THE MODERN CITY AND ITS INHABITANTS.
Jerusalem stands upon a tongue of land, bounded on the west by the
Valley of Hinnom, and on the east by the Valley of Jehoshaphat, two
deep wádies, which, uniting at the southern extremity, under the
name of the Kedron, flow down together to the Dead Sea. The
promontory thus formed is divided again by a smaller valley, called
the Tyropœon, bisecting the city from north to south, and running
from the Damascus gate, by the Pool of Siloam, into the Kedron. Two
hills, or spurs, thus project from the elevated ground on the
north-west of the city, of which the western—the higher of the
two—is called Mount Sion, and the eastern, Mount Moriah; upon the
last stood the Temple of the Jews, and upon it at the present day
stands the far-famed Masjid el Aksa, better known as the Haram es
Sheríf, or “Noble Sanctuary.” Between the valley of Hinnom and that
of the Tyropœon a narrow neck of ground is occupied by the Citadel
or “Tower of David.”
In shape the city is an irregular rhomboid, the longest diagonal of
which measures something less than a mile. It covers about two
hundred and nine acres of ground, of which thirty-five are occupied
by the area of the Haram es Sheríf. There are five gates: the
Damascus gate in the centre of the north side; St. Stephen’s gate on
the east, a little to the north of the Haram; the Water or Dung
gate, in the Tyropœon valley, with the Sion gate on the south side,
and the Jaffa gate immediately under the walls of the city on the
west. The main street is about three-fifths of a mile long, and
bisects the city from north to south; from this the other streets
run, for the most part, at right angles; that which follows the
direction of the north wall of the Haram being called the Via
Dolorosa, and containing the Roman archway known as the “Ecce Homo
Arch.” The city is divided into quarters, defined by the
intersection of the principal street, and that which crosses it at
right angles from the Jaffa gate to the Bab es Silsileh, one of the
gates of the Haram; they are named after the different sects to whom
they are appropriated.[81] The Mohammedan quarter comprises the
north-east portion of the town, also, of course, including the Haram
Area; the Christian quarter is in the north-west; the Jewish quarter
consists of all the south-eastern part, except so much of it as it
covered by the Haram; and the remaining quarter, the hill of Sion,
on the south-west, is appropriated to the Armenians. The mountains
which encompass Jerusalem are dull and unvaried in outline, and,
being composed of white limestone, there is an utter absence of all
pleasing variety of colouring. Nor does the intense clearness of the
atmosphere add much to the general effect, diminishing as it does
the distance, and dwarfing the proportions of all around. The view
from the Mount of Olives, situated immediately to the east of the
city, alone forms an exception to the monotony of the general
appearance of the neighbourhood, and from this really fine views are
obtained. Looking on the city itself, the eye rests upon the
graceful form and rich colouring of the Dome of the Rock, standing
in its picturesque and quiet enclosure, while the gilded dome of the
Holy Sepulchre, the tapering minarets of numerous mosques, the
massive walls and clustering buildings, combine to make a beautiful,
and even impressive picture. Turning to look eastward, a scene no
less grand and novel presents itself; before you, a little to the
right, the mountains of Moab rise up high above the azure waters of
the Dead Sea; the broad deep valley of the Jordan comes in from the
left, the course of the stream just discernible by the thin fringe
of verdure which lines its banks; while the blank dreary desert
stretches almost to your very feet, making even the desolate hills
of Jerusalem look green and fertile by the contrast.
Footnote 81:
For these particulars see the Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem,
1864-5.
There are many objects of interest outside the city walls, and a
walk round the town, on the outside, furnishes food for much curious
antiquarian speculation. Commencing with the head of the valley on
the north-west side, you pass the upper and lower pools of Gihon,
the former situated in the midst of a picturesque Mohammedan
cemetery. Turning down into the Valley of Hinnom, and past the
countless tombs excavated in the solid rock, you come to the well of
Joab (the En-Rogel of Scripture), immediately opposite the queer
little village of Siloam, which consists of caves faced with rude
masonry or plaster.
In the Valley of Jehoshaphat—besides the modern Hebrew graves, which
lie so thickly together that they appear almost to form one broad
pavement—there are several curious monuments; the tomb of
Jehoshaphat, of which nothing but a pediment rising a little out of
the ground, and roughly bricked up, is now visible; the tomb of
Zachariah, and the Pillar of Absalom, two monolithic monuments of
uncertain date; and a little cave-chamber cut in the face of the
rock, ornamented with two Doric columns, and leading into a
sepulchral vault, which is said to have formed the hiding-place of
St. James the apostle during the first Christian persecution. Then
come the Fountain of the Virgin, the Garden of Gethsemane, and the
site of the Ascension upon the Mount of Olives. All these, with many
others, and the traditions which attach to each, have been too well
and too frequently described by travellers to need that we should
dwell upon them here.
The Cœnaculum, or Tomb of David, is situated at the south-west angle
of the town, outside the city walls; the history of this has been
already related on p. 436.
The olive groves by which the city is surrounded, and of which such
glowing descriptions have been given by enthusiastic pilgrims, are
scanty, and, like most other olive groves, exceedingly ugly and
uninteresting; to tell the sober truth it is impossible to grow very
rapturous over a stunted tree, with greasy, silver-grey foliage and
dilapidated trunk. On a gala day, however, when a motley throng,
dressed in bright colours and fantastic garb, crowd outside the
Jaffa gate, disperse themselves amongst the tombs in the cemetery of
the upper pool of Gihon, or cluster in animated groups beneath the
olive trees, the scene is one which a lover of the picturesque might
travel far to see.
The city is completely walled round, presenting the appearance of a
huge fortress; by the Jaffa gate, where the tower of Hippicus rises
above the walls, and the cypresses of the Armenian convent gardens
peep over the battlements, they are pretty and picturesque, but,
with this exception, there is nothing whatever in them to arrest the
attention. Examining them more closely, you are struck with the
great size of the stones used in their construction, many of which,
especially in the lower portions, are doubtless of great antiquity.
Captain Warren, in the course of his excavations at the south-east
angle and elsewhere, has come upon blocks which may still occupy the
place where Solomon’s workmen laid them, but now that the
excavations are discontinued and the shafts closed the pilgrim will
be grievously disappointed if he expect to find a single stone _in
situ_.
The houses are all built of roughly-hewn blocks of stone. Syrian
houses have flat roofs, but the want of timber for beams renders
this construction impossible in the southern part of Palestine, and
the deficiency is supplied by furnishing the buildings with large
stone domes. From the nature of the ground there is not a single
level street in Jerusalem. The streets are paved with the hard
limestone of the country, worn smooth with constant traffic, and
this makes them cleaner than those of many other Eastern towns.
Nothing could be more out of harmony with all sacred associations
than the interior appearance of modern Jerusalem. True, there is
something picturesque and romantic about the narrow streets, the
quaint old archways, and the ruins upon which you stumble at every
turn; but the ruins are those of Saladin’s city not of Herod’s,
while the Jerusalem of David and of Solomon lies crushed and buried
twenty fathoms under ground.
Of course, the two principal objects of attraction in Jerusalem are
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Haram es Sheríf.
The actual Sepulchre is covered by a small chapel coated with
reddish marble, and is surrounded by a circular building of fine
proportions, with a magnificent dome. The Greek church is
immediately to the east of this rotunda, and Calvary to the
south-east, and some twelve or thirteen feet above it. The only
entrance is by a door leading into an open court on the south, and
this is never opened except by the Mohammedan official who has
charge of it, and with the permission of the patriarch of one of the
Christian sects.
On a bench inside the door sits a Turkish guard, whose duty it is to
see that the Christians do not cut each other’s throats in order to
show their zeal for the faith, and the precaution is far from
needless.
The open court in front of the entrance to the church is filled with
native Christian pedlars from Bethlehem, who drive a thriving trade
in crosses, rosaries, incense, and other devotional wares.
Of the various traditional sites within the church, and of the
respective authenticity of each, it is not our province here to
speak; suffice it to say, the priests have crowded into this small
area every incident of the Passion and Crucifixion of our Lord, as
well as a great many others of which the ordinary Christian has
never heard.
It is refreshing to escape from the narrow streets and noisy
stifling bazaars into the quiet shady close of the Haram es Sheríf.
The engraving prefixed to this volume conveys a good idea of the
general effect of the buildings and the enclosure in which they
stand; but in order completely to realise the scene one must have
the bright colours and the atmospheric effect: and, above all, the
dim religious light streaming in through the gorgeous stained-glass
windows of the Cubbet es Sakhrah and the Mosque of El Aksa. A few
years ago the traveller was debarred from this enjoyment, and could
not even venture near the sacred spot without danger to life and
limb from the infuriated fanatics who guard it. Now, however, a
_douceur_ to the Sheikh, and the company of an attendant from the
consulate, or police station, will be sufficient to procure the
privilege. It is time that the jealous barbarity and insolent
licence of the Turks should be modified by the good sense of
civilized nations, and that sanctuaries such as these, which are
common to Christian and Mohammedan, should be thrown open to both.
Perhaps, some day, Europe may learn that it is scarcely worth while
to make war upon a Christian power for the sake of upholding a
rotten and corrupt government which repays the obligation by
encouraging its own subjects to insult and murder the subjects of
its allies.
The inhabitants of Jerusalem number about sixteen thousand, and the
pilgrims and travellers who annually visit it at Easter time are
reckoned at about fifteen thousand more.
The population is composed of such varied and discordant elements
that to give an account of the different sects alone would occupy a
volume. We do not profess to enter at all into the question from a
theological point of view, but simply to give a brief account of the
various peoples inhabiting Jerusalem as they appear to the traveller
of the present day.
First in order come the Mohammedans, Turkish and native, who,
although they give themselves the airs for which the true believer
is distinguished, and look with ill-concealed aversion and contempt
upon all besides themselves, yet are not, perhaps, quite so
fanatical as those in other towns of the Holy Land. They are, for
the most part, Orientals of the conventional type, leading lazy,
useless lives, and dividing their time between smoking, praying,
bargaining, and cursing. The Turks have the same stupid pasty look
which all town-bred Turks have. The natives are remarkable for
nothing but sturdy limbs, an inordinate appetite for brown bread and
onions, and an incessant habit of reckoning up real or imaginary
gains. If you see two Fellahín coming along the road you may venture
anything that their conversation will be of piastres, and that the
first word you hear will be a numeral. We must do the Mohammedans
the justice to say that the bigotry is not all on their side, for a
Jew’s life is not safe if he so much as venture into the
neighbourhood of the Holy Sepulchre.
The Christians are of so many different types and nations that it is
almost hopeless to attempt to enumerate them all; the following are,
however, the chief divisions:
The native Christians are chiefly from Bethlehem; they are a fine
athletic race, much fairer than the Muslim peasantry, and exhibiting
unmistakable traces of an admixture of European blood, dating back,
no doubt, from the Crusading times. The women are sometimes
exceedingly pretty, and their costume very picturesque; they wear a
loose-fitting, coloured dress, and a saucepan-shaped cap upon their
head, over which is thrown a white mantle, or veil, reaching almost
to the feet.
The men wear enormous turbans and the ordinary striped _abbah_, or
cloak, of coarse goat’s-hair; this, with a linen shirt, leather
belt, and enormous yellow slippers, completes their dress. They do a
large trade in rosaries, crosses, carved shells, beads, and olive
wood fancy articles, and are a quiet and industrious people.
The Syrians, or Jacobites, are a small body who occupy a monastery
upon Mount Sion, called the House of St. Mark. The present bishop is
an intelligent man, a native of Asia Minor; one or two monks of the
monastery, and the old woman who cleans up the place, are natives of
a village near ‘Aintáb, on the banks of the Euphrates, the only spot
where the Syriac language is spoken. In this little convent the
traveller may still hear the accents of that ancient tongue, and,
probably—as the old lady is no lover of monkish indolence—he will
have the opportunity of judging of its capabilities as a scolding
medium.
The Greek community consists mainly of monks, with a slight
sprinkling of dragomen and wine-shop keepers. The Greek monk, with
his handsome face, reverend beard, and severely simple costume, is a
noble and saintly figure as to the outward man; but Greek monks,
known more intimately, are found to be a drunken and sensual crew,
devoid alike of honour and religion. We speak of the monks only, for
the Patriarch of Jerusalem and one or two of his bishops are
gentlemanly and even learned men, while amongst the laymen attached
to the educational branch of the convent may be made some agreeable
acquaintances. Although the blasphemous fraud of the “Descent of the
Holy Fire” on Easter Sunday, is countenanced by the Armenians, it is
really kept up by the Greeks, and performed by the Greek Patriarch.
A more degrading spectacle than this can scarcely be imagined: the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre crammed to suffocation with eager,
half-mad pilgrims, and the Chief Dignitary of the Orthodox Church of
Christ solemnly entering into His tomb to juggle with a box of
lucifer matches! What wonder that the “infidel” soldiers, who keep
the peace in the church, gaze on the scene with a supercilious and
derisive smile.
About Easter time the city begins to swarm with Russian pilgrims.
These are, perhaps, the only real religious enthusiasts among the
crowds who annually come to worship at the Holy City, and no one who
has seen the reverence with which they look upon everything in the
place—even to the drunken monk who admits them into the church—or
the genuine emotion and awe which they display when kneeling before
the site of some absurd tradition, can doubt for one moment of their
sincerity. Many a weary mile must they tramp along in their native
land, many an unheard of hardship must they encounter before they
can toil up the sides of Mount Sinai, or reach the foot of Calvary;
and yet they never seem to grow sick or faint-hearted, but plod on
with a marvellous steadiness of purpose, and whenever you meet a
Russian pilgrim, whether it be in the midst of the scorching desert
or by the shady banks of Jordan, he will greet you with a respectful
salutation and a bright contented face. At Jerusalem itself they may
well be content, for the Russian government has built a hospice near
the Jaffa gate where thousands of these poor pilgrims are taken in
and cared for. This immense establishment is furnished with
dormitories, refectories, chapel, reading-rooms, hospitals, &c., and
for cleanliness and good management would compare favourably with
any institution of the kind in Europe.
The Copts have a large monastery of their own immediately contiguous
to the Holy Sepulchre, and have contrived, by bribing a Turkish
official, to appropriate a great portion of the funds and buildings
belonging to the Abyssinians too. At the back of the chapel of the
Holy Sepulchre, under the dome, is a little oratory belonging to
this sect. The Copts of Jerusalem are little better than
transplanted Egyptian Fellahín; their large round features and heavy
looks easily distinguish them from the rest of the population.
The Abyssinians are an exceedingly gentle and inoffensive community.
They are principally employed as domestic servants by the European
residents in the city. They have a monastery, or, rather, a few
cells amidst the ruins of what was once a monastery, in an open
court over the Chapel of Helena, part of the buildings of the Holy
Sepulchre. Here a few monks and a few nuns live in the utmost
squalor and misery, subsisting on charity, and in a chronic state of
fever. They exhibit great kindness and affection for their
compatriots, and are always ready to assist from their own scanty
means any Abyssinian who may come to them in distress. They are
perhaps the only monks to whom can be conscientiously applied the
name of men.
The Armenians are a thriving and industrious people, and their
quarter is the only one in Jerusalem in which any regard is evinced
for cleanliness or order. The large convent of St. James, the son of
Zebedee, on Mount Sion, belongs to them, and the street immediately
outside its gates might almost be mistaken for that of some European
continental town. The church is the most richly decorated of any in
the city, and, amongst other curiosities, possesses the chair
traditionally supposed to have belonged to St. James. The patriarch
is a gentleman and an accomplished man of the world, and even
amongst the monks may be found some who devote themselves to
photography and other useful arts. The Armenian is easily
distinguishable by a florid complexion, very prominent nose, and
dark hair.
The Georgians are a small and insignificant body, occupying the
Convent of the Holy Cross outside Jerusalem, to the left of the
Jaffa road.
Of the Occidental Christian communities need only be mentioned the
Latins. Amongst a number of monks of the conventional low Romish
type, there are a few intellectual men, who devote themselves to
educating the poor peasantry of the neighbourhood. Their convents
are more orderly, have more of life in them, than those of the
Oriental Christians, and one is bound to say that the Latin clergy
in Jerusalem do make the best of that parent of all social evils,
the celibacy of the priesthood.
The Jews of Jerusalem are almost entirely supported by their
co-religionists in Europe, upon whose charity they impose, and whose
name they disgrace. They are divided into two classes: the
Ashkenazim, who consist chiefly of emigrants from Germany and
Poland, and the Sephardim, who claim connexion with the old Hebrew
families of Spain. The Sephardim are far superior to the others,
both in culture and in manners, and have occasionally a certain air
of Oriental dignity about them. The Ashkenazim, on the contrary,
are, for the most part, mean and disreputable in appearance, and
apparently belong to the lowest orders of society. With his dull,
exaggerated German-Jewish features, his ridiculous garb,—a long
eastern _caftan_, or vest, and a broad-brimmed slouch hat, from
which depend on either side of the face the Pharisaic love-locks—the
Ashkenaz Jew of Palestine resembles nothing so much as his
representative in modern theatrical burlesque. The services in their
synagogue are conducted in a shamefully careless and indifferent
manner; and the weekly ceremony of “wailing over the stones of the
Temple,” when not regarded through that distorting medium of
religious enthusiasm which too many travellers bring with them to
the Holy Land, is simply a farce.
This picture is a melancholy one; much as one may wish that it could
have been painted in brighter colours, it is best to present
truthfully the impression which the modern city makes upon most
travellers whose eyes are not blinded by the associations clinging
to its soil. Filled with abuses, its sacred shrines defiled, and
their worshippers exposed to constant danger and insult, Jerusalem
is indeed “trodden down of the Gentiles until the time of the
Gentiles be fulfilled.”
APPENDIX.
THE POSITION OF THE SACRED SITES.
There are very many difficulties in the way of a reconstruction of
the City of Herod. The course of the second and third walls, the
position of Antonia, and even that of the Temple itself, have been
made the subject of very keen and bitter controversy; and, coming to
later times, the site of Constantine’s buildings on and round the
Holy Sepulchre has been assigned to two positions. Without
attempting to go thoroughly into the question, which would not only
take too much space, but would give this volume a character quite
foreign to our purpose, let us only state the ground taken up as to
the two chief sites only, that of the Temple and that of the Holy
Sepulchre.
Everyone has seen plans of the modern city. The eastern side is
mainly occupied by what is called the Haram Area, a four-sided space
surrounded by vast walls, which are, in some places, buried a
hundred feet deep in _débris_. One only of its angles is a perfect
right angle, that at the south-west corner. In the middle
is a platform constructed round a rough rock, projecting
above the surface; in the rock is a cave. Above it is the
Kubbet-es-Sakhrah—the Dome of the Rock—an octagonal building of very
great beauty. Along the southern wall are various mosques and
praying places, the most conspicuous being the Jámi‘-el-Aksa.
Tradition has always assigned to the platform in the centre the site
of Solomon’s and Herod’s Temples, but Mr. Fergusson, followed by
Messrs. Lewin, Thrupp, and others, places the Temple in the
south-west corner, measuring off six hundred feet from each angle to
get its limits. We have thus, without considering minor points of
difference, two sites for the Temple.
The so-called Church of the Holy Sepulchre is situated in the
western part of the city, north of what is now called Mount Zion.
There, according to the voice of tradition, were erected the
buildings of Constantine, and there has existed, ever since, the
cave which Christians have reverenced as the Sepulchre in which our
Lord lay.
Mr. Fergusson maintains, on the other hand, that the Dome of the
Rock is a building erected by Constantine to cover the Sepulchre of
our Lord, and that the cave in the rock is the Sepulchre itself. To
support this he endeavours to prove that the rock was not enclosed
by the city walls at the time of the crucifixion; that the cave may
very well have been a tomb: and that, independent of all argument
from architecture, the description of historians and pilgrims accord
with his position of the church, up to the end of the tenth century,
over the rock in the Haram Area. And at some period, most probably
after the demolition by Hakem in 969, the Christians abandoned the
old site, and collected money to build a new church on the present
site, which they pretended was the real site.
There are three ways of considering the question: by excavation, by
history, and by arguments derived from a study of the architecture.
For the first, Captain Warren is the only person who has excavated,
on a scale of sufficient magnitude to produce results which bear
upon the question at all. We subjoin a few of his results and
opinions, with one or two brief explanatory remarks:
(1.) He has made a contour map of This makes the altar of
the whole hill on which the Haram Solomon’s Temple, provided
Area stands. From this, a most that was in the south-west
important contribution to the angle, some forty feet below
topographical question, it the present surface. But was
appears that the hill was, much not the altar on the
as Josephus describes it, steep threshing-floor of Araunah?
and almost precipitous. From the Further, the threshing-floors
top of the rock to the lowest of Syria are now about the
point in the south wall, a tops of high places, open to
distance of seven hundred feet, the four winds, and not on
there is a dip of one hundred and slopes, particularly steep
fifty feet, i.e., one in five. slopes.
(2.) He thinks that the east wall By Mr. Fergusson’s theory, the
is the most ancient, and the east wall is more modern than
south-west angle a later the west; but see, below, the
addition, probably of Herod. His evidence of Josephus, p. 5.
opinion is principally founded on
the masonry of the stones laid
bare at the foundations.
(3.) He has found what he thinks This wall, in Mr. Fergusson’s
was the old Ophel wall, running plan, springs from the Triple
from the south-east angle round Gate.
the ridge of the hill.
(4.) He has examined the Triple
Gate for remains of the eastern
wall _and finds none_.
(5.) He has found what have been Would Phœnician characters
pronounced by an eminent have been used by Herod’s
authority to be Phœnician workmen?
characters at the south-east and
north-east angles.
(6.) He has found on the If Mr. Fergusson is correct,
north-side of the platform of the these may be remains of the
Dome of the Rock certain Church of Justinian. But they
foundations, the remains of some may just as well prove to be
older building. But as yet no part of the foundations of the
further examination of the arches Temple.
then discovered has been
possible.
(7.) He discovered the actual The foundations of the wall
remains of the great bridge which were found to cross a
crossed the valley at the carefully constructed older
south-west corner. aqueduct. Now if the west wall
was Solomon’s, who built the
aqueduct? It must have been
either David or the Jebusites,
and one always imagines that
before Solomon’s time there
were few buildings or
constructions, if any, in
Jerusalem; certainly not
aqueducts.
(8.) Jar handles were found at Of course no direct inference
the south-east corner with can be drawn from the finding
inscriptions in Phœnician of anything small below the
character of the same period as surface. Tobacco pipes were
the Moabite stone. found thirty or forty feet
below the surface, but no one
has concluded therefrom that
the kings of Israel smoked
tobacco.
(9.) He thinks that “Solomon’s If this is so, no argument can
Stables” are “a reconstruction rest upon the manifest
from the floor upwards, and it is inability of the vaults as
probable from the remains of an they now are to support the
arch described by Captain Wilson Royal Cloister.
at the south-east angle, that the
original vaulting was of a much
more solid and massive
character.”
Most of these results and opinions, it will be found, weigh very
heavily in favour of the traditional view. At the same time an
opinion may always be wrong.
II. Let us pass on to the evidence given by history.
The only historical evidence we can rely on as to the actual site of
the Temple, on which subject little information can be found in the
Bible itself, is to be obtained from Josephus. We refer to three
passages:
(1.) Antiq. viii., 3, § 9.
“When Solomon had filled up great Solomon, therefore, following
valleys with earth, and had the practice common to all
elevated the ground four hundred nations, built his temple in
cubits, he made it to be on a such a place, that it should
level with _the top of the occupy a commanding position,
mountain on which the Temple was and should be an object of
built_, and by this means the mark for the surrounding
outmost temple, which was exposed country.
to the air, _was even with the
Temple itself_.”
(2.) Bell. Jud., v., ch. 5, § 1.
“Now this temple was built upon a This is exactly confirmatory
strong hill. At first the _plain of the preceding. It proves
at the top was hardly sufficient that Josephus, and therefore
for the holy house and the the Jews, believed the altar,
altar_, for the ground about it _wherever it really was_, to
was very uneven, and like a be the top of the hill.
precipice; but when King Solomon, See, however, above, Capt.
who was the person that built the Warren’s results, No. 1.
Temple, had built a wall to it on
its east side, there was then
added one cloister, founded on a
bank cast up for it, and in the
other parts the holy house stood
naked; but in after ages, the
people added new banks, and the
hill became a larger plain. They
then broke down the wall on the
north side,and took in as much as
sufficed afterwards for the
compass of the entire Temple.”
(3.) Antiq. xx., ch. 9, § 7
“They persuaded Agrippa to This evidence proves that a
rebuild the eastern cloisters. wall was built _before_ the
These cloisters belonged to the time of Herod, and
outer court, _and were situated traditionally by Solomon, _in
in a deep valley_, and had walls a deep valley_ east of the
that reached four hundred cubits Temple. By reference to Capt.
[in length], and were built of Warren’s contour map, it will
square and very white stones, the be observed that by no
length of each of which stones possibility can this be stated
was twenty cubits, and their of a wall starting from the
height six cubits. This was the Temple gate.
work of King Solomon, who first
of all built the entire Temple.
But King Agrippa, who had the
care of the Temple committed to
him by Claudius Cæsar,
considering that it is easy to
demolish any building, but hard
to build it up again, and that it
was particularly hard to do it to
those cloisters, which would
require a considerable time, and
great sums of money, he denied
the petitioners their request
about that matter.”
Next, let us take the historical evidence from Eusebius downwards,
as to the site of the Sepulchre. We adduce the principal passages
which bear on the question.
First comes Eusebius. His evidence we have given in full (p. 57). It
seems to us to amount to this:—
Constantine, taking down a temple to Venus which had been, according
to tradition, built over the site of the Holy Sepulchre, and
clearing away the earth, found a tomb, cut in the rock, still
remaining. His workmen immediately concluded that this could be no
other than the tomb of our Lord. He surrounded it with pillars and
decorations. In front of it, or round about it, he made a level
place. On the east side of the level place he built a magnificent
church, the Basilica of the Martyrion, _the only church_ which he
erected at all. In front of this church was an open market-place.
Market-places, it may be remarked, are always in the middle of
towns, not on the outside.
Eusebius is contemporary with the event, and writes as if he
actually witnessed the building of the church and the decoration of
the tomb. His evidence is therefore of the highest importance; and
from him it would appear that Constantine _built no church over the
Sepulchre at all_.
We come next to the accounts left behind by pilgrims and others.
First in order comes the Bordeaux pilgrim, who was in Jerusalem
while Constantine’s buildings were being erected. His account is as
follows:—
“Also to you going out into Jerusalem, to ascend Sion, on the left
hand and down below in valley by the wall in the pool which is
called Siloam.... In the same way Sion is ascended, and then appears
the place where was the house of Caiaphas the priest; and the column
is still there at which they beat Christ with scourges. But within,
inside the Sion wall, is seen the place where David had his palace,
and [where were] seven synagogues, which once were there, [but] one
only remains [standing], for the rest are ploughed up and sowed
over, as Isaiah the prophet hath said. Thence, in order to go
outside the wall, to those going to the Neapolitan gate, on the
right hand, down in the valley, are walls where was the house or
prætorium of Pontius Pilate. There our Lord was heard before He
suffered. But on the left hand is the hill of Golgotha, where the
Lord was crucified. Thence about a stone’s throw is the crypt where
His body was placed, and (from which) He rose again on the third
day. There, lately, by order of Constantine, a Basilica has been
built, that is, a church of wonderful beauty,” &c., &c., &c.
(2.) St. Cyril. Fourth century.[82]
“The cleft (or entrance) which was at the door of the Salutary
Sepulchre, was hewn out of the rock itself, as is customary here in
the front of sepulchres. For now it appears not, the outer cave
having been hewn away for the sake of the present adornment;[83] for
before the sepulchre was decorated by royal seal, there was a cave
in the face of the rock.”[84]
Footnote 82:
Taken from Williams’ ‘Holy City,’ vol. ii., p. 80, and p. 172.
Footnote 83:
Can this remark apply to the rock, rough and unshapen, in the Dome
of the Rock? See Williams’ ‘Holy City,’ vol. ii.
Footnote 84:
It may be observed on this passage that the so-called Tomb of
Absalom, as has been discovered by M. Clermont Ganneau, was
originally a cave, but the rock has been cut away on all sides
from it, so that it now stands out like a built monument.
(3.) Antoninus Martyrus gives the following facts:—
“From the monument to Golgotha is eighty paces,” _i.e._, about two
hundred feet. But between Siloam and Golgotha is a distance of about
a mile.
(4.) Antiochus the Monk. A.D. 630.
Modestus ... templa Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi, quæ quidem
barbarico igni conflagrarunt, in sublime erigit omni prorsus digna
veneratione, puta ædes Calvariæ ac Sanctæ Resurrectionis; domum
insuper dignam omni honore venerandæ crucis, quæ mater ecclesiarum
est.[85]
Footnote 85:
See Williams’ ‘Holy City,’ ii., 263.
(5.) Arculf. A.D. 695.
Bishop Arculf, returning from pilgrimage to the Holy Land to his
bishopric in France, was wrecked and cast away in the Hebrides,
whither contrary winds had carried the vessel. He was hospitably
received by Adamnanus, the Abbot of Iona, and beguiled the winter
evenings by narrating his adventures in Palestine, and describing
the sacred sites. The abbot wrote down his account, and sent copies
of it to different parts of England. Bede gives an abridgment.
Arculf also made a plan of the Church of the Sepulchre, which has
come down to our times.
“The Church of the Holy Sepulchre ... is supported by twelve stone
columns of extraordinary magnitude. In the middle space is a round
grotto (tegurium) cut in the rock itself, about a foot and a half
higher than a man of full stature, _in which nine men could stand
and pray_.[86] The entrance of the grotto is on the east side; on
the north side, within, is the tomb of our Lord, hewn out of the
rock, seven feet in length, and raised three feet above the floor.
Internally the stone of the rock remains in its original state, and
still exhibits the mark of the workman’s tools. To this round
church, which is called the Anastasis, that is, the Resurrection,
adjoins on the right side the square church of the Virgin Mary, and
to the east of this another church of great magnitude is built on
the spot called in Hebrew Golgotha, from the roof of which there is
hung by ropes a great brazen wheel with lamps....”
And in another place, “In that famous place where was formerly the
splendidly-built temple, in the neighbourhood of the eastern wall,
the Saracens have erected a quadrangular house of prayer, ... which
house is able to contain about three thousand men at once.”
Footnote 86:
The cave of the Sakhra contains an area of five hundred square
feet; certainly one could hardly expect a writer having this area
in his mind to say that it could only contain nine men.
(6.) Willibald. A.D. 765.[87]
The Sepulchre had been cut out of the rock: and the rock itself
stands out above the ground, and is square at the bottom and grows
pointed at the top. On its summit is the Cross of the Sepulchre; and
thereupon is built a beautiful house; and on the eastern side in
that stone of the Sepulchre is a gate by which men enter within to
pray; and there is within the couch on which lay the body of the
Lord.
Footnote 87:
Given in Fergusson’s ‘Jerusalem,’ p. 160, and in Bonney’s ‘Holy
Places,’ p. 23.
(7.) Bernhard the Wise. A.D. 807. This account agrees with
Bernhard[88] describes the Arculf’s. It is difficult to
group, as of “four churches fit these churches into the
connected together by walls, that Haram Area. Building was
is to say, one in the east, which always going on, which
has Mount Calvary: and one in the accounts for the difference
place in which the Cross of the between this story and that of
Lord was found, which is called Willibald’s.
the Basilica of Constantine:
another to the south, and a
fourth to the west, in the middle
of which is the sepulchre of the
Lord.... Between these four
churches is a Paradise without a
roof, the walls of which shine
with gold, and the pavement with
precious marble. In the midst of
it is an inclosure of four
chains, which proceed from the
aforesaid four churches, and in
it said to be the centre of the
world.”
Footnote 88:
Williams’ ‘Holy City,’ ii., 264.
With a very few trifling exceptions, which may be found enumerated
in the ‘Bible Atlas,’ p. 73, the whole voice of writers since the
tenth century is clearly and unmistakably in favour of the present
site.
We must not omit to notice the opinion of Mr. Lewin, that the Dome
of the Rock was originally the Temple of Jupiter, which Dion Cassius
tells us was built on the site of Herod’s Temple. But he goes on to
suppose that Hadrian was deceived as to the real situation of the
Temple, a thing which seems to us impossible. The foundations which
the Mohammedans found when they began to build, may very well have
been those of the Temple of Jupiter, and many of the old pillars may
have been used for the new Dome. The destruction of the Temple was
probably due to Chosroes, who clearly left nothing standing at all.
It may, however, have been destroyed by the pious zeal of the
Christians.
So far therefore, as the historical evidence goes, it appears to us
that the following facts come out with great clearness.
(1.) Josephus, and therefore the Jews generally, believed that
Solomon’s temple was built on the highest part of the hill, the
ground being afterwards raised artificially.
(2.) Herod’s temple was built, with greater magnificence, in the
same spot.
(3.) Hadrian built a temple to Jupiter on the Temple Hill.
(4.) Julian attempted to rebuild the temple itself from its old
foundations. Did he, to effect this object, first destroy the Temple
of Jupiter? If not, who did?
(5.) For four centuries after this the place remained a receptacle
for filth of all kinds, but not forgotten.
(6.) Omar erected a small mosque in front of it (p. 76).
(7.) ‘Abd el Melik and his successors repaired the whole Masjid (the
Haram Area), built the Mosque el Aksa, and the Dome of the Rock (p.
79).
(8.) The Crusaders called the Dome of the Rock, _Templum Domini_,
the Temple of the Lord, to distinguish it from the Mosque el Aksa,
which they called _Templum Solomonis_, the Palace of Solomon.
With regard to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, we have the
following data furnished us.
(1.) Constantine decorated the cave, and erected a magnificent
Basilica over the site of the Crucifixion.
(2.) All Constantine’s buildings were destroyed by Chosroes; and
rebuilt, after a fashion, by Modestus, with the assistance of John
Eleemon, Patriarch of Alexandria.
(3.) The Mohammedans at the taking of the city spared the Church of
the Holy Sepulchre.
(4.) Hakem ordered the destruction of the church. This was done, and
collections were made in every part of the Christian world to
rebuild it.
(5.) This church was burned down in 1808.
With regard to the discrepancies in the accounts given by pilgrims,
and the impossibility of completely harmonizing their descriptions
with any theory of sites, this may be remarked: Too much stress must
not be laid upon the accuracy or inaccuracies of stories told by
early travellers. Why should we look for accuracy in the narrative
of a pilgrimage spent in a state of mental _exaltation_, of which we
cold-blooded Christians can have no possible idea? When the pilgrim,
arrived at the goal of his journey, was crawling on his knees from
site to site, praying and praising, abandoning himself to all the
emotions which the memories of the places evoked, was it a time to
pull out the measuring tape and to count the paces?
To sum up, next, the historical evidence as regards the Dome of the
Rock.
(1.) When Mohammedan writers speak of the Masjid el Aksa, they 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.
Then, 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 seq._) 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 modern times. Architects find no
difficulty, for instance, in distinguishing buildings of the
fifteenth from those of the sixteenth century. But the limits recede
from each other as we go back. Therefore it is that this is an
argument, as concerns the Holy Sepulchre, which can only be used by
hands of the greatest experience. Nor ought any conclusion to be
generally accepted by the world until it has been acceded to by a
majority of that small number of architects competent to judge. Mr.
Fergusson has written on the architecture of the Dome of the Rock;
his conclusions however have not met with the approval of
authorities, such as Professor Willis, or the Count de Vogüé, of
equal rank with himself. Until architects agree, then, surely we
have nothing to rest on but the historical evidence.
INDEX.
Abu Bekr, 66
Abu ’l Casím, 431
Abu ’l Faraj, 430
Abu ’l Fath Nasr, 431
Abu Ishak, 428
Abu Obeidah, 70, 423
Abu Saíd Barkúk, 435
Abu Táher, 95
Abúdat ibn es Sámit, 424
Abyssinians, 475
Acre, 367, 391, 406, 464
Adana, 166
Adhémar, 144, 145, 171, 173, 175
Ælia Capitolina, 54
Afdhal, 196, 330
Agrippa, chap. i.
Akiba (Rabbi), 51
Albinus, 8
Alexandria surrenders to Shirkoh, 307;
taken by Amaury, 308
Alexis Comnenus, chap. vi.
Alice of Antioch, 253, 261
Alimi, El, 438
Al Imám es Shafi, 429
Amaury, King, chap. xiv.
Amaury de Lusignan, 444
Andrew’s Crusade, 451
Anselm, vision of, 178
Antioch, siege of, 170
Antoninus, 118
Arabs, their character and arts, 91
Armenians, 475
Arm of Ambrose, loss of, 207
Arnold, 176, 185, 216
Arnulphus, 118
Ascalon, 107, 287, 408
Ashraf Barsebai, Sultan, 435
—— Catibai, Sultan El, 439
—— Einál, Sultan El, 438
—— Shaban, Es Sultan, 434
Assassins, murder of messenger, 319;
sect of, 322
Assises de Jerusalem, 202
Babain, battle of, 307
Baghi Seyan, 170
Baldwin I., chap. viii., 166, 201
—— II., chap. ix.
—— III., chap. xi., 269
—— IV., chap. xiii.
—— V., 343
Baldwin du Bourg, 225, 231, and chap. ix.
Balian of Ibelin, 352
Barcochebas, 52
Battle of Lake Huleh, 292
Bedawín in Jerusalem, 441
Beirût, attempt on, 413
Bellál ibn Rubáh, 424
Benjamin of Tudela, 328
Berenice, 14
Bernard, 277
Bertram of Tripoli, 227
Bertrand de Blanqueford, 310
Bether, 53
——, identification of, 54
Beyrout, 10
——, taking of, 228
Bir el Warakah (Well of the Leaf), 421
Bishop’s Pilgrimage, 136
Blanchegarde, 267
Bohemond, 156, 224
Bordeaux Pilgrim, 116
Burham-ed-dín, Sheik, 437
Burzíyeh, castle of, 395
Cadam es Sheríf, 419
Cadhi of Jerusalem, 437
Cæsarea, 7, 16, 179, 219
Calaun, Es Sultan, 434
Caliph of Cairo, 305
Carmathians, the, 95
Carrier pigeons, 401
Cestius Gallus, 10;
defeat of, 17
Chain, ordeal of the, 420
Charlemagne, 123
Chiefs of First Crusade, 135
Children’s Crusade, 448
Chosroes takes Jerusalem and destroys Church of Holy Sepulchre, 63
Christians of city imprisoned, 441
Claudius Felix, 6
Clermont, Council of, 144
Cœnaculum, 436
Coloman, King, chap. vi.
Completion of Temple, 9
Conrad of Tyre, 367
Constance of Antioch, 288
Constantine builds Basilica, 59;
decrees against Jews, 60
Copts, 475
Cruelty of Christians, 404, 406
Crusades, time ripe for, 169
Crusaders, return of, 199
Cubbet el Míráj, 420
Cuspius Fadus, 3
Dagobert, 201, 214, 216, 217, 222
Damascus, siege of, 283
Damietta, 452
——, Greek fleet at, 315
Darúm, capture of, 411
Dhaher Chakmak, El Melik, 435
——, El Melik el, 433
Dhia-ed-Dín, 432
Dome of the Rock, erection of, 79;
repair of, 83, 93;
inscription in, 86;
not a mosque, 85
Druzes, their teaching, 106
Earthquake in Palestine, 316
Eastern Cloisters, 9
Edessa, fall of, 272
Edgar Atheling, 155
Edrei, 273
Effects of Christian occupation, 245
El Adhed, 332
El Arish, 233
El Emád, 387
El Ghazálí, 432
Eleanor, Queen, 281
Emico, 151
End of the world expected, 133
Es Sirát, Bridge of, 422
Eusebius, 57, _et seq._
Eustace de Bouillon, 237
—— Garnier, 239
Ezz-ed-dín, 438
Fair of September, 127
Fakhr-ed-dín, 456
Fálek-ed-dín, 411
Famine in Egypt, 445
—— in city, 439
Fatemite Caliphs, 300
Festus, 8
Florus, Gessius, 10, 11, 12, 13
Foulcher de Chartres, 213
Fragrant herb, consecration of the, 427
Francis of Assisi, 458
Frederic D. of Swabia, 367
Frederick II., 453
—— Redbeard, 365
Freisingen, Bishop of, 280
Frotmond, story of, 124
Fulke, chap. x., 254
—— the Black, 133
—— de Neuilly, 445
Garnier de Grey, 211
Georgians, 476
Gessius Florus, 10
Ghars-ed-dín, 439
Godfrey, chap. vii., 154, 181
Gorgona, disaster in Valley of, 164
Gotschalk, 151
Gregory IX., 454
Guy de Lusignan, chap. xiv., 339
Guymer, 167
Hadrian, 51;
builds Temple of Jupiter on site of Temple, 54
Hajj, the, 417
Hakem, el, 99, 129
Haram repaired, 442
Harûn Er Raschíd, 123
Helena, Life of, 55;
Invention of the Cross, 56
Henry of Champagne, 367, 369, 443
Heraclius, 64, 67, 68
—— the Patriarch, 341
Hisam-ed-dín, 438
Holy Fire, miracle of, 216
Holy Grail, the, 219
Holy Lance, vision of the, 173;
discovery of, 174
Holy Sepulchre, discovery of, 57;
adornment of, 58
Hugh of Cæsarea, 304
—— of Jaffa, 263
—— Vermandois, 157, 205, 209
Humphrey de Toron, 346, 394
Ida of Austria, 209
Ilgazi, 238
Imposture of Easter fire, 474
Innocent III., 445
Interdicts in Palestine, 290
Jamí-en-Nisá, 421
Jerome, 114
Jerusalem, Repair of the walls, 410
—— Siege of, by Titus, chap. ii.
—— Siege and fall of, 354
—— Taking of, by Saladin, 385
Jesus, son of Ananus, 25
Jews, heroism of, 44
Jocelyn, 239, 241, 260
—— II., 271
John de Brienne, 446, 452
—— Comnenus, 265
—— of Gischala, chap. ii.
Josephus, chap. ii
Judas the Galilæan, 3
Julian, attempts to rebuild the Temple, 61
Ka‘abeh, the, desertion of, 96
Khalit ibn el Walíd, 424
Kharezmians, 459
Khotbah of Muhiy-ed-dín, 388
King, choice of, 191
Knights Hospitallers, foundation of, 247
—— Templars, foundation of, 249
Kokeb, capture of, 397
Lietbert, 135
Longsword, William, 337
Louis VII., chap. x.
—— IX., 461
Macám en nebé, 421
Macarias, 135
Maghárah, the, 419
Manahem, 15
Manners of the Syrian Christians, 295
Maria of Constantinople, 309
Masjid el Aksa, 75, 381
Mejír-ed-dín, 439
Milan, Bishop of, 206;
his army entirely destroyed, 207
Milicent, 263, 270, 293
Milo de Plancy, 336
Moazzem, El Melik el, 433
Modern city, chap. xix.
—— native Christians, 473
—— Jews of Jerusalem, 476
Mohammedan beliefs, 422
—— pilgrims, chap. xvii.
Mohammed ibn Karrám, 430
——, Sultan, 434
Montferrat, assassination of Marquis of, 369, 410
Montreal, capture of, 302
Mount Tarsus, passes of, 169
Nahr el Casb, battle of, 407
Nasir-ed-dín, 438
Nasír Farj, Sultan, 435
Naval defeat of Mohammedans, 392
Nero, 8
Nevers, Duke of, 208;
defeat of, 209
—— Count of, 309
Nicæa, battle of, 153;
siege of, 162
Nicephorus Phocas, 97, 128
Nicolas, preacher, 447
Nûr-ed-dín, 284, 292, 294, 301, 303, 309, 319, 327
Nuseiríyeh, doctrines of the, 425
Odolric, 132
Omar, Caliph, 68, _et seq._
Ordeal by fire, 177
Order of St. Lazarus, 247
Pancrates, 168
Paula and Eudoxia, 114
Penances, 446
Peregrinationes, majores et minores, 121
Peter the Hermit, 141, and throughout chap. vi.
Philip Augustus, 365
—— of Flanders, 337
Pilgrim’s Progress, The, 118
—— service, the, 120
Pilgrimage, passion for, 113
Plague in Jerusalem, 441
Pons of Tripoli, 265
Population of Jerusalem, 23
Porphyry, 114
Position of sacred sites, _Appendix_
Pyrrhus, 171
Rabbinical Law, 48
Rains at Jerusalem, 440
Ramleh, 179, 220
Raymond, grand master of Hospitallers, 289
—— of Plaisance, 134
—— Poitiers, 262
—— Toulouse, 155, 198, 200, 206, 225
Relics, finding of, 126, _et passim_
Renaud de Chatillon, 288, 289, 291, 339, 371, 380
—— of Sidon, 398
Renegades, story of, at Cyprus, 403
Richard Cœur de Lion, chap. xv., and 404
—— of St. Vitou, 135
—— of Cornwall, 459
Robert of Flanders, 158, 172, 190
—— Normandy, 155, 171
—— Orleans, 130
Roger of Antioch, 230
Russian pilgrims, 475
Rutebeuf, 462
Safiyah bint Hai, 429
Sakhrah, Mohammedan belief concerning, 419
—— purification of, by Saladin, 388
Saladin, 319, 338, 347, 350, 365, chap. xvi.
Saladin’s holy war, 377
Samaritans, 5, 62
Second Crusade, 277
Seif-ed-dín, 358, 404
Selman el Farsí, 427
Sepulchre, Church of the, destroyed by Chosroes, 64;
rebuilt by Modestus, 64;
by Thomas, 93;
destroyed by Hakem, 103
Shakíf, fortress of, 397
Sharafál, 437
Shawer, 301, 311, 313
—— and Dhargam, 301
Sheddád ibn Aus, 427
Shehab-ed-dín, 439
Sherf-ed-dín, 439
Shírkoh, 312
Sicarii, 6
Sigard of Norway, 228
Simon Ben Gioras, chap. ii.
Sophronius, 72
Stephanus, 5
Stephen of Blois, 155, 172, 205
——, Count of Perche, 292
Sufyan eth Thori, 429
Súkel Marifah, 421
Sybille, 337, 339, 367, chap. xiv.
Sylvester converts the Jews, 60
Tancred, 157, 179, 225
Tell es Siyásíyeh, 399
Templars, defeat of, 348
Theodora of Constantinople, 293
Theudas, 4
Thierry of Flanders, 266
Thomas (patriarch) rebuilds Church of Sepulchre, 93
Tiberias, battle of, 350, 378
Tiberius, Alexander, 4
Tithe of Saladin, 363
Titus: his army, 19;
number of, 20, 21;
besieges Jerusalem, chap. ii.
Toghrul Beg, 109
Tomb of David, 436
Tours, Council of, 458
Trajan, revolt under, 49
Tripoli, 226
Truce between Saladin and Richard, 414
True Cross, Invention of, 56;
discovery of piece of, 195
—— loss of, 381
Tutush, 111
Tyre, 243
—— siege of, 393
Umm el Kheir, 429
Ventidius Cumanus, 4, 5
Vespasian in Galilee, 17;
taxes the Jews, 49
Walter the Penniless, 148
Walter of Cæsarea, 263
William of Cerdagne, 226
Willibald, 123
Yaghmúri, El, 435
Yarmúk, battle of, 69
Zanghi, 253, 262, 265, 270, 272, 330
Zidugdi, 438
Zimisces, 97, 129
Ziráyeh, the, 417
LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET
AND CHARING CROSS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcriber’s Note
The transliteration of Arabic words proved difficult to render,
particularly with respect to multiple diacritical marks. The
printer seemed somewhat undecided about how best to represent the
hamza (ʿ) and ayn (ʾ). For example, <img class="inline"
src="images/coran.png" height="18" alt="coran" />, <img
class="inline" src="images/daidedoat.png" height="18" alt="dai̔ ed
doat" />, or <img class="inline" src="images/eshkaas.png"
height="18" alt="Eshka‘as" />, and sometimes omitting them (e.g.
<img class="inline" src="images/shafiite.png" height="18"
alt="Shafi‘íte" /> = ‘Shafiíte’ or ‘Shafiite’ for ‘Shafi‘íte’).
They are rendered here as left and right single quotes. Where the
mark is printed atop a letter, in mid-word, it is inserted to the
left. This avoids a number of unacceptable approximations, e.g.,
where that hamza appears atop a Latin i, as in <img class="inline"
src="images/daidedoat.png" height="18" alt="dái̔ ed do‘át" />,
where the dot is retained in the italic form used in the text
(_dái̔_)
The page reference (p. 585) for Saladin’s taking of Jersulem is
incorrect. It has been corrected to p. 385.
Other errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been
corrected, and are noted here. The references are to the page and
line in the original. The following issues should be noted, along
with the resolutions.
127.19 for dy[e]ing. Inserted.
138.12 but instead of helping Afsi[s/z] Replaced.
160.32 occupied by the caliphat[e] of Cordova Added.
179.9 the time was gone by fo[t/r] negotiation Replaced.
226.33 The next important place attac[h/k]ed Replaced.
239.3 allowed to d[e/i]sperse in various directions Replaced.
283.19 make themselves masters of the position[,/.] Replaced.
331.18 Shaw[a/e], as perfidious as he was ambitious Replaced.
343.1 religion, a famil[i]ar thing, Inserted.
353.14 Guy had taken it all[.] Added.
383.22 Saladin next attacked Beir[u/ú]t Replaced.
383.28 While he was at Beir[u/ú]t Replaced.
389.1 leaving an empty space between;[”] Removed.
Prob.
spurious.
400.2 the Grand Master of the Templars[,/.] Added.
473.18 called the House of St. Mark[,/.] Replaced.