distances to be 1000 feet, 600 feet, and 700 feet. He then argues as follows:

'The Jews by this time had learned the use of warlike engines, and they had excellent machines which they had taken from the Twelfth Legion at Beth Horon. The range of these machines was 1200 feet. Titus, therefore, since he was out of range of the enemies' missiles, must have been more than 1200 feet from the Second Wall. But from No. 3 to his camp was 700 feet, from No. 2 to his camp was 600 feet, and from No. 1

to his camp was 1000 feet. From any one of these points the Jews could have annoyed Titus greatly and made his camp very unsafe. Hence we have either to discard Josephus' statement entirely, or to admit that the line of the present wall has nothing to do with the First [Agrippa's] Wall of the siege of Titus' (pp. 169 f.).

This seems to be conclusive, assuming that Josephus' estimate of the range of the machines is correct, and that Dr Merrill is quoting him with accuracy. When, however, we turn to 'War,' v, 6: 3, we find, with regard to the machines captured by the Jews from Cestius at Beth Horon and from the garrison of Antonia, that,

' though they had these engines in their possession, they had so little skill in using them that they were in a great measure useless to them; but a few there were who had been taught by deserters how to use them, which they did, though after an awkward manner. The engines that all the legions had ready prepared for them were admirably contrived; but still more extraordinary ones belonged to the Tenth Legion; those that threw darts and those that threw stones were more powerful and larger than the rest, by which they not only repelled the excursions of the Jews, but drove those away that were on the walls also. Now the stones that were cast were of the weight of a talent, and were carried two stadia and further.'

Thus we observe that the machines which had a range of two stadia (approximately 1200 feet) or more were not those possessed by the Jews, but the extraordinary' ones belonging to the Tenth Legion; and, further, that such machines as the Jews possessed they were unable to use, or at best could only use them very awkwardly. On the ground of this kind of employment of his sources Dr Merrill's arguments must be discounted; and students of the question will prefer to follow Sir

Charles Wilson, who, speaking as a skilled investigator, assumes the probability that the traditional site of Golgotha may have lain outside the second wall, and, as a military expert, finds nothing in the evidence of Josephus against the view that the modern north wall answers approximately to Agrippa's wall (p. 130).

It is clear, therefore, that no definite conclusion as to the authenticity of the traditional site of Golgotha can be deduced from the position of the second wall; and our acceptance or non-acceptance of the site must depend upon the value which we attach to the continuous tradition of the Church since the time of Constantine. With regard to this, both Dr Sanday and Sir Charles Wilson argue forcibly that it may quite well have been based upon an unbroken recollection from the earliest times, and prove that to reject the tradition off-hand is as uncritical as to accept it without question. At any rate, the possibilities embodied in the tradition render the site far more worthy of consideration than the purely hypothetical identification which is known as 'Gordon's Calvary' to the north of the Damascus gate, advocated by Col. Conder (ch. vii).

The limits of this article exclude discussion of other New Testament sites in and about Jerusalem. These have been reviewed by Dr Sanday in ch. iii of his book; and they are dealt with at length by Dr Smith in the concluding chapters of his second volume. Much light, too, has been thrown upon some of the problems connected with Herod's Temple in a valuable series of articles by Dr Kennedy, which appeared in the 'Expository Times' for the year 1908-9. In these the writer seems to have substantiated his claim that he has 'succeeded in determining, to within a few feet, the precise location of Herod's Temple and its courts.' The aspect of this Temple, as it must have appeared to a spectator, 'standing on the road from Bethany as it breaks round the Mount of Olives,' is vividly painted in all its detail by Dr Smith (ii, 518 ff.); but the description is too long to quote, and to select or to curtail would be to spoil the picture. In this, as in other descriptive passages, the grace and vigour of the writer's style, no less than his learned insight into the questions with which he is dealing, carry

his readers along with him, and invest the history of the ancient city with a human interest such as it is in the power of few writers to create in a like degree.

Readers of Dr Smith's important work can scarcely fail to realise how much of archæological research still remains to be accomplished; and at the same time how much can be done by the investigations of trained scholars such as the author, who have contrived for themselves opportunities of first-hand acquaintance with the archæological problems of Jerusalem. So far as Great Britain is concerned, however, the matter is still unfortunately one of private contrivance on the part of individual scholars; and it is surely a subject of reproach to this country that there is at Jerusalem no British school of research like the German and American schools and the Dominican Convent of St Stephen, or the British schools at Rome and Athens.

The present time, when the question of research is so much in the air at both our older Universities, seems to offer a unique opportunity for the supply of this deficiency; but, crippled as Oxford and Cambridge are in the matter of funds, and beset by the demands of other branches of study, it is difficult to see how the project can hope to gain the support which it deserves. A mere fraction of the money which is so lavishly bestowed by wealthy benefactors upon free libraries and scientific laboratories would suffice handsomely to equip such a school; and if, in addition to this, an Oxford and a Cambridge College were each to devote a Research Fellowship to the cause, and other British universities were willing to co-operate, the school would be brought into close connexion with our ancient seats of learning, and a constant succession of students would be secured. Such a scheme, too, might be carried through without in any way diminishing the support which the Palestine Exploration Fund has so long and so deservedly enjoyed; and the new school would reap the advantage of the experience and co-operation of the old Society. Is it too much to hope that the influence of Dr Smith's work, which marks an epoch in Biblical study, may stimulate the support which is needed in order to make this scheme a reality?

Art. 5.—GOLF DURING THIRTY YEARS.

1. Golf. The Badminton Library of Sports and Pastimes.' Edited by the Duke of Beaufort. London: Longmans, 1890.

2. Golf: a Royal and Ancient Game. Edited by Robert Clark. London: Macmillan, 1893.

3. The Life of Tom Morris, with glimpses of St Andrews and its Golfing Celebrities. By W. W. Tulloch, D.D. London: Werner Laurie, 1907.

It is recorded in a great book that a certain don of Oxford, after his first introduction to the game of golf, defined it as the pastime of putting little balls into little holes with instruments singularly ill-adapted to the purpose.' Why should the author of this inspired phrase be denied due recognition? It was Mr William Little, fellow and tutor of Corpus. Had his inspiration taken the line of prophecy, instead of that of definition, and been equally successful and exact, it is difficult to think that any who heard him would have paid heed to his words, so far beyond all reasonable expectation has been the development-among all conditions and both sexes-of that pastime of putting the little balls into the little holes; for the definition is now thirty years old; and in the interval important things have happened.

It is not very easy to perceive how any pastime could make so great a change as has actually taken place; and the change itself, though thirty years is not a very long while, has been so gradual that even the fact is not quite obvious, just because it lies before our eyes. It is so obvious that we hardly notice it. Yet if we look at the map, or even if we take a mental tour around the coast, we find a great number of watering-places which practically owe their existence to golf. Men, with their families, visit them for a month or six weeks in the holiday time of the year, or by themselves, without their domestic encumbrances, for a few days or a 'week-end' at other seasons. Golf is the very life of these places. Were it not for the golf they would not exist. Without it they would never have come into being, and if it were withdrawn they would die of inanition. Those which have the attraction of a good golf course can dispense with any

other attraction, and have so strong an attraction in the golf, pure and simple, that they can draw away all the visitors, with all their money, from places which have every other attraction except the golf. I propose in this paper to review the influence of the coming of golf, with its great and engrossing fascination, on those classes which it affects.

How considerable is the difference between the condition, that is to say the universal favour, of golf in England to-day and its state when the present writer was at Oxford, that is from 1878 to 1882, may be gauged by the sensation which golf-clubs used to cause at a railway station in those days. Nowadays, the only sensation induced by them is that of weight on the back of the porter who bears them. Formerly, you might watch simple folk gathered around them with that grin on their faces which the ignorant always wear when they see a thing that is new to them and yet not formidable enough to be terrifying. Even years later than that it was only necessary to tell a man that you were a golfer, and he would at once consider you a fool, regarding you perhaps with that gentle pity which an international Rugby football player might feel for a man who was introduced to him with the recommendation that he had played ping-pong or diabolo for England. But in 1880, if you told a man you were a golfer, he did not form any opinion of you on that account at all, for the word implied nothing to him. He looked at you vaguely and asked you what you meant, just as the porters and others at the railway stations asked you what 'them sticks be for?' To get a bird's-eye view of the situation a little more clearly, let us take a glance at the dates of the institution of a few of the earlier English clubs.

We have, of course, the immemorial antiquity of the Royal Blackheath Golf Club. That is an institution founded, as the claim is laid, by James I. We need not, for the present purpose, enter the bunkers of historical debate over the justice of that claim. The Blackheath Club existed, but it was a barren stock; and the same unkindly word has to be said of the Old Manchester Club which dates back to 1818. In 1829 was founded the Calcutta Golf Club; in 1842 that of Bombay; in 1856 the club at Pau in France. Some forty Scottish clubs