation Vitringa, De Synagoga Vetere, lib. 3, part i. c. 7; comp. Acts xiii. 15), to superintend the distribution of alms (Vitr. c. 13), and to punish transgressors either by scourging (Vitr. c. 11; compare Matt. x. 17; xxiii. 34; Acts xxii. 19) or by excommunication (Vitr. c. 9). In a more restricted sense the title is sometimes applied to the president of this council, whose office, according to Grotius (Annotationes in Matt. ix. 18; Luc. xiii. 14) and many other writers, was dif ferent from and superior to that of the elders in general. Vitringa (p. 586), on the other hand,

maintains that there was no such distinction of

office, and that the title thus applied merely designates the presiding elder, who acted on behalf of and in the name of the whole.-F. W. G.

ARCHITECTURE. It was formerly common to claim for the Hebrews the invention of scientific architecture; and to allege that classical antiquity was indebted to the Temple of Solomon for the principles and many of the details of the art. A statement so strange, and even preposterous, would scarcely seem to demand attention at the present day; but as it is still occasionally reproduced, and as some respectable old authorities can be cited in its favour, it cannot be passed altogether in silence. The question belongs properly, however, to another head [TEMPLE]. It may here suffice to remark that temples previously existed in Egypt, Babylon, Syria and Phoenicia, from which the classical ancients were far more likely to borrow the ideas which they embodied in new and beautiful combinations of their own. But there are few notions, however untenable, which have not some apparent foundation in fact. So in the present case, it is shown, first, that a resemblance of plan and detail can be traced between certain heathen temples and the Temple at Jerusalem; and, secondly, it is alleged that this could not be owing to imita