mean, not the Mosque el Aksa, but the whole Haram Area, including all the oratories, mosques, minarets, &c. (2.) All these were built, as has been related, chap, iv., by 'Abd el Melik. (3.) The Dome of the Rock is only a supplementary building (see p. 83). (4.) When the pulpit, the ' kiblah,' &c., of the Masjid el Aksa is spoken of, we must refer it to the Jami' el Aksa. The Haram Area, when Omar visited it first, presented an aspect somewhat similar to what it has at present, so far as its outward walls, dimensions, and general level are concerned. In the centre was the rock, where, as everybody knew, had been the Temple. This was covered with rubbish and filth. And round the rock, and about it, were certain old foundations, most likely those of Hadrian's Temple to Jupiter, possibly those of the Temple of Herod. Along the south wall were extensive ruins. At the south-east angle lay arches and substructures overthrown ; and further west the ruins of a Christian church, most probably that of Justinian's church, now the Jami' el Aksa. All these substructures were repaired by the Mohammedans, the position of the walls being, naturally, retained. Thefl, being desirous of building a dome over the Sacred Rock, 'Abd el Melik issued letters and collected money. He first designed and built a small dome, the same which is now called the Cubbet es Silsilah, for a treasury. He was so pleased with the work that he ordered his great dome to be built on the same model. The Dome of the Rock must not be compared with other mosques, because it is not one, and was never meant for one, but it may advantageously be compared with other welis, or Mohammedan oratories. Therefore no argument can be drawn from what would be an exceptional shape for a mosque. It must be distinctly understood that Arabic historians are as clear and explicit as to the building of this splendid dome as we should be over the building of St. Paul's by Christopher Wren ; and that in the account given by us (p. 79 et sey.) no single sentence is inserted for which there is not full authority in the Arabic historians. The third and last method of argument is from architecture. History may be misinterpreted. It may even purposely deceive. But architecture cannot lie. Within limits, superior and inferior, the date of a building can be assigned to it. These limits approach each other more nearly as we come to modem times. Architects find no difficulty, for instance, in distinguishing buildings of the fifteenth from those of the sixteenth century. But the limits recede