THE ARABS
Among the texts, from the Ḳorân, of the mosaics in the Dome of the Rock
occurs one which reads, “Jesus the son of Mary is one sent by God,
and His Word whom He sent upon Mary, and His Spirit.”[449] Muḥammad
did not regard our Lord as being simply a human being, and Carlyle
was not wrong in calling Islâm a kind of Christianity. But it was
the Christianity of Syrian and Arab Gnostics, not of the Gospels,
just as Muḥammad’s ideas about the faith of Israel were taken from
Talmudic Jews, and not from the Old Testament. Islâm was a revolt, not
only from the savage superstitions of Arabia but from the formalism
of Jews and Byzantine Christians, who, as Muḥammad said truly, had
corrupted the truth by teaching the traditions of men. He denied all
the doctrines concerning the Trinity which, in his time, preoccupied
the minds of Christians, and which had rent the seamless robe into
seven pieces, by the schisms of Latins, Greeks, Armenians, Chaldeans,
Maronites, Syrians, and Copts, who had replaced the Catholic Church
of Constantine. Politically, Islâm set free the Semitic race from the
feeble tyrannies of Greeks and Persians. History repeated itself, for
the Arab is always eager to swarm from his deserts when the rulers of
the rich lands to the north are weakened by strife among themselves.
About 650 B. C., when the king of Assyria was fighting Babylon, the
Arabs conquered Eastern Palestine for a few years till driven back by
Assur-bani-pal. In the time of our Lord, the Arab king of Petra ruled
also in Damascus, and among the earliest Christian converts were the
Beni Ghassan Arabs of Bashan. Thus, when Muḥammad had united Arabia,
there was already a large Semitic population ready to join the Moslems
in the north, and a large Gnostic and Ebionite school of thought as
weary as were the Jews of oppression by monks and bishops, weary also
of endless disputes among the churches, and ready to accept a simpler
belief in one God, and in a living prophet who said that there was but
one faith taught by all who came before him, and common to Christian
and Jew. It was not a persecuting faith, and the tolerance of Islâm,
under the Arab khalifs, was not changed into fanaticism till later
Turks arose to give their captives the stern choice between the sword
and the Ḳorân.
[Sidenote: OMAR]
It needed, therefore, only one great defeat for the decayed power of
Byzantium to crumble away, and for the ruined Sassanians to lose their
sway over races mainly Semitic. This victory was won on the precipitous
banks of the Yermûḳ stream in Bashan, four years after the death of
Muḥammad, which took place in his house at Medînah on June 8, 632 A. D.
The capture of Jerusalem by the forces of Omar, in 637 A. D., was
merely an incident in that story of wonderful conquests, which, within
three-quarters of a century, united West Asia, North Africa, and Spain
under the Arab khalîfah of Damascus, as “successor” of the prophet.
We have, however, no contemporary account of the siege of Jerusalem,
which lasted at least four months. The Moslem histories were--at
earliest--written six centuries later, though based on older sources.
The earliest Christian account is that of Theophanes, two hundred
years after the event, and the narrative of Eutychius (about 930 A. D.)
is inaccurate: this writer was chiefly interested in showing that
Heraclius was defeated because he had become a Maronite, deserting
the orthodoxy of the Greek Church.[450] There is, however, a general
agreement as to the main features of the story. When the patriarch
Sophronius capitulated to Abu ’Obeidah, a lean Arab about fifty-five
years of age, clad in a coarse cotton shirt and sheepskin jacket, was
seen approaching on his camel, accompanied by his victorious general
on a little dromedary with a rude halter of hair, his camel-hair
cloak folded on the wooden saddle. Such was the early simplicity of
the conquerors of Asia--of Abu ’Obeidah, and of his master Omar the
second khalîfah. To the patriarch it was a sure sign of the end of the
world, and Theophanes says that he exclaimed, “This is of a truth the
abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing
in the holy place.” Eutychius preserves what seems to be the original
written promise to the city, faithfully fulfilled by Omar: “In the
name of God merciful and pitying, from ’Amr ibn el Khaṭṭâb to the
dwellers in the city Ailia, that they may be safe as to their lives,
their children, their possessions, and their churches, that these shall
neither be pulled down nor occupied.” Yet a place must be set aside
where Moslems should pray in future, and it was agreed that this should
be at the site of Solomon’s Temple, which still stood desolate at the
Ṣakhrah rock.[451]
Omar therefore entered the Ḥaram, and--according to tradition--entered
by the “Prophet’s Gate” towards the south part of the west wall. He
prayed in Justinian’s basilica of the Virgin, and the place now shown
as his “station” (_Maḳâm ’Amr_) did not then exist, being the vestry of
the later Templar Church adorned with twisted Gothic pillars.[452] He
is said to have visited the Ṣakhrah, which he purified. Eutychius says
that in Constantine’s time “the Rock and the parts adjacent thereto
were ruinous, and were thus left alone. They cast dirt on the stone,
so that a great dunghill was piled upon it, wherefore the Romans (or
Byzantines) neglected it, and did not pay it the honour which the
Israelites were wont to do, neither did they build a church over it,
for that our Lord Jesus Christ said in the Gospel, ‘Behold your House
shall be left unto you desolate.’” Omar caused it to be purified, and
“then some one said, ‘Let us build a temple with the stone for Ḳiblah’
(or direction for ‘fronting’ in prayer); but Omar answered, ‘Not so,
but let us build the shrine so as to place the stone behind it.’ So
Omar built a shrine and set the stone in its back part.” With this
account the later Moslem historians of the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries A. D. agree.[453]
[Sidenote: OMAR’S MOSQUE]
As regards this Mosque of Omar, which no longer exists, a very common
error is due to the mistakes of later Christian historians,[454] and
the Dome of the Rock--which did not exist till half a century after
Omar’s entry--is called the “Mosque of Omar” in popular literature.
Theophanes says that “Omar began to restore the Temple at Jerusalem,
for indeed the building no longer then stood firmly founded, but had
fallen into ruin.” William of Tyre, in the twelfth century, thought
that the old Ḳufic texts in the Dome of the Rock attributed the
building to Omar. The Franks could not read them, or they would have
found out their mistake. This great historian of their victories speaks
of “mosaic work with most ancient monuments in letters of the Arabic
idiom, which are believed to be of his [Omar’s] time.” But the first
khalifs were warriors and not builders. Muḥammad’s mosque at Medînah
was made of mud and palm-tree posts, and the real Mosque of Omar, which
was still standing about 680 A. D., before it was replaced by the Dome
of the Rock, was near the east wall of the Ḥaram. It is described by
Arculphus in such a manner as to agree with the later statement of
Eutychius, leaving no reasonable doubt on the question. As recorded by
Adamnan, his guest (Arculphus) said: “Also in that famous place where,
before, the temple had been magnificently built, the Saracens frequent
a square house of prayer placed near the east wall, building it
themselves--a poor work with upright beams and great planks--on certain
remains of ruins; which house is said to hold as many as three thousand
men together.”[455] This rude wooden mosque stood, therefore, east of
the Ṣakhrah, amid the ruins of the Temple courts, of which traces only
were left.
The triumphs of the khalifs of Damascus were preceded by fierce
internal dissensions in Islâm. When ’Othmân, the third khalîfah,
died, in 644 A. D., Muawîyah, the son of Abu Ṣofiân--Muḥammad’s old
enemy, head of the elder branch of that Ḳoreish family to which the
prophet belonged--was ruler of Syria. He refused to recognise ’Aly,
the son-in-law of Muḥammad, as the fourth khalîfah, and war between
the two parties ensued. In 660 ’Aly was assassinated at Ḳufa by the
poisoned sword of an anarchist, and his son Ḥasan abdicated six months
later in favour of Muawîyah. The Persian legend of Ḥasan and Ḥosein
has no true foundation. Ḥasan was poisoned by his wife in 667 A. D.,
at the instigation, it is said, of Yezîd, son of Muawîyah. The latter
was still khalîfah at Damascus till 680 A. D. Ḥosein, whom the Persian
story represents as being a boy, was about fifty-four when he fell at
the battle of Kerbela in the same year. Ḥasan is said to have left
fifteen sons and five daughters, and among these were the children of
Fâṭimah, the prophet’s daughter, from whom the later Khalifs of Egypt
claimed descent. The struggle between the two parties of the Ḳeis and
the Yemini--or Syrians, and Arabs of the Yemen--went on yet later, and
the memory of these factions is indeed not yet dead[456] even to-day in
Palestine. ’Abd el Melek was the fifth khalîfah of Damascus (685–705
A. D.) of the family of Muawîyah, and for eight years before his
accession Islâm was rent by internecine quarrels. ’Abd-Allah ibn Zobeir
led the Yemen faction, and Arabia and Africa refused to acknowledge
the Omawîyah family as khalifs. It was at this time that ’Abd el Melek
conceived the idea of making Jerusalem the Ḳiblah for the faithful,
and--as he had no access to the Black Stone at Mekkah--of inducing
them to perambulate the Ṣakhrah rock instead. It was then probably
that Muḥammad was first said to have been miraculously borne by the
lightning cherub to Jerusalem, and to have ascended from the holy
rock to heaven. The legend grew out of a single verse in the Ḳorân:
“Glory to Him who carried His servant by night from the Ḥaram place of
prayer to the place of prayer that is more remote.”[457] This probably
referred to the Medînah mosque, but was now understood to mean the one
at Jerusalem--the great enclosure where Justinian’s church still stood,
as a Moslem place of prayer; and it thus received the name _Masjid el
Aḳṣa_, or “the more distant mosque.” These events preceded, and account
for, the building of a Moslem shrine over the site of the Temple
itself, which had been unoccupied for six hundred years.
[Sidenote: ’ABD EL MELEK]
In the time of ’Abd el Melek Jerusalem remained much as it had been
under Justinian, except that Eudocia’s wall seems to have been allowed
to fall into ruins. It was probably found to be indefensible from
catapults on the south cliff of Hinnom, and the Sion wall, as early at
least as 680 A. D., ran on its present line on the south.[458] Perhaps,
indeed, Hadrian’s wall had never been destroyed, and the great re-used
Herodian blocks, which are now visible at the base of the Turkish
wall, may have been there since 135 A. D. The city was smaller and
less prosperous than it had been under the Christians: the smaller
buildings of Modestus had replaced the great basilica of Constantine;
and, by agreement with Omar, no new churches were built. ’Abd el Melek
now attempted to make the Holy City the sacred centre of his empire. El
Y’aḳûbi, who wrote two centuries later, says of this khalîfah that he
“built a dome over the Ṣakhrah”; and Eutychius (in 930 A. D.) says the
same.[459]
We do not, however, depend solely on any literary statement as to the
origin of this building. Round its octagonal screen, above the arcade,
run the original Ḳufic texts which preserve passages from the Ḳorân
written, in mosaic letters, only about fifty-eight years after Muḥammad
died.[460] The passages selected refer specially to the “unity” of God
and to the nature of Jesus the Messiah, and seem to have been chosen
specially for record in a Christian city. They are connected together
by the ordinary “testimony” to the oneness of God and to Muḥammad as
His messenger. Amid these texts comes the historic statement: “Built
this dome the servant of God ’Abd [Allah the Imâm El Mâmûn], emir of
the faithful, in the year seventy-two; may God accept it and be pleased
with him. Amen. The restoration is complete, and glory be to God.” This
text would seem to be evidence at first that the Dome was built by the
’Abbaside khalîfah El Mâmûn (808–33 A. D.); but the letters of his name
are on a blue ground of a different shade to that of the original,
and are squeezed into the space which was once occupied by the name
of ’Abd [el Melek ibn Merwan], as is proved by the date 72 A. H. (or
690–1 A. D.), which has been left unchanged. The statement that “the
restoration is complete” refers to El Mâmûn’s restoration of ’Abd el
Melek’s original work. The ancient enmity between the Omawîyah and
’Abbas dynasties accounts for the obliteration of the real founder’s
name.
[Sidenote: THE DOME OF THE ROCK]
El Muḳaddasi, in describing the Dome of the Rock three centuries later,
says that he had “never heard tell of anything built in the times of
ignorance that could rival the grace of this dome,” and it remains one
of the most beautiful buildings in the world. The original chapel
consisted of a great drum with a gilded dome supported on pillars and
piers, with round arches above them. Round this circle, which covered
the Ṣakhrah, is the octagonal arcade with similar round arches on
similar pillars and piers. These arches are covered with glass mosaics,
and the Ḳufic texts run above them, with gold letters on a blue ground,
belonging to the original building. The mosaics of the drum, with their
rich arabesque designs, are probably later, and the enamelled tiles
of the interior bear the date answering to 1027 A. D. The dome itself
fell down in 1016 A. D., and a fine text in the Ḳarmathian characters
of this age records its restoration in 1022 A. D.[461] Another text in
more modern Arabic mentions “renewal of the gilding” by Ṣalâḥ-ed-Dîn
Yûsef (Saladin) in 1190 A. D.[462] The building thus bears witness to
its own history, by dated inscriptions in various characters belonging
to various ages; for the Ḳufic (used in the seventh century A. D.) is
an older script than the Ḳarmathian, and this again is older than the
Neskhi Arabic of Saladin’s time.
According to tradition, the small Dome of the Chain, immediately east
of the Dome of the Rock, was the model first erected by ’Abd el Melek
for the larger building.[463] This statement is, however, very late.
The Dome of the Chain is in the proportion of 2 to 5 as compared with
the Dome of the Rock in its original state, before the outer octagonal
wall was built in 831 A. D.; but it is a decagon and not an octagon,
and no great importance is to be ascribed to the tradition, though
there is a considerable resemblance in general style between the two
buildings. The pillars of the Dome of the Rock[464] are none of them
_in situ_, but have all been taken from some former building. I made
careful drawings of them in 1872, and found that of the twelve under
the drum no two had similar capitals. The capitals do not belong,
in some cases, to the shafts, nor do the bases, which are also of
different forms, and their height made up by thick layers of lead.
These pillars, moreover, once belonged to a Christian building, and the
cross is still visible on one of the capitals. The columns were taken
either from the ruined basilica of Constantine in the city, or more
probably from the cloisters with which Justinian adorned the vicinity
of his Church of the Virgin, according to Procopius; for the style is
much that of the pillars in the part of the Aḳṣa which appears to have
been originally Justinian’s basilica.
This robbery of a Christian building has given a somewhat Byzantine
character to the Dome of the Rock, and the extensive use of glass
mosaic work also recalls Byzantine art. The mosaics of the Dome of the
Rock differ, however, in this respect, that they are entirely confined
to arabesques, and never represent human (or animal) figures, such as
appear in the Greek mosaics at Bethlehem and elsewhere: this shows that
they were intended for a Moslem, and not for a Christian building. The
Arabs had no native style of architecture. Muḥammad and Omar built
rude wooden structures, and it is recorded of El Welîd--son of ’Abd el
Melek--that he employed skilled workmen from Persia and Byzantium to
build his great mosque at Damascus. Thus arose the Saracenic style,
created by Greek and Persian architects, and using round arches even
as late as the ninth century A. D., instead of those horseshoes which
became distinctive later of Moslem art. The models for the Dome of the
Rock are to be found in the Sassanian architecture of Persia, in the
round churches built by Justinian and Modestus at Jerusalem, or the
octagonal church of Zeno on Gerizim, and in the Byzantine decoration
of St. Sophia at Constantinople; but the heavy wooden beams which
tie together the pillars of the arcade, above the capitals, are not
a Byzantine feature, but are found in early mosques at Cairo and in
Spain. They are survivals of the wooden architecture of Omar’s age, and
they are never found in Roman or Greek buildings.
[Sidenote: THE AḲṢA MOSQUE]
There is no early statement to the effect that ’Abd el Melek did any
building in the mosque proper, or “covered part” (_mughaṭṭah_), of the
Aḳṣa. An Arabic history of the fourteenth century gives what purports
to be the report sent to ’Abd el Melek, at Damascus, as to the work
done at Jerusalem: “God has vouchsafed completion to what the emîr of
the faithful commanded, concerning the building of the Dome over the
Ṣakhrah of the Holy City, and the Aḳṣa Mosque also, and not a word can
be said to suggest improvement thereto”[465]; but the term _masjid_, or
“mosque,” may refer--as elsewhere--to the Ḥaram enclosure generally,
and the only definite statement (by the same authority), that “in
the days of ’Abd el Melek all the gates of the mosque were covered
with plates of gold and silver,” may (if true) have the same extended
meaning. It seems probable that until the accession of the ’Abbas
family, as khalifs at Baghdâd, the mosque proper at Jerusalem continued
to be the ancient Church of the Virgin where Omar had prayed.
The Omawîyah, or descendants of Muawîyah, retained the khalifate for
less than a century (661–750 A. D.); their strength lay in Syria and
Egypt, and their weakness in Arabia and in the East. The battle of the
Zâb was fatal to Ibrahîm, the thirteenth and last khalîfah of Damascus,
and the white banner of this great house fell before the black ensign
of Abu el ’Abbas, who was yet more closely connected with the prophet
as a descendant of Muḥammad’s uncle. Thus the political centre of Islâm
was transferred to Baghdâd, and the influence of Persia and India,
under the ’Abbasides, began to mingle with that of Greek philosophy,
which had been learned from the Syrian and Chaldean monks who preserved
in their monasteries the works of Plato and Aristotle, which were
lost in Europe. The Ṣûfi bore a Greek name (_sophos_, or “wise”), and
the term originally denoted an Arab student of Greek science; but the
mysticism of India attracted the cultivated Moslem, and undermined
gradually the simple faith of the first century, causing a deep
schism between the Sunnî, or follower of “tradition,” and the Persian
Shi’ah, or “sectarian.” Philosophic scepticism, concealed at first,
developed under the ’Abbasides with the growth of a culture learned by
the Arab from the ancient Aryan races whom he had conquered, and was
only repressed by the reaction which began when the Turks superseded
the Arabs as masters of Islâm. The age of the ’Abbasides, for about
a century (750–860 A. D.), was the culminating period of Moslem
civilisation, at a time when Europe was sunk in Gothic barbarism; and
though Spain never acknowledged the ruler of Baghdâd as suzerain, Egypt
and the whole of Western Asia obeyed these khalifs till the rise of the
Fâṭemite dynasty in 916 A. D. at Ḳairwân.
[Sidenote: THE AḲṢA MOSQUE]
The revolution of 750 A. D. was heralded and followed by earthquakes,
which were no doubt regarded as omens. The Dome of the Rock, standing
on sure foundations, appears to have escaped any serious damage,
but the Aḳṣa Mosque was ruined, the west wall falling--according
to later accounts[466]--about 746 A. D., and the east wall about
755 A. D. We may probably understand by these statements that the
great apse and the atrium of Justinian’s church, not being founded
on rock, were overthrown; and the mosque was still in ruins in 770
A. D. The restoration was begun by El Manṣûr, the second of the
khalifs of Baghdâd, and was mainly carried out under his son and
successor El Mahdy, after 775 A. D. The fourteenth-century account
of this restoration states that El Mahdy made the building “shorter
and broader”; and El Muḳaddasi, describing it two centuries after its
restoration, says that “the more ancient portion remained like a beauty
spot in the midst of the new, and it extends as far as the limit of
the marble columns; for beyond, where the columns are of concrete (or
plaster), the later building begins.” This account seems clearly to
apply to the present Aḳṣa Mosque, which, as de Vogüé perceived,[467]
was “preceded by a Christian church, of which the ruins were the
nucleus for the Arab constructions.” For there is a marked contrast
between what is called the “transept,” or south part of the mosque,
and the ruder work of the northern nave and aisles. The building was
made shorter by the disappearance of the great atrium on the west,
and broader by building the nave on the north. The only subsequent
alterations of plan were those of the Templars in the twelfth century.
They added a great refectory to the west, on the site of the south part
of the original atrium, with a fine Norman porch still standing on
the north, and a long vestry on the south Ḥaram wall just east of the
church.
The building, as it exists,[468] presents a dome supported by white
marble Corinthian pillars, and this probably replaced the original dome
of the Church of the Virgin. The pillars are of the same character with
those in the Dome of the Rock. The north part of the mosque consists of
a nave and six aisles, the roof supported by huge Byzantine pillars,
which are certainly not in their original position, but have been
re-used. Sir Charles Wilson remarks that “some of the building inside
is very bad; in several places rough pieces of masonry have been built
up by the side of the columns, to gain sufficient support for the
piers” of the walls above. One column is enclosed in a polygonal pier,
and some capitals are rude plaster imitations of the old Corinthian
capitals on other pillars. The shafts of the pillars seem to have been
cut shorter, and they thus present clumsy proportions. The arches of
the arcades above them are pointed, and the clerestory has two rows
of windows one above the other, but this superstructure may belong to
the later restoration in 1187 A. D., or even to that recorded in an
inscription, on the porch, as effected by ’Aisa, Saladin’s nephew, in
1236 A. D. The pillars are very rudely tied together by heavy wooden
beams--as in the Dome of the Rock--and these may have belonged to the
original work of El Mahdy. The history of this building, which is
a patchwork of various dates, not to be compared for architectural
beauty with the more purely Arab Dome of the Rock, seems clearly to
be indicated by the preceding statements. The church of Justinian was
partly ruined before 770 A. D., and El Mahdy restored it, using up the
pillars of its atrium and cloisters to build a long addition to the
mosque on the north, which addition was of very inferior workmanship as
compared with that of the church to which it was annexed. Each of the
six aisles and the nave--running north and south--had a double gate on
the north, and each of the six bays had a double gate on the east.[469]
[Sidenote: CHRISTIANS AND MOSLEMS]
The justice and tolerance of the great khalifs of Baghdâd is admitted
by Bernard, the pilgrim monk of the ninth century who visited Egypt and
Palestine in the time of El Mut’azz, the thirteenth ’Abbaside khalîfah,
just before the Turks became powerful in the East. He says that “the
Christians and the pagans have there such peace between them that if I
should go a journey, and in the journey my camel or ass which carries
my baggage should die, and I should leave everything there without a
guard, and go to the next town to get another, on my return I should
find all my goods untouched. The law of public safety is there such
that if they find in the city, or on the sea, or on the road, any man
journeying by night or by day without a letter, or some mark of a king
or prince of that land, he is at once thrown into prison, till such
time as he can give good account whether he be a spy or not.” The
Jerusalem Christians benefited by this peaceful rule in the East, and
we have evidence of their undisturbed possession of property, in the
Greek inscriptions of the rock tombs on the south precipice of the
Hinnom Valley.
[Sidenote: CHRISTIAN TEXTS]
In these tombs there are fifteen inscriptions in Greek uncial
characters, which have recently been copied again with great care
by Mr. R. A. Stewart Macalister.[470] Their translation has puzzled
many scholars, and remains still doubtful in some details; but the
following interpretations may perhaps be found more satisfactory than
those as yet proposed. The texts begin and sometimes end with Greek
crosses, showing their Byzantine character. Five of them read only
“of Holy Sion,” and two more “monument of Holy Sion.” These seven
seem to mark tombs belonging to priests or monks connected with the
ancient Sion Church. Another text in red paint is now illegible, but
the remaining seven inscriptions are more important. Pilgrims from the
West were numerous in this age: St. Willibald (about 722 A. D.) came
from Hampshire, and Bernard the Wise (about 867 A. D.) was a Breton
monk from Mont St. Michel; we are therefore not surprised to read over
one tomb, “Private monument of Thekla, daughter of Mærwulf the German.”
She may have been a pilgrim, or a nun who took this Greek name as her
title in religion, and who died in the hospice about to be mentioned;
or she may have come from Byzantium, where Teutonic mercenaries were
employed, and no doubt married Greeks. The next text is that of “The
private monument of Ouroros [perhaps for Auroros] of Holy Sion,”
probably a monk, and possibly also a Teuton. Another, inscribed in red
paint now much defaced by weather, is that of “The common tomb of the
Patriarch’s Hospital,” which was apparently consecrated for pilgrims
dying in Justinian’s hospital, or in that which was founded about 800
A. D. by Charlemagne, as will appear immediately. A fourth text is of
great value, as giving a date: “Pachomios was buried singly in the year
718” A. D.[471] He was thus not consigned to the “common monument” with
other pilgrims. The fifth inscription is also in red paint, over the
door of a tomb, and is much defaced. It seems, however, to read, “The
private grave of the beloved offspring of holy Sergius, beneath his own
coffin.” The sixth text, inside the same tomb, refers to this beloved
son, the words “nineteen years” being legible, and no doubt giving
his age. It is probable that “holy Sergius” was the Greek patriarch
of Jerusalem who died _c._ 858 A. D., or the second of the name dying
911 A. D. The seventh inscription is boldly cut on the front of the
tomb, round a Greek cross,[472] and appears to run thus: “A private
monument holding Thekla, abbess of the monastery of Job in the city
[or, lot] of George.” De Vogüé (misreading the contracted word _thes_
as _seb_) supposed this to be the tomb of Thekla Sebastê (or Augusta),
the eldest daughter of Theodosius and Theodora, shut up in a convent
by her brother Michael III. of Byzantium, and still alive under Basil
the Macedonian (867–86 A. D.); but this now seems to be uncertain. If
the contracted word _As_ stands for “city,” her monastery must have
been in Lydda, the city of St. George; but if it stands for _Aisa_,
“lot” (the diphthongs being often omitted in texts of this age), it
is more probable that the grave was in the property of the Church of
St. George in Jerusalem. There was more than one Monastery of Job in
Palestine, the most famous being that in Bashan, while another (_Deir
Aiyûb_) was on the Jaffa road near the foot of the mountains. There may
have been a third at Jerusalem itself, for in 1129 A. D. the “Casale
of St. Job” belonged to the Church of the Virgin’s Tomb,[473] and this
might be near the “well of Job,” not far East of the tomb. Another
possible explanation is that the “Lot of George” was the property of
the patriarch George, who died about 807 A. D., before the time of
Thekla Augusta. Whatever be the true explanation of this and of the
other texts, we see at least that in the eighth and ninth centuries
the patriarchs of Jerusalem and the priests and monks of St. Sion
held peaceful possession of their properties under the Moslems, and
that the pilgrims from the Christian hospitals were buried, not only
in a “common tomb” such as the great excavation at Aceldama, which
existed[474] for their use at least as early as 680 A. D., but also in
“private monuments” hard by.
[Sidenote: CHARLEMAGNE]
The “golden prime of good Hârûn er Rashîd” brought East and West
into friendly intercourse.[475] Charlemagne sent ambassadors to him,
and they distributed alms in Jerusalem. The khalîfah received them
courteously, and granted their requests in favour of his Christian
subjects, sending them back with his own envoys, who bore rich presents
of vestments and spices. He made over to the new Emperor of the West
the charge of the Holy Sepulchre; and the keys of Jerusalem were sent
to him as an emblem of possession of the sacred Christian sites. Hârûn,
at Charlemagne’s request, is said to have sent to him the only elephant
he possessed, which arrived in Europe in 802 A. D. Alms continued to be
sent to the Holy City by Charlemagne, and by his son and grandson, and
the famous hospital of Charles the Great was now founded in the centre
of Jerusalem. Bernard the Wise in 867 A. D. says, “We were received in
the hospital of the most glorious emperor Charles, where are lodged all
those who go to that place for devout cause and speak the Roman tongue;
near which is a most noble church in honour of St. Mary, having, by
the zeal of the aforesaid emperor, a library together with twelve
mansions, fields, vineyards, and gardens, in the Valley of Josaphat.
Before the hospital itself is the forum (or market) where every one who
deals there pays two aurei yearly to him who supplies it.” The hospital
therefore faced the bazaar, and occupied apparently the same site where
the Benedictines of Amalfi were afterwards found by the Crusaders. It
is not clear whether the Church of St. Mary was that built by Modestus
south of the Holy Sepulchre rotunda, or--as is more probable--was on
the site of St. Mary Latin, built by Amalfi merchants beside their
hospice. This church has now become the German Cathedral, and the
hospital of the great German emperor was the original foundation which
developed into the famous home of the Knights of St. John. The historic
fact of this foundation originated the legend according to which
Charles the Great himself visited Jerusalem to see the monastery, as we
read in the “Chanson du Voyage de Charlemagne,” written in 1075 A. D.,
of which there is also an Anglo-Saxon version.[476]
Mult fu liez Charlemagne Very glad Charlemagne
De cel grant beltet Of this great beauty
Vit du clères colurs Saw in clear colours
Le mustier painturet The monastery painted
De Martyrs et de Virgenes With Martyrs and Virgins
Et de Granz Majistez And the Great Majesty
E les curs de la lune And the moon’s courses
E les festes anvels And annual festivals
E les lavacres curre And running fountains
E les peisons par mer. And fish at sea.
[Sidenote: EL MÂMÛN]
The son of Hârûn er Rashîd was the last of the great ’Abbasides and
the same Mâmûn (808–833 A. D.) whose name is found in the Dome of the
Rock, not only in the Ḳufic text over the arcade, but also on the four
fine bronze gates of the outer octagonal wall, where it accompanies
his true date, answering to 831 A. D. The beams of the roof above
this wall bear a yet later date, answering to 913 A. D., and it seems
probable that El Mâmûn built this wall, and that it did not form part
of ’Abd el Melek’s original design. It certainly existed in 985 A. D.,
and is noticed by Ibn el Fâḳîḥ in 902 A. D., but El Y’aḳûbi says that
’Abd el Melek “built a dome over the Ṣakhrah and hung it round with
curtains of brocade,” on the occasion when--according to the letter
preserved by later writers--this khalîfah desired “to build a dome over
the Holy Rock in order to shelter Moslems from the inclemency of the
weather.”[477]
The outer wall in question is adorned with fine windows, which were
filled with coloured glass in 1528 A. D. It has a parapet with round
arches, supported by coupled dwarf pillars, and with recesses under
the arches, as was discovered in 1873. These, and the upper part of
the wall outside, were covered with glass mosaics of which traces have
been found; while the lower part, according to various accounts from
the tenth to the twelfth century, was adorned as now with marble.[478]
The arcade of the parapet was still visible in 1486 A. D., when
Breidenbach made his sketch of the building; but the whole of the upper
part of the wall and parapet was covered over later with the beautiful
Kishâni tiles, which bear the date 1561 A. D. In its original condition
the octagonal wall and the arcaded parapet resembled in style the
Sassanian buildings at Ctesiphon and Takht-i-Bostân in Persia; and
an exactly similar arcade with recessed panels, under round arches
on coupled dwarf pillars, exists in the beautiful kiosque at ’Ammân
in Gilead, which--in plan--is similar to the Persian buildings above
mentioned. This kiosque is probably Moslem work, and an early mosque
exists close by.[479] Thus while the original work of ’Abd el Melek
shows the influence of Byzantine art, the additions made by the Baghdâd
khalîfah El Mâmûn, in 831 A. D., very naturally show Persian style.
The same Mâmûn also restored the Aḳṣa Mosque and the Ḥaram generally at
the same time. Nâṣr-i-Khosrau (in 1047) says[480] that this khalîfah
sent from Baghdâd, for the Aḳṣa, a beautiful bronze gate looking like
gold, set in “fired silver,” and chased. It thus resembled those which
still bear his name in the four porches of the Dome of the Rock. The
Ḥaram contained several other small domes which still exist on the
platform, and which date back to this great age of Moslem civilisation
and prosperity. These include the “Dome of the Prophet” and the “Dome
of Gabriel,” to the north-west of the Ṣakhrah chapel; but the “Dome
of Spirits,” farther north, is not noticed in early accounts, for the
“Dome of Solomon” is probably the building on the east wall of the
Ḥaram north of the Golden Gate, now called the “Throne of Solomon,” to
which a legend attaches (borrowed from the Talmud) concerning Solomon’s
power over demons, and his burial on the spot seated on his throne, so
that his death was not perceived by the genii, whom he ruled by aid
of his ring, until a worm gnawed the wood of his staff and the corpse
fell to the ground. The “Dome of the Roll” in the south-west corner of
the platform seems to have disappeared, unless the reference is to the
underground chamber at this corner, which in 1873 was inhabited by a
Moslem hermit.
[Sidenote: MOSLEM LEGENDS]
Many legends had grown up during the two centuries since Omar visited
the Ḥaram. The Holy Rock was believed--no doubt because of the Talmudic
legend which made it the foundation of the Temple and of the world--to
be a rock of Paradise, wondrously suspended over the abyss. Upon its
surface was shown the footprint of Muḥammad, and in the cave beneath
he was said to have prayed with all the prophets who preceded him
from Abraham downwards. Through the pierced shaft in the roof of the
cave he ascended to Heaven. The rock would fain have followed him
back to Paradise, but the finger-marks of Gabriel show how it was
held down. In the last days the Black Stone of Mekkah--according to
Syrian Moslems--is to fly to Jerusalem to greet the Ṣakhrah, and the
“tongue of the rock” is that which it will use to salute its sister of
Paradise. North of the rock itself are still shown the tomb of Solomon,
and the nails in a slab (perhaps once covering a Templar’s grave) which
fall through into the abyss, and mark the lapse of centuries preceding
the last day. Beneath the cave there was said to be a well descending
to Hades, called the “Well of Souls” (_Bîr el Arwâḥ_) to the present
day. The “Well of the Leaf” (_Bîr el Waraḳah_), a tank under the Aḳṣa,
was so called because--according to a tradition mentioned by Mejîr
ed Dîn--a certain Arab, descending to find his bucket in Omar’s time,
found here also an entrance to Paradise, and brought back with him
a leaf from the “Tree of the Limit” on which the fates of men are
written. In the gatehouse towards the south part of the west Ḥaram wall
was shown--as now--the ring to which, in the “Gate of the Prophet,”
the wondrous cherub horse with wings was haltered, to await the return
of Muḥammad from Heaven, and to carry him back to Mekkah. This steed
(El Boraḳ, “the glittering”) had the wings and tail of a peacock, and
a shining face. The “Dome of the Chain” was named from a legend of
the chain that David hung in it, which none but those who told the
truth could grasp. Nâṣr-i-Khosrau speaks of the “print on stone of the
great shield of Ḥamzah,” which was not apparently the Persian mirror
shown in the Dome of the Rock down to 1886, and said to be now at
Constantinople, which used to be called “Ḥamzah’s Buckler.”
Such was Jerusalem--Christian and Moslem--in the peaceful days of Islâm
under El Mâmûn. But many troubles were to come before the pilgrims,
who now began to be more numerous, could find security once more under
Latin rulers; and to the history of their oppression by Turks and
Egyptians we must now turn.
FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER XI
[449] De Vogüé, “Temple de Jérusalem,” 1863, p. 84; see Ḳorân iv. 169,
xix. 34–7.
[450] Extracts from Eutychius, “Annales,” bk. ii., in the series of
Pal. Pilgrims’ Texts Society, 1895.
[451] Besant and Palmer, “Jerusalem,” 1871, p. 71; Theophanes,
“Chronographia” (see Robinson, “Bib. Res.,” i. p. 389); Eutychius
“Annales,” ii.
[452] See Suyûti, as quoted by Guy le Strange, “Pal. under Moslems,”
1890, p. 112.
[453] Guy le Strange, “Palestine under the Moslems,” 1890, pp. 138–44.
[454] _Ibid._, p. 91; Theophanes, “Chronographia”; William of Tyre,
I. ii., “Ex opere musaico Arabici idiomatis, literarum vetustissime
monumenta quæ illius (Omar) tempore esse credentur.”
[455] “Ceterum in illo famoso loco ubi quondam templum magnifice
constructum fuerat, in vicinia muri ab oriente locatum, nunc Saraceni
quadrangulam orationis domum quam subrectis tabulis et magnis trabibus
super quasdam ruinarum reliquias construentes, vili fabricati sunt
opere, ipsi frequentant, que utique domus tria hominum millia simul ut
fertur capere potest.”
[456] See my volume, “Heth and Moab,” 1st edit., p. 377; Besant and
Palmer, “Jer.,” p. 78; El Y’aḳûbi (c. 874 A. D.).
[457] Ḳorân, xvii. 1.
[458] Arculphus, “Situs quippe ipsius urbis a supercilio aquilonali
montis Sion incipiens.”
[459] Prof. Hayter Lewis, “Holy Places of Jer.,” 1888, p. 64. Eutychius
is there quoted as saying, “Abdil Maleci Ebn Mervan mittens hic
Hierosolyma, templum auxit donec petram in ipsum inferet, hominesque
Hierosolyma peregrinari jussit.” Before this the “templum” was the Aḳṣa
only.
[460] Ḳorân, cxii., lvii. 2, iv. 169, xix. 34–7, xvii. in. See de
Vogüé, “Temple de Jérusalem,” p. 84; Besant and Palmer, “Jerusalem,”
pp. 86–8.
[461] De Vogüé, “Temple de Jérusalem,” pl. xxxvii.
[462] _Ibid._, pp. 91, 92.
[463] Mejîr el Dîn (_c._ 1520 A. D.). See Guy le Strange, “Pal. under
Moslems,” p. 153.
[464] See “Mem. West Pal. Survey,” Jerusalem vol., 1883, pp. 246–50.
[465] Guy le Strange, “Pal. under Moslems,” pp. 91, 144–5, quoting the
“Muthîr el Ghirâm,” 1351 A. D., ch. vi.
[466] Guy le Strange, “Pal. under Moslems,” pp. 92, 93, 98.
[467] De Vogüé, “Temple de Jérusalem,” 1863, p. 69.
[468] Prof. Hayter Lewis, “Holy Places of Jer.,” 1888, p. 78; Sir
C. Wilson, “Ord. Survey Notes,” 1865, p. 40; El Muḳaddasi (_c._ 985
A. D.). The account by Nâṣr-i-Khosrau, in 1047 A. D., is unreliable,
or at least confused. He makes the length 420 _arsh_ (about 630 feet),
and the breadth 150 _arsh_ (about 225 feet), which is quite impossible
if referring to the _maḳṣurah_ or roofed building, which measures about
250 feet north and south by 180 feet east and west. He also speaks of
280 marble columns in the _masjid_, but the Aḳṣa itself has only 76
columns. No traces of any larger building exist.
[469] The present mosque has 3 doors on north, 3 on east, and 3 on
west, but El Muḳaddasi speaks of 11 on east and 15 on north--perhaps
including double doors, _i. e._ 6 on east, and 7 on north (for the nave
and 6 aisles). Nâṣr-i-Khosrau says 17 gates in all, 7 on north and 10
on east.
[470] _Pal. Expl. Fund Quarterly_, July 1900, p. 225, _seq._ My own
copies were imperfect, and de Vogüé’s appear to be wrong as to a few
letters.
[471] _Tou ekostou_ is probably a mistaken spelling for _tou ekastou_.
[472] De Vogüé, “Temple de Jérusalem,” p. 134. The words are
abbreviated: _Thes_ is for _Theisa_, and _As_ for _Astu_ or for _Aisa_.
[473] Rohricht, “Regesta Regni Hierosol.,” No. 131.
[474] Arculphus says that pilgrims were buried in Aceldama.
[475] Robinson, “Bib. Res.,” 1838, p. 392; Eginhard, “Vita Car.
Magni.,” v.
[476] “Publications de la Société de l’Orient Latin,” Serie
Géographique, 1882.
[477] Prof. Hayter Lewis, “Holy Places of Jerusalem,” p. 33; “Mem. West
Pal. Survey,” 1883, Jerusalem vol., pp. 248, 249, 307–17; _Pal. Expl.
Fund Quarterly_, 1873, p. 155. The beam with the date answering to
913–14 A. D. was found in 1873, on removal of the wooden ceiling put up
in 1776 A. D.
[478] Carved slabs from some other building have been used up in this
marble casing. One of them bears, in Greek uncial characters, the words
“Huper Sotêrias Marias” being evidently Christian. “Ord. Survey Notes,”
p. 33, and plates xiii., xiv. A Byzantine tombstone is also re-used
in the paving of the floor of the Dome of the Rock. “Mem. West Pal.
Survey,” Jerusalem vol., p. 426.
[479] See my volume, “Syrian Stone Lore,” 1st edit. 1886, pp. 352–62.
In “Mem. East Pal. Survey,” 1889, pp. 57–63, I have given a full
account, with the plans and drawings which I made of the kiosque and
mosque in 1881.
[480] Guy le Strange, “Pal. under the Moslems,” 1890, p. 107.