Jerusalem

Jerusalem.—

I. BEFORE A.D. 71.

—This article treats of the “City of God“, the political and religious center of the People of Israel, with its destruction by the Romans after it had become the scene of the Redemption. This part of the subject will be divided as follows: A. Names; B. Topography; C. History; D. Development of the City and its Chief Monuments.

A. Names.

—According to Jewish tradition (Josephus, “Antiq. Jud.”, I, x, 1, ed. Dindorf; Targum Onkelos, Gen., xiv, 18), Jerusalem was originally called Salem (Peace), and was the capital of King Melchisedech (Gen., xiv, 18). This tradition is confirmed by the cuneiform tablets discovered in 1888 at Tell Amarna, in Egypt (see below, under C. History). Five of these letters, written at Jerusalem about the year 1400 B.C., inform us that the city was then called U-ru-sa-lim (fonder, “The Tell Amarna Tablets”, London, 1894, pp. 143-51). It figures in Assyrian inscriptions under the name of Ur-sa-li-im-mu (E. Schrader, “Die Keilinschr. u. d. A. T.”, 1883, p. 290). According to the Assyrian syllabaries, uru and ur signify “city” (Hebrew Jr). In several of the Tell Amarna Tablets the word salim is used in the sense of “peace”. Ursalim, therefore, means “City of Peace”. The Psalmist, too, connects Salem with Sion: “He hath his tabernacle in Salem, and his abode upon the mountain of Sion” [Ps. lxxv (lxxvi), 3]. When the Israelites came into the Land of Promise, Jerusalem was in the power of the Jebusites, and bore the name of Jebus. The Hebrews, however, were not ignorant of its ancient name; they often called it Jerusalem (Jos., x, 1; Judges, xix, 10; II Kings, v, 6, etc.). In other passages of the Bible it is called Jerusalem (I Par., iii, 5; Jer., xxvi, 18; Esther, ii, 6, etc.). The Septuagint writes its name ierousalem. Under the hellenizing influences which invaded Palestine, Salem became zoluma (Antiq. Jud., I, x, z), and Jerusalem ta ierosoluma (The Holy Solyma) (I Mach., i, 14, 20; II Mach., i, 10; Bell. Jud., VI, x, etc.). The New Testament employs sometimes the Septuagint form and sometimes that of Machabees, which the Vulgate renders by Jerusalem and Jerosolyma. The Syriac Version gives Uris tern, a form more nearly approaching the Assyrian. When the Emperor Hadrian rebuilt the city, A.D. 136, he gave it the name of Aelia Capitolina. From the Mohammedan conquest of Palestine, in the seventh century, until our own times, the Arabs have called it El Quds, “The Holy”—the ir haq qodes, or “Holy City”, of II Esd., xi, 18 (cf. Matt., iv, 5, etc.). Among all other people the name Jerusalem has continued in use until now.

B. Topography.

(1) Geographical Position.

—Jerusalem is situated in latitude 31° 46′ 45″ N. and longitude 35° 13′ 25′ E. of Greenwich, about 32 English miles in a straight line from the Mediterranean on the west, and 13 from the Dead Sea on the east. It stands on the crest of a chain of mountains which traverses Palestine from north to south, and the highest point of which, at the northwest corner of the city, is 2577 feet above the level of the Mediterranean, and 3865 above that of the Dead Sea. Owing to this difference of level the western slope of these mountains, towards the Plain of Sephela, which extends to the Mediterranean, is gentle, while that to the east is very steep. A girdle of high hills surrounds the city, forming a sort of natural rampart. On the north is Mt. Scopus (2705 feet), next to it, on the east, the Mount of Olives (2665 feet), beyond which again is the Mount of Offense (2410 feet) (III Kings, xi, 7; IV Kings, xxiii, 13). To the south is the Mount of Evil Counsel (2549 feet), which forms the eastern boundary of the Plain of Raphaim, and next, on the southwest, comes a hill (2557 feet) to which no name has been given. Towards the northwest the city is more exposed; at some distance in that direction it is dominated by the Nebi Samwil, the ancient Maspha, which has an altitude of 2935 feet. Notwithstanding the difficulty of access in its natural situation, Jerusalem is the center of a network of ancient roads which connect it, on the east, with Jericho and the Jordan; on the south, with Hebron and Gaza; on the west, with Jaffa and Caesarea; on the north, with Samaria and Galilee. It was, however, situated beyond the great military and commercial highways between Egypt and Assyria.

(2) Site; Hills and Valleys.

—The ancient city occupied the same position as the present, except that its southern extremity has remained outside of the walls since the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 136). Thanks, however, to systematic operations undertaken by English, American, and German engineers, much of the old southern wall has been brought to light. While, in many places, masses of ruins have changed the appearance of the ground, excavations and vertical borings, made within the last fifty years, have, nevertheless, enabled the explorers to construct sufficiently exact maps of the primitive configuration. The ground on which Jerusalem stands, within this ring of surrounding mountains, is by no means uniform in character: on three sides—the east, south, and west—it stands upon terraced heights bordered by deep valleys which give it the appearance of a promontory jutting out to the south. The city itself is furrowed with ravines which cut it up into a number of little hills. The longest of these valleys measures scarcely two miles and a half; they have all been formed by erosion, due to torrential rainfall, in the quaternary period. To the north of the city they take the shape of mere depressions in the soil, then, as they descend, sinking rapidly in the calcareous rock of which the mountains are formed, they soon become deep gorges, all coming together at the southeast angle of the city, at a depth of about 600 feet below their starting-point. The two principal hills rise on the southwest and the east respectively. The former of these hills is called Mount Sion because, according to Josephus (Antiq. Jud., XVI, vii, 1), Eusebius, and all the authors, Jewish and Christian, who have followed them, the city of Jebus, or Sion—the City of David—stood there. This view, however, is contested by certain modern Palestinologists, who would locate Sion upon the northern declivity of the second of these hills, Mount Moria (II Par., iii, 1), where stood the Temple of Jehovah.

(a) Mount Sion is bounded on the west by a valley which begins near the old pool called Birket Mamilla (see below, under D), about 1000 feet to the northwest of the hill itself. This valley, following a southeasterly direction as far as the Jaffa Gate, the ancient gate of the gardens (Gennath) (Bell. Jud., V, iv, 2), then turns to the south and forms a great reservoir of water called the Birket es Sultan, by means of a massive dam, which was rebuilt in the twelfth and the sixteenth centuries. This is the Fountain of the Dragon (tannin) which Nehemias came to when he went out of the city by the western gate (D. V., “dragon fountain”, II Esd., ii, 13). Josephus calls it the Pool of the Serpent (Bell. Jud., V, iii, 2); the Hebrew word tannin signifies both “dragon” and “serpent”. This valley is called by the natives Wadi Rababi; in the Bible it goes by the name of Ge Hinnom, or Ge Ben Hinnom, “Valley of Ennom” (in A. V., Hinnom) or “of the son of En-nom”—an unknown personage (Jos., xv, 8; xviii, 16; II Esd., xi, 30; Jer., xix, 2). Below the Birket es Sultan, it turns to the east, passes below Haceldama (q.v.), and connects with the Valley of Cedron. At the junction of the two valleys are the rich plantations forming “the king’s garden” (or, in D. V., “the king’s guard”) mentioned in IV Kings, xxv, 4; Jer., xxxix, 4; II Esd., iii, 15. Also at the mouth of the Valley of Hinnom is situated Topheth, the high place where Achaz and Manasses set up the worship of Baal-Moloch (II Par., xxviii, 3; xxviii, 6). The good King Josias defiled this execrable place, scattering human bones over it (II Par., xxxiv, 3-5), in spite of which Joakim restored there the infamous worship of Moloch. From the unholy fires which were kept burning there for nearly a century and a half—those fires through which the apostate Jews caused their children to pass, in order to consecrate, or immolate, them to Moloch—Ge Hinnom (in Aramaic, Gehenanm) received the name of geenna tou puros, “ Gehenna of the Fire”, and became the emblem of hell (in Greek text, Matt., v, 22, 29, 30; Mark, ix, 43, 45). The Valley of Cedron, from Hinnom as far as the Dead Sea, is still called Wadi en Nar. “Valley of Fire”.

On the north, Mount Sion is bounded by a valley, now largely filled in, which goes down in a straight line from the Jaffa Gate eastward to the foot of Mount Moria. On the slope of this valley is a large reservoir called in Arabic Birket Hammam el Batrak. “Pool of the Baths of the Patriarch“, and in the itineraries of the pilgrims “Pool of Ezechias“. Josephus calls it Amygdalon, a name which, according to Conder, may with good reason be derived from ham migdalon, “facing the great tower”, since the pool faces the Tower of Phasael. This valley, like all those which pass through the city, has no proper name in the Bible; neither has it in Arabic; it is conventionally known as the Transverse Valley. A third valley begins outside the Damascus Gate (Bab el Amoud) and descends southward, with a slight deflection to the east, dividing the city in two, until it joins the Valley of Hinnom. After passing the opening of the Transverse Valley, it forms a gorge of some depth separating Mount Sion from Mount Moria. Its rocky bed has been found by the English engineers 69 feet below the actual surface of the ground, near the Wailing Place, and 85 feet from the southwest angle of the Temple. It encloses, towards its extremity, the Pool of Siloe, which receives through a subterranean channel the waters of the Virgin’s Fountain that flow through the hollow of Cedron. A little farther on, the valley has been dammed with a wall 233 feet in length, which, retaining the whole rainfall of the valley, formed the reservoir called by Nehemias “the king’s pool” (in D. V., “the king’s aqueduct”, II Esd., ii, 14). In Scripture this valley figures under the name of Nahal, “ravine”, or “torrent of winter” (II Esd., ii, 15). Josephus in one place designates it “the wide valley” (Bell. Jud., V, iv, 1), and the Arabs call it simply El Wad, “the valley”. In works on the Holy Land it also bears the designation of “the central valley”.

Surrounded on all sides by these deep ravines, Mount Sion presents a quadrilateral surface measuring about 2600 feet from north to south and 2000 feet from east to west. It is the largest of the hills of Jerusalem, the highest, and the only one completely isolated. Its highest point reaches an altitude of 2558 feet, and rises 531 feet above its base at the southeastern angle. Its surface is considerably varied, being, indeed, divided by a small depression which branches off from the middle of the Transverse Valley and descends obliquely to the Pool of Siloe. Mount Sion thus consists of two lofty connected plateau, one (the lower) stretching westward, the other (the shorter) to the northwest. The former is fairly uniform and measures 2300 feet in length from north to south, and 920 feet in breadth. After sinking about 100 feet towards the northwest, the ground rises about 20 feet and forms a rounded eminence opposite to the Temple, terminating in a precipice 195 feet above the former bed of El Wad.

(b) Mount Moria, or the Eastern Hill, is a narrow promontory connected with Mount Bezetha, the highest point of which is the Hill of Jeremias, with an altitude of 2556 feet. This tongue of land terminates on the south in a point near the Pool of Siloe; El Wad encloses it on its western side, and the Valley of Cedron on its eastern. Upon its highest crest (2443 feet) was the domain of Ornan (Areuna), the Jebusite, where Solomon built the Temple and his palaces. This is the summit called Moria; south of the royal quarter, the hill (2300 to 2050 feet) bears the name of Ophel (II Par., xxvii, 3). Cedron, which, since the third century after Christ, has also been called the Valley of Josaphat, begins near the so-called Tombs of the Judges, and descends, under the name of Wadi ed Djoz (Valley of Walnuts), southeast to the foot of Scopus, thence south, becoming a deep gorge separating Mount Moria from the Mount of Olives and the Mount of Offense. At a point 1300 feet beyond the northeast angle of the city, it is crossed by a bridge which has replaced one of the Jewish period. This older Jewish bridge gave access, on the right, to a staircase cut in the rock and leading up to the north side of the Temple, and, on the left, to a similar staircase leading up to the Mount of Olives. To the left of the bridge is the Garden of Gethsemani (see Gethsemani), with the Tomb of the Blessed Virgin, from which the Arabs call this part of Cedron Wadi sitti Mariam, or “Valley of the Lady Mary”. Next come, on the same side, two fine monuments of the Grieco-Roman-Judaic style (second to first century B.C.) excavated in the rock. The first of these has been called, since the fourth century after Christ, the Tomb of Absalom; the second, the Tomb of the Prophet Zacharias. Between the two is a grandiose Jewish tomb of the same period, belonging to the family of the Beni Hezir. A little farther on, upon the side of the Mount of Offense, is to be seen a rock-hewn tomb of Egyptian architecture. Upon the same slope is perched the village of Silwan, the houses built against long rows of sepulchers, most of them cut in a vast bank of calcareous rock popularly known as Ez Zehwele. Opposite, at the foot of Ophel, a flight of thirty-two steps descends to a grotto, in which is a spring of slightly brackish water. This spring presents the phenomenon of a natural (subterranean) syphon producing an intermittent flow; only at intervals—from three to six times a day—does the water rush down, with a strange humming noise, from a cleft in the rock. The water of this spring is conveyed to the Pool of Siloe by a winding tunnel. The Arabs call the fountain Ain Sitti Mariam, in honor of the Blessed Virgin, and also Ain Oumm Daradj, “Fountain of the Mother of the Stairs”; its Biblical name is, according to some, En Rogel; according to others, the Upper Gihon (see below, under D). Cedron now begins to widen, and is covered with rich gardens, the “king’s gardens” mentioned in the Bible. It receives the Hinnom, together with El Wad and the little valley which descends obliquely from Mount Sion. Its descent in a course of about two and a half miles is 550 feet, but in the latter half of this distance it is encumbered with fifteen to fifty feet of rubbish.

To the north of Mount Moria one more valley begins outside the Gate of Herod (Bab Zahira), passes to the south-southeast, under the northeastern angle of the platform of the Temple, and ends at the bridge of Cedron. The numerous pools in this depression, near St. Anne’s church, the traditional birthplace of the Blessed Virgin, have been excavated. Here should be located the Probatic Pool, or Pool of Bethsaida (A. V. Bethesda), with the five porches (John, v, 2). The locality of the Birket Israel, a reservoir 359 feet long by 126 feet wide, has also been determined, to the north, against the outer wall of the Temple.

(c) Mount Gareb (in D. V., “the hill Gareb”—Jer., xxxi, 39) stretches between the Transverse Valley, on the south, and the upper course of El Wad, on the east. It rises somewhat abruptly towards the northwest but offers no particularly prominent height except the rock of Calvary (2518 feet). In A.D. 70, Gareb was still covered, outside the walls, with gardens watered by springs (Bell. Jud., V, ii, 2).

There is still discussion as to whether Sion, the City of David, occupied the traditional Mount Sion or Ophel; but all admit that before the reign of Ezechias (727 B.C.) the city of Jerusalem extended over both hills, within the limits of “the first walls”.

C. History.

—The history of Jerusalem is to a certain degree indistinguishable from that of Israel. It will suffice here to call attention to the most memorable occurrences in the city.

(1) From its Origin to its Conquest by David.

—As seen above, Jerusalem is the ancient Salem, the capital of Melchisedech, king and priest of the Most High. Learning of the return of Abraham (then called Abram), who had been victorious over Chodorlahomor and his allies, Melchisedech came before the patriarch (Heb., vii, 1) “in the vale of Save, which is the king’s vale” (Gen., xiv, 17). The king’s vale is the Valley of Cedron, which begins to the north of the city (II Kings, xviii, 18; Antiq. Jud., I, x, 2.—Cf. IV Kings, xxv, 4; Jer., xxxix, 4). Like all the land of Chanaan, Jerusalem had been for many centuries in subjection to Chaldea; after Abraham‘s time it passed under the domination of Egypt. About the year 1400, while Israel was dreaming of liberation from the Egyptian yoke, certain Cossean peoples, called Khabiri, invaded Palestine, probably at the instigation of the Chaldeans or the Hethites, and took possession of the strong-holds. Abd Hiba, king of U-ru-sa-lim, seeing his capital menaced, dispatched six letters in succession to his suzerain, Amenophis III, imploring succor. But in vain; Egypt herself was then undergoing a crisis. It was probably at this period that Jerusalem fell into the power of the Jebusites, who called it Jebus.

When the Hebrews came into the Land of Promise, the King of Jebus was Adonisedec (Lord of Justice)—a name which, both in form and sense, recalls Melchisedech (King of Justice). Although Adonisedec perished in the coalition of the five kings of Chanaan against Israel (Jos., x, 26; xii, 10), Jerusalem, thanks to its strong position, long maintained its independence. In the distribution of the land among the children of Israel, it was assigned to the descendants of Benjamin. The boundary between this tribe and that of Juda ran from En Schems, on the Jericho road, to En Rogel, in the Valley of Cedron, then, following “the valley of the son of Ennom” (Jos., xv, 7, 8), or “of the children of Ennom” (Jos., xviii, 15, 16), skirted the city to the south and west. In the period of the Judges, Juda and Benjamin had tried to gain possession of it, but in vain, although they put its inhabitants to the sword and gave the city to the flames (Judges, i, 8); the city here spoken of is, as Josephus remarks (Antiq. Jud., V, ii, 2), only the lower city, or suburbs. Jerusalem remained (Judges, xix, 12) independent of Israel until the reign of David.

(2) From David to the Babylonian Captivity.

—Having become king over the Twelve Tribes of Israel, David contemplated making Jerusalem the political and religious center of God‘s people. He assembled all the forces of the nation at Hebron, and advanced against Jebus. After long and painful efforts, “David took the castle of Sion” and “dwelt in the castle, and called it, the city of David: and built round about from Mello and inwards” (II Kings, v, 7, 9). This was about the year 1058 B.C. The king then caused cedar wood to be brought from Lebanon, and work-men from Tyre, to build him a palace. Soon after, the Ark of the Covenant was solemnly brought into the city of David and placed in a tabernacle. The king one day beheld the destroying angel soaring above Mount Moria, ready to strike the Holy City. The Lord stayed his arm, and David, in thanksgiving, bought the threshing-floor which was upon the summit of the hill, the property of Areuna (A.V. Araunah), or Ornan, the Jebusite, and there built an altar, upon which he offered holocausts (II Kings, xxiv; I Par., xxi). Thenceforward Mount Moria was destined to receive the temple of the Most High. David prepared the material and left the execution of the project to his son,

In the fourth year of his reign, Solomon began the building of the Temple, under the direction of artificers sent by Hiram, King of Tyre. Hiram also supplied cedar wood and cypress wood; 70,000 men were employed in transporting wood from Joppe (Jaffa) to Jerusalem, and 80,000 more in quarrying stone in the neighborhood and shaping it. The splendid monument was completed, as to its essential details, in seven years and a half, and with great pomp the Ark of the Covenant was brought from the City of David to the new sanctuary (II Kings, vi). The buildings were erected upon a great platform, constructed by means of immense containing walls. To the west rose the Holy of Holies, surrounded by a series of chambers in several tiers, in front of which, to the east, was a monumental facade, or pylon, formed by two lofty connected towers. Opposite to this entrance rose two great columns of bronze, like obelisks. Towards the east was the great court of the priests, square, surrounded with porches, and enclosing the altar of holocausts, the “sea of brass”, and other utensils for sacrifices. This court was surrounded by others which were also enriched with galleries and superb buildings (see Temple of Jerusalem). Solomon next devoted thirteen years to erecting, south of the Temple, “the house of the Forest of Lebanon” his royal palace, with that of the queen, Pharaoh’s daughter, as well as the buildings destined for his numerous family, for his guard, and for his slaves. He then connected the Temple and the new royal quarter with the City of David by a wall of enclosure, fortified the Millo (in D.V., Mello—III Kings, ix, 15), and “filled up the gulf of the City of David” (III Kings, xi, 27).. The people began to murmur under taxation and forced labor.

Insurrection broke out when the proud Roboam, son of Solomon, began his reign (981-65). Ten tribes revolted from him to form the Kingdom of the North, or of Israel, and Jerusalem ceased to be anything more than the capital of the tribes of Benjamin and Juda. At the invitation of Jeroboam, who was elected sovereign of the new kingdom, Sesac (Seshonq, in A.V., Shishak), Pharaoh of Egypt, invaded the land of Juda (976), took Jerusalem, and plundered the immense treasures of the Temple and the royal palace (III Kings, xiv, 25, 26). Asa (961-21) and Josaphat (920-894) enriched the Temple after their numerous victories over the neighboring peoples. Under Joram (893-888) the Philistines, in alliance with the Arabs of the South, in their turn pillaged the Temple and slew or carried off all the sons of the king except the youngest, Ochozias, or Joachaz, the child of Athalia (II Par., xxi, 16, 17). On his murder, Athalia had her grandsons put to death, and seized the power. Joas alone, a child of one year, was saved from the massacre by the High-Priest Joiada and secretly reared in the Temple. At the age of six he was proclaimed king by the people, and Athalia was stoned to death. Joas (886-41) restored the Temple and abolished the worship of Baal; but later on, he allowed himself to be perverted, and caused the Prophet Zacharias, the son of Joiada, his preserver, to be put to death. He himself perished by the hands of his servants (IV Kings, xii; II Par., xxii). Under Amasias the Israelites of the North vanquished those of the South, attacked Jerusalem, and “broke down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim to the gate of the corner, four hundred cubits”. The treasures of the Temple and of the royal palace were carried away to Samaria (IV Kings, xiv, 13, 14). Ozias, or Azarias (811-760), repaired the breach and fortified the wall with strong towers (II Par., xxvi, 9). His son Joatham (759-44), a wise and good king, strengthened the city by building “the high gate of the house of the Lord, and on the wall of Ophel he worked much”—south of the royal quarter (II Par., xxvii, 3-IV Kings, xv, 35).

While the Kings of Syria and Israel were marching against Jerusalem, God sent the Prophet Isaias to King Achaz (743-27), who was at “the conduit of the upper pool”. There the Prophet foretold to him the repulse of the enemy and at the same time announced to him that the Messias, Emmanuel, should he born of a virgin (Is., vii, 3-14). Achaz used the wealth of the Temple to pay tribute to Theglathphalasar, King of Assyria, whose protection he had sought against the Kings of Israel and Syria; he was impious enough to substitute the worship of Baal-Moloch for that of Jehovah.

Ezechias (727-696) hastened to abolish the worship of idols. Alarmed by the fall of the Kingdom of Israel (721), he erected a second wall to protect the suburbs which had come into existence to the north of Mount Sion and the Temple. He made an alliance with Egypt and with Merodach Baladan, King of Babylon, and refused to pay tribute to Assyria. Upon this, Sennacherib, King of Ninive, who was at war with Egypt, invaded Palestine from the south, and sent his chief officers from Lachis to Jerusalem, with a numerous army, to summon the king to surrender at discretion. But, upon the advice of Isaias, the king refused to surrender. To cut off the enemy’s water, he dammed the spring of the Upper Gihon and brought the stream to the west of the City of David (II Par., xxxii, 3, 4, and 30). An Assyrian tablet (Taylor’s Prism, col. 3) reports that Sennacherib, after vanquishing the Egyptians at Altaka and taking forty-six cities of Judea, shut up Ezechias in Jerusalem “like a bird in a cage” (Cuneiform Inscriptions of W. Asia, I, Pl. 39). This agrees with the Bible narrative; just as he was about to assault Jerusalem, Sennacherib was informed that Tharaca, King of Ethiopia, was advancing against him, and forthwith, leaving the Holy City, he set out for Egypt; but his army was miraculously destroyed by pestilence (IV Kings, xviii, 13; xix, 35-37; II Par., xxxii, 9-22; Is., xxxvi and xxxvii). Sennacherib organized another army at Ninive and vanquished Merodach Baladan of Babylon, Ezechias‘s suzerain. Thus it was that, according to the Assyrian inscriptions, Manasses, son of Ezechias (695-45), found himself a tributary of Assaradon and of Assurbanipal, Kings of Ninive (Prism of Assaradon, op. cit., III, p. 16; G. Smith, “History of Assurbanipal”, p. 30). Manasses afterwards tried to shake off the Ninivite yoke. In 666 Assurbanipal’s generals came to Jerusalem, put the king in chains, and carried him to Baby-ion, which was in vassalage to Ninive (II Par., xxxi, 9-11). Manasses, however, soon obtained his liberty and returned to Jerusalem, where he repaired the evils he had caused. He also restored the city walls built by his father (II Par., xxxiii, 12-16).

Amon, one of the worst kings of Juda, was assassinated after a reign of two years. Josias, his son (641-08), guided by the Prophet Jeremias, destroyed the idolatrous altars and restored the Temple (621). Upon this occasion the High Priest Helcias found in a hall of the sanctuary an old copy of the Law of Jehovah given by Moses (IV Kings, xxii, 8-14; II Par., xxxiv, 14-21). In 608 the Pharaoh, Nechao II, marched against Assyria. Actuated by a scruple of conscience, the good king attempted to bar the way against his suzerain’s adversary, and met his death at the battle of Mageddo (IV Kings, xxiii, 29, 30). Joachas, or Sellum, his successor, after reigning three months, was deposed by Nechao, and sent as a captive to Egypt, while Eliacim, to whom the conqueror gave the name of Jehoiakim (D.V. Joakim), was put in his place (607-600). In 601 Nabuchodonosor (Nebuchadnezzar) entered Judea to consolidate his father’s power. He carried away as captives to Babylon certain no-tables of Jerusalem, together with the young Prophet Daniel. Joakim revolted against the Babylonian yoke, but his son Joachin (Jehoiachin), surrendered to Nabuchodonosor. The city was given over to pillage, and 10,000 inhabitants, including the king, were carried off to Babylon (IV Kings, xxiv, 1-16; cf. also II Par. xxxvi, 1-10). Sedecias, third son of Josias, succeeded his nephew (596-587). Urged by the Egyptian party, he, too, rebelled against his suzerain. Nabuchodonosor returned to Syria and sent his general, Nabuzardan, against Jerusalem with a formidable army. The city surrendered after a siege of more than eighteen months. The Temple, the royal palaces, and other principal buildings were given to the flames, and the city was dismantled. The sacred vessels, with everything else of value, were carried away to Babylon; the Ark of the Covenant alone could be hidden by the Jews. Sedecias, who, at the last moment, had fled with his army by the southern gate, was overtaken in the plain of the Jordan, and his eyes were put out. The high priest, the chief military officers, and the notables of the land were massacred, and the remainder of the inhabitants were transported to Babylon with their blind king. Only husbandmen and the poor were left in the country, with a Jewish governor named Godolias (Gedaliah), who took up his residence at Maspha (IV Kings, xxiv, 18-20; xxv; II Par., xxxvi, 11-21).

(3) From the Return out of Captivity to the Roman Domination.

—In 536 B.C. Cyrus, King of Persia, authorized the Jews to return to Palestine and rebuild the Temple of the Lord (I Esd., i, 1-4). The first convoy, consisting of 42,000 Jews, was dispatched under the leadership of Zorobabel, a prince of Juda. They hastened to restore the altar of holocausts, and in the second year the foundations were laid for another temple, which, however, owing to the difficulties raised by the Samaritans and other neighboring peoples, was not completed until the sixth year of the reign of Darius (514). The old men could not restrain their tears when they saw the unpretentious character of the new building. In 458, under Artaxerxes I, Esdras came to Jerusalem with 1500 Jews as governor of Judea and completed the political and religious restoration of Israel. Thirteen years later Nehemias, with the authorization of Artaxerxes, completely restored the Holy City.

By the victory of Issus and the capture of Tyre, Alexander the Great, King of Macedon, became master of Western Asia. In 332 he marched against Jerusalem, which had remained faithful to Darius III. The High-Priest Jaddus, believing that resistance would be useless, went out to meet the great conqueror, and induced him to spare the Jews (Antiq. Jud., XI, viii, 3-6). After Alexander, Jerusalem suffered much from the long struggle between the Seleucids of Syria and the Ptolemies of Egypt. Palestine fell to Seleucus Nicanor; but in 365 Ptolemy Soter gained entrance into Jerusalem on a Sabbath Day by stratagem, and carried away a number of Jews to Egypt (Antiq. Jud., XII, i, 1). A century later (203) Antiochus the Great again tore the Holy City from the grasp of Egypt. When, in 199, it fell once more into the power of Scopas, a general of Ptolemy Epiphanes, the Jews helped the troops of Antiochus, who had just defeated Scopas’s army, to definitively drive the Egyptian garrison out of the citadel of Jerusalem (Antiq. Jud., XII, iii, 3). The Seleucids conceived the unfortunate idea of introducing hellenistic—that is, pagan—notions and manners among the Jewish people, especially the sacerdotal and civil aristocracy. The high priesthood had become a venal office; Jason was supplanted by Menelaus, and Menelaus by Lysimachus. These unworthy priests at last took up arms against each other, and blood flowed freely on several occasions in the streets of Jerusalem (II Mach., iv). Under pretense of stifling these turmoils, Antiochus Epiphanes in 170 entered the Holy City, stormed the fortifications of the Temple, plundered it of its most sacred vessels, massacred 40,000 persons, and carried off as many more into bondage (I Mach., i, 17-25; II Mach., v, 11-23). Two years later he sent his general Apollonius to suppress the Jewish religion by force and replace it at Jerusalem with Greek paganism. The city was dismantled, and the Acra, the citadel which commanded the Temple and served as a garrison for the Syrians and an asylum for renegade Jews, was reinforced. The statue of the Olympian Jupiter was set up in the Temple of the Most High, while a cruel and bloody persecution everywhere broke out against those Jews who were faithful to their traditions (I Mach., i, 30-64; II Mach., v, 25, 26; vi, 1-11).

The priest Mathathias of Hasmon and his five sons, known as the Machabees, organized an heroic resistance. Judas, succeeding on the death of his father (166), gained four victories over the Syrian armies, occupied Jerusalem (164), purified the Temple, strengthened the fortifications, and erected a new altar of holocausts. He also repaired the walls of the city, but could not gain possession of the citadel (Acra) which was held by a Syrian garrison. After various repulses and victories he made an alliance with the Roman Empire (I Mach., viii). Jonathas succeeded and maintained the struggle with no less heroism and success. He built a wall between the upper city and the Acra, as a barrier against the Syrians. Simon took the place of his brother when Jonathas fell by treachery (142). Three years later, he drove out the Syrian garrison of Acra, razed the fortress, and even leveled the hill on which it had stood—a gigantic undertaking which occupied the entire population for three years (Antiq. Jud., XVIII, vi, 6; Bell. Jud., V, iv, 1). Demetrius II and after him Antiochus Sidetes finally recognized the independence of the Jewish people. Simon, with two of his sons, was assassinated by his son-in-law, and his third son, John Hyrcanus I (135-06), succeeded him on the throne. Antiochus Sidetes, with a formidable army, came to besiege Jerusalem, but consented to withdraw for a ransom of 500 talents, and Hyrcanus took that sum from the treasures of the royal sepulcher (Antiq. Jud., XIII, viii, 24; Bell. Jud., I, ii, 5). Hyrcanus I was succeeded by his son Aristobulus I, who combined the title of pontiff with that of king, reigning however only one year. His brother and successor, Alexander Jannmus (105-78), considerably enlarged the boundaries of the kingdom by his many brilliant victories. Upon his death Alexandra, his widow, took the reins of government into her hands for nine years, after which she entrusted the high-priesthood and the king-ship to her son Hyrcanus II (69), but his brother Aristobulus took up arms to dispute the possession of the throne. By virtue of the alliance with Rome which Simon had entered into, Pompey, the Roman general, came from Damascus to Jerusalem, in 65 B.C., to put an end to the civil war. The partisans of Hyrcanus opened the gates of the city to the Romans, but those of Aristobulus entrenched themselves within the fortifications of the Temple, and could not be dislodged until after a siege of three months. Their resistance was at last overcome on a Sabbath Day; as many as 12,000 Jews were massacred, and Aristobulus was driven into exile. Pompey restored Hyrcanus to the high-priesthood, with the title of ethnarch, and declared Jerusalem a tributary of Rome (Antiq. Jud., XIV, iv, 1-4; Bell. Jud., I, vii, 1).

(4) Under the Roman Domination; until A.D. 70.

—Caesar authorized Hyrcanus to rebuild the walls that had been demolished by Pompey; but in 48 B.C. he appointed Antipater, the Idumean, governor of Palestine, and the latter, four years afterwards, obtained the appointment of his eldest son, Phasael, as prefect of Jerusalem, and of his youngest son, Herod, as governor of Galilee. When Antipater died (43), Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus II, seized the throne, sent Hyrcanus II into exile among his allies, the Parthians, and imprisoned Phasael, who killed himself in despair (Antiq. Jud., XIV, xiii, 5-10; Bell. Jud., I, xiii, 5-10). Herod fled to Rome, where the Senate proclaimed him King of the Jews (40). But it was three years before he wrested Jerusalem from Antigonus, and only after bringing conflagration and bloodshed upon the city. Antigonus, the last of the Hasmonean dynasty, was condemned to death (Antiq. Jud., XIV, xiv, 4; xvi, 1; Bell. Jud., I, xiv, 4; XVIII). In 24 B.C. Herod the Great built himself a splendid castle upon the site of the Tower of Baris, or of Birah (II Esd., ii, 8), named it Antonia, in honor of Mark Antony, and took up his residence there (Bell. Jud., V, v, 8; Antiq. Jud., XV, xi, 5). He also built a theatre and an amphitheatre for gladiatorial combats. In 19 B.C. the king, whose origin as well as his cruelty rendered him odious to the Jews, thought to win their goodwill by reconstructing the Temple of Zorobabel, little by little, until it should be as splendid as that Solomon. He also enlarged the sanctuary by extending the galleries to the fortress of Antonia, on the of north, and connecting it, on the south, with the site of Solomon‘s palace, so as to erect there a superb stoa, or basilica. The opening of the new Temple took place in the year 10 B.C. (Antiq. Jud., XV, xi, 3-6), but thousands of workmen labored at it until A.D. 64 (Antiq. Jud., XX, ix, 7). He built a second strong castle at the northwest angle of Mount Sion, and flanked it with three superb towers—Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamne. He also opened the tomb of the kings of Juda, in quest of treasure, after which, to allay the popular indignation aroused by his sacrilege, he erected a monument of white marble at the entrance of the tomb (Antiq. Jud., VII, xv, 3; XVI, vii, I). Herod was nearing the end of his reign of nearly forty-one years, when Jesus, the Divine Savior, was born at Bethlehem. A few months after the visit of the three Wise Men of the East, and the Massacre of the Innocents, he died of a hideous malady, hated by all his people (4 B.C.).

Archelaus, his son, took the title of king, but in the course of the same year Rome left him with only the title of Ethnarch of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. Ten years later, he was deposed, and Judea was reduced to the status of a Roman province. Coponius, Marcus Ambivius, Annius Rufus, Valerius Gratus (A.D. 14), and Pontius Pilate (26) were successively appointed procurators of the country. Pilate occasioned several seditions, which he stifled with extreme brutality. Under the administration of Pontius Pilate, Jesus Christ was arrested and put to death. The Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of the Divine Savior have rendered Jerusalem—which was already glorious—the most celebrated city in all the world. The enthusiasm with which, after the Day of Pentecost, thousands of Jews declared themselves disciples of Jesus Christ provoked a violent persecution of Christians, in which the deacon Stephen was the first martyr (Acts, vi, 8-15). Pontius Pilate having one day seized the funds of the Corban to pay for the construction of an aqueduct, a violent uprising of the Jews was thus occasioned (35). Summoned to Rome to give an account of his conduct, he was banished by Caligula (Antiq. Jud., XVIII, iii, 2). Two years later, the emperor made Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod, tetrarch of the countries beyond Jordan; in 41 Claudius made him King of Judea. Agrippa undertook the construction of the third wall, to the north of the city (Antiq. Jud., XIX, vii, 2; Bell. Jud., V, iv, 2). To please the Jews, he caused St. James the Greater to be beheaded, and intended the same lot for St. Peter, when an angel came and delivered the Prince of the Apostles from his chains (Acts, xii, 1-19). Soon afterwards, early in 44, the king died miserably at Caesarea (Acts, xii, 23; Antiq. Jud., XIX, viii, 2).

At this epoch there came to Jerusalem Saddan, who was called among the Greeks Helen, Queen of Adiabene, a country situated on the Adiabas, which is an eastern tributary of the Tigris. Converted to Judaism, together with her numerous family, she comforted the poor with her bounty during a terrible famine (cf. Acts, xi, 28). It was she who caused to be excavated, for herself and her family, to the north of the city, the imposing sepulcher known as the Tomb of the Kings (Antiq. Jud., XX, ii, 6; iv, 3).. At this time the Blessed Virgin died, and was buried at Gethsemani. St. Peter returned from Antioch to preside at the First Ecumenical Council (Acts, xv, 1-3). (See Judaizers. subtitle Council of Jerusalem.) The King of Judea was replaced by a procurator, and Agrippa II, son of the preceding Agrippa, was made Prince of Chalcis and Perea, and charged with the care of the Temple of Jerusalem (Antiq. Jud., XX, ix, 7). He finished the third wall, which had been commenced by his father, and brought the work upon the sanctuary to a termination in A.D. 64. Cuspius Fadus, Tiberius Alexander, and Cumanus were successively procurators, from 44 to 52. Then came Felix, Festus, and Albinus, from 52 to 66. With the last four, disorders and massacres occurred incessantly. Gessius Florus (66) surpassed the wickedness of his predecessors, and drove the people to revolt against the Roman domination; Agrippa and his party advocated patience, and appealed to Rome against the procurator; but after several days of civil war, the insurgent party triumphed over the pacific, massacred the Roman garrison, and set fire to the palaces. Cestius Gallus, President of Syria, arrived on October 30, 66, with the Twelfth Legion, but only met with repulses, and had to retire (Antiq. Jud., XX, xxi; Bell. Jud., II, xvii, 6; xix, 1-9). The Christians, recalling Christ’s prophecies (Luke, xix, 43, 44), withdrew beyond the Jordan into Agrippa’s territory, led by their bishop, St. Simeon (St. Epiphanius, “De mensuris”, xiv, xv). Nero commanded his general, Vespasian, to suppress the insurrection, and Vespasian, accompanied by his son Titus, invaded Galilee, in A.D. 67, with an army of 60,000 men. Most of the strong places had been captured, when the death of the emperor occasioned a suspension of hostilities. After the ephemeral reigns of three emperors, aggregating eighteen months, Vespasian was raised to the throne in November, 69.

Titus received from his father the command of the Army of the East, and in the following year, at the season when the Holy City was crowded with those who had come to the Feast of the Passover, he began to lay siege to it. On the 14th day of Xanthic (Bell. Jud., V, xiii, 7), or of the Hebrew month Abib—the day of the Passover, corresponding to March 31—Titus took up his position on Mount Scopus with the Fifth, Seventh, and Fifteenth Legions, while the Tenth Legion occupied the Mount of Olives. On the other side, John of Giscala held the Temple, the Antonia, and the new town at Bezetha, with 11,000 men, and Simon, the son of Giora, held the upper and lower city, on the southwestern hill, with 10,000 men. Attacking the third wall, on April 9, the legions captured that line of defenses after fifteen days’ fighting. Once master of the new town, Titus took up a position to the west, on the ground known as “the Camp of the Assyrians” (Bell. Jud., V, vii, 2). An attack upon the second wall immediately followed. Five days later, the Romans gained entrance by a breach, but were repulsed, and mastered it only after five days of fierce and incessant fighting. Titus could then approach the Antonia, which offered the only way of access to the Temple, and the citadel of Herod, which covered the first wall to the north of Mount Sion. After three days given to repose, the causeways and movable towers were made ready against the Hippicus tower and the Antonia. But on May 17 the works raised against the Antonia were mined and destroyed by the soldiers of John of Giscala, and two days later the movable towers which threatened the Hippicus were set on fire by Simon’s men, while a heroic struggle was being maintained on both sides. The Roman general then employed his whole army for three days in surrounding the city with an earthwork of circumvallation, designed to cut off all communication with the city, and so to reduce the place by famine. This soon produced terrible results (Bell. Jud., XII, v, 2).

After three weeks of fresh preparations, the battering-rams effected a breach in the wall connecting the Antonia with the Temple, near the Pool of Struthius, but in vain. Two days later, the wall crumbled to pieces above a mine prepared by John of Giscala, and a handful of Roman soldiers gained entrance to the Antonia by surprise, at three o’clock in the morning of June 20 (Bell. Jud., VI, i, 1-7). Titus at once had the fortress demolished, in order to use the materials in constructing mounds against the Temple. For three weeks the Jews desperately defended first the outer porticoes and then the inner, which the Romans entered only at the cost of enormous sacrifices. At last on July 23, a Roman soldier flung a blazing torch into one of the halls adjoining the Holy of Holies. In the midst of frightful carnage the fire spread to the neighboring buildings, and soon the whole platform was one horrible mass of corpses and ruins (Bell. Jud., VI, ii, 1-9; iii, 1, 2; iv, 1-5). The Romans then set fire to the palace in the hollow of El Wad, and to the Ophel; next day they drove the Jews out of the Acra and burned the lower city as far as the Pool of Siloe (Bell. Jud., VI, vi, 3-4). There still remained the third rampart, the formidable stronghold of the upper cit y, where the defenders of the Acra, laden with booty, had joined Simon’s men. Eighteen days were devoted to the preparation of the aggeres (mounds) to the northwest and northeast of the fortress, but scarcely had the battering-rams breached the walls when John and Simon fled secretly with their troops. On the eighth day of Elul (August 1) the city was definitively in the power of the Romans, after a siege of 143 days. To those who congratulated him Titus replied: “It is not I who have conquered. God, in His wrath against the Jews, has made use of my arm” (Bell. Jud., VIII, v, 2).

The walls of the Temple and those of the city were demolished. But Titus wished to preserve the fortress of the upper city, with the three magnificent towers of Herod‘s palace. Besides, the upper city was needed as a fortified station for the Tenth Legion, which was left to garrison Jerusalem. During this siege—one of the most sanguinary recorded in history—600,000 Jews, according to Tacitus (Hist., V, xiii), or, according to Josephus, more than a million, perished by the sword, disease, or famine. The survivors died in gladiatorial combats or were sold into slavery.

D. Development of the City and its Chief Monuments.

(1) Sion, or the City of David, according to Tradition.

—”David took the castle of Sion” and “dwelt in the castle, and called it, the city of David: and built round about from Mello and inwards” (II Kings, v 7, 9). When Solomon had completed the Temple and the House of the Forest of Lebanon, 100 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high, with a porch 30 cubits by 50, he erected the palaces and other buildings. Lower down, towards the south, in the locality which figures in the post-Exilic texts as the Ophel, we find the Gabaonites (Jos., ix, 22) and other Nathinites—foreign races placed at the service of the Levites to furnish wood and water for the sacrifices (I Esd., ii, 58; vii, 24; viii, 20; II Esd., iii, 26; xi, 21).

Did Sion, the City of David, occupy the eastern hill or that situated to the southwest? Before the exile, the Jews could not have been ignorant of the location, for the boundary wall of Sion enclosed the sepulchers of the prophet-king and fourteen of his successors; the last two Books of Kings repeat this thirteen times (III Kings, ii, 10; xi, 43; xv, 9, 24, etc.; IV Kings, viii, 24, etc.), and Paralipomenon bears similar witness. On their return from exile, the old men (I Esd., iii, 12) must have remembered in what quarter of the city the burial-places of David and his descendants were situated; in point of fact, Nehemias does not hesitate to use them as a landmark (II Esd., iii, 16). Hyrcanus I and Herod the Great even opened these tombs of the kings to find treasure in them (Antiq. Jud., VII, xv, 3; XIII, vii, 4; Bell. Jud., I, ii, 5). The white marble monument erected by the latter seems to have remained standing until A.D. 133 (Dion Cassius, “Hist. of Rome“, LXIX, iv). At any rate the tomb of David was well known among the Jews and the disciples of Christ in the time of St. Peter (Acts, ii, 29). Now Josephus, an eyewitness, says that the Jebusite city, which became the City of David, occupied the high western plateau of the southwestern hill, which is now known as Mount Sion. In his time it was called “the upper city” (Antiq. Jud., XVI, vii, 1, etc.), and again the upper agora, or market (Bell. Jud., V, iv, 1. Cf. I Mach., xii, 36; xiv, 36). The word Millo (in D. V. Mello) is always translated Acra in the Septuagint and Josephus, and, according to the latter, the Millo, or Mello, occupied the high plateau on the northeast side of the same hill, and was in his time called Acra, “lower city” and “lower market” (Antiq. Jud., XVI, vii, 1; Bell. Jud., V, iv, 1; I Mach., i, 38). It was this hill, commanding the Temple, that was levelled by the Hasmoneans (Antiq. Jud., XIII, vi, 6; Bell. Jud., I, ii, 2). The Talmudists agree with the Jewish historian as to the position of the two markets (Neubauer, “La Geographie du Talmud“, p. 138). Eusebius of Ca sarea (Onomasticon, s.v. “Golgotha”), St. Jerome (Ep. cviii, “Ad Eustoch.”), St. Epiphanius (“De mens.”, xiv), and all later writers, Jewish and Christian, locate Sion, the City of David, upon the southwestern hill, which has never borne any other name than that of Mount Sion.

(2) Sion on Ophel.

—During the last fifty years many writers have rejected tradition and sought information from the Bible alone, giving some twenty different topographical theories. The theory which places Sion upon Ophel is the only one which (apart from certain discrepancies as to the sites of the Mello, the Acra, the palaces of Solomon, etc.) is worth a moment’s consideration. The partisans of this theory base it upon the following passage: “This same Ezechias was he that stopped the source of waters of Gihon, and turned them away underneath toward the west of the city of David” (II Par., xxxii, 30). They maintain that Sion was at Ophel for the following reasons: (a) En Rogel—”the fountain Rogel”—a spring of the Valley of Cedron (Jos., xv, 7; xviii, 16) is the Bir Eyib, or “Well of Job“, situated 2300 feet to the south of the Ain Sitti Mariam, or Fountain of the Virgin. (b) In former times, as now, the Fountain of the Virgin was the only spring which flowed in the vicinity of Jerusalem. (c) The Fountain of the Virgin is, therefore, the Upper Gihon of the Bible. (d) Now it was Ezechias who made the tunnel of Siloe. (e) By this passage the king brought the waters of the Fountain of the Virgin to the west of Ophel, that is, of the City of David. (f) The Books of Machabees explicitly state that Sion was on the mountain of the Temple, or Moria.

The following objections are made:

The Bir Eyub, that is to say, the Well of Job, is neither a spring nor a fountain (en or ain), but a well (blr), 125 feet deep, in its present condition, and is supplied only by rain-drainage and infiltration. In the sixth century, Cyril of Scythopolis (Vita S. Sabre lxvii), and then Eutychius of Alexandria (Annals), and Moudjir ed Din (“Hist. de Jerus.”, ed. Sauvaire, p. 188) tell us that, after a great drought which lasted five years (509-14), in the twenty-third year of Anastasius, John, Patriarch of Jerusalem, caused a well to be dug to a depth, according to Cyril, of about 255 feet, or, according to the Arab historian, of 50 cubits (about 82 feet), but without finding any water. The Bir Eyflb, therefore, is no Chanaanean fountain, and the En Rogel must necessarily be the Fountain of the Virgin, the natural peculiarities of which must have made it famous in the country and fitted it to serve as a boundary mark between the tribes of Benjamin and Juda. The grotto of this spring, too, would have afforded a good place of concealment to David’s two spies, who hid at En Rogel (II Kings, xvii, 17).

In the time of Ezechias there were many springs of running water in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, and the king stopped them all (II Par., xxxii, 2-5). Josephus relates that when Titus was besieging Jerusalem many springs flowed so abundantly that they sufficed, not only to give drinking water to the Romans, but to irrigate the gardens (Bell. Jud., V, iv, 2). West of the city the ground was covered with gardens (Bell. Jud., V, ii, 2; vii, 2), and this is why the western gate bore the name of Gennath, “ Gate of the Gardens”. Here Titus pitched his camp and here the officers of Sennacherib halted (IV Kings, xviii, 17. Cf. Is., vii, 3). Among the living waters of Jerusalem the Babylonian Talmud commemorates the “Beth Mamila” (Neubauer, op. cit., p. 146), that is, the Birket Mamilla. Cyril of Scythopolis (loc. cit.) relates that, in the great five-years’ drought “the waters of Siloe and of the Lucillians ceased to flow”. Lastly, Josephus says that a conduit under the Gate of Gennath brought water to the Tower of Hippicus (Bell. Jud., V, vii, 3). Several fragments of ancient aqueducts have been discovered under the Jaffa Gate and about the Hammam el Batrak, commonly called the Pool of Ezechias.

Adonias, the first-born son of David the king, secretly assembled his numerous partisans upon “the stone of Zoheleth, which was near the fountain Rogel”, where he offered rams and bulls, and was to have been proclaimed king at the end of the banquet. But David, apprised of the plot by the Prophet Nathan, sent Solomon, with the Prophet and the royal guard, to Gihon, there to receive the sacred unction without Adonias‘s knowledge, and to be proclaimed king to the sound of trumpets (III Kings, i, 5-9, 33-45). On the flank of the Mount of Offense, opposite to the Fountain of the Virgin, is an immense rocky ledge called Ez Zahweile. This has been identified by Clermont-Ganneau with the stone of Zoheleth (“Quart. Stat.”, 1870, p. 251). Wilson and Warren are of the same opinion (The Recovery of Jerus., p. 305). Conder supports the identification upheld “by the common opinion of the learned” (“Quart. Stat.”, 1884, p. 242, n. 1). If the City of David had been on Ophel, would Adonias have held his treasonable banquet under the windows of the royal palace? Would David have been ignorant of this large and noisy gathering until Nathan‘s arrival? Would he have sent Solomon into the Valley of Cedron, at the foot of Zoheleth? Would not the partisans of Adonias have heard the sound of trumpets and the shouts of the people before the royal procession had returned to Sion (III Kings, i, 41)? The fact appears to be that, while Adonias had withdrawn to a spot in the Valley of Cedron near En Rogel, Solomon was sent from the opposite side, where was the source of Gihon.

There is no document which in any way attributes the construction of the tunnel of Siloe to Ezechias. On the other hand, Isaias, in the reign of Achaz, the father of Ezechias, speaks (viii, 6) of “the waters of Siloe” (a word which means “sent”—John, ix, 7) “that go with silence”. The Hebrew inscription found in 1881 on the wall of the tunnel is, according to Sayce (“Fresh Light”, London, 1883, p. 116), earlier than Ezechias, and may even date from the time of Solomon. Conder, Maspero, Stade, Renan, and others hold that it antedates the time of Ezechias.

There is now no question of the fact that the Pool of Siloe was always without the walls of the city (Bell. Jud., V, iv, 2; ix, 4). Now Ezechias brought the waters of Gihon to a cistern within the city (IV Kings, xx, 20; Ecclus., xlviii, 19, fragment of the Hebrew text). Isaias (xxii, 11) says, “You made a ditch between the two walls”—i.e., between the old wall and that of Ezechias, northwest of Mount Sion. The Hebrews never divided the cardinal points of the compass.

In the historical books Sion is applied to the city of Jebus, which, with the Mello, became the City of David. But in the poetic books Sion becomes, by metaphor, a synonym for the Temple (Ps. lxxvii, 68), or for Jerusalem (Ps. cxxxii, 3; lxxxvi, 5). Sion sometimes designates the people of Israel (Is., x, 32; Soph., iii, 14), or Judea (Lam., iv, 22), and even the Jewish community in the dispersion (Jer., xxxi, 12; Zach., ii, 7). In the days of the Machabees the City of David, to the west of the Temple, has become the resort of infidels (I Mach., i, 35 sqq.). Symbolically, the name of Sion was transferred to the Temple and its fortress, which had become the only remaining stronghold of Israel’s faith. But Ophel was always excluded from this symbolical Sion (I Mach., 36, 37). The text of the Bible, studied and interpreted on the spot, indicates the same hill for the locality of the holy Sion, the City of David, as does tradition. Archaeology, too, positively confirms tradition.

(3) Sion the Upper City.

—The sides of the traditional Mount Sion contain a great many dwelling-places wholly or partly excavated in the rock. These were, according to the common opinion, the houses of the aboriginal inhabitants. While constructing the Gobat School and the Protestant cemetery, in 1874-75, to the south of the western plateau of Sion, Maudslay discovered the line of an ancient fortress. Its base is a scarp cut vertically in the rock, about 600 feet in length, and 40 to 50 feet in height. To the west and east of this colossal scarp are salients hewn out of the rock, their sides measuring 40 to 50 feet. These are the rock bases of flanking towers. The first is 20 feet in height, and rests upon a plateau of rock rudely shaped into a talus. Along the scarp runs a ditch, which is also dug out of the living rock, having a depth of from 5 to 10 feet and an average width of 18 feet (Conder, “The Rock Scarp of Zion” in “Quart. Stat”, 1875, pp. 81 sq.). In 1894 Bliss took up and continued the work of exploration. From the eastern tower the scarp turns towards the northeast, following the outlines of the high plateau, and the ditch follows uninterruptedly in the same direction. On account of some houses which are grouped about the Holy Cenacle, the exploration has only been carried on to a length of 185 feet. The scarp was once crowned by a wall (some of the stones of which, cut and beveled, were found in situ), rises to a height of 240 feet above the bed of the Ennom (Hinnom) (see Bliss). This fortress, which was originally isolated, and was constructed with marvelous art, and which was so solid as to defy every attack, occupied the high city indicated by Josephus, “upon much the highest hill, straight along its length, which, by reason of its strong position, had been named by David the citadel” (Bell. Jud., V, iv, 1). It was about 2300 feet in length and 800 in breadth. To the north, where it was protected by a valley of no great depth, Herod caused a strong castle to be built, which made the position almost impregnable, even against the Roman legions. Thanks to the dimensions and other indications supplied by Josephus, it is thought that the Tower of Phasael may be recognized in the first courses of masonry of the actual Tower of David, and that of Hippicus in the tower to the northwest of the citadel; that of Mariamne ought to flank the western wall. On the same side the Gate of the Valley formerly opened (II Par., xxvi, 9; II Esd., ii, 13, 15; iii, 13), and at the northwest angle rose the Tower of the Furnaces (II Esd., iii, 11; xii, 37), which defended the Gate of the Corner before the Herodian structure existed (IV Kings, xiv, 13; II Par., xxv, 23). The high city, which, according to Josephus, was the aristocratic quarter, contained the Cenacle, according to tradition, on the south, next, the palace of Caiphas, farther on, that of Annas, and, at the southeast angle of Herod‘s palace, the prison where St. James the Greater was beheaded.

From the Tower of Phasael the wall descended, from west to east, upon the southern slope of Mount Sion, and ended at the enclosure of the Temple. An important fragment of this rampart has been discovered to the east of the Tower of David, and, farther on, another piece, 290 feet long, flanked by two towers, the stone facing of which, on the side towards the valley, remains intact to a height of 39 feet (Warren, “Quart. Stat.”, 1884, pl. III). This wall was pierced by the ancient Gate of Ephraim (IV Kings, xiv, 13; II Par., xxv, 23). According to tradition, St. Peter was cast into prison in the suburb of Ezechias; after being delivered by the Angel, he made his way to the city proper, where he found the iron gate open (Acts, xii, 3-11). As early as the sixth century a church marked the site of the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, fifty paces south of tills wall (Acts, 12-17). The southern wall of Mount Sion probably formed part of the wall by which David joined the City of Jebus and the Mello (the Acra of the Septuagint). This hill, according to Josephus, is the lower city, the Akron of the Syrians, which was leveled by the Hasmoneans (Antiq. Jud., XIII, vi, 6). It contained the palace of the Hasmoneans and that of Helen of Adiabene (Bell. Jud., VI, vi, 3).

To return to the south of the primitive fortress, a wall of later construction descends from the outer angle, southeast of the eastern tower, towards the Pool of Siloe. It is a work of the kings of Juda, if not of Solomon, but, as Bliss has remarked, it has been restored again and again—on the last occasion, by the Empress Eudocia (A.D. 450-60). At a point 130 feet from the beginning of the wall, exploration has brought to light the remains of a gate with three superimposed floorings of successive periods. It opens upon a street under which passes a drain leading to Ennom. This is the Dung Gate (II Esd., ii, 13), which Jeremias (xix, 2) calls the Earthen Gate; Josephus calls it the Gate of Essenians, and indicates its position in the quarter of Bethso (from the Hebrew Bethzoa, “a dunghill”) (Bell. Jud., V, iv, 2). Here Mount Sion is crossed by two ancient aqueducts of different heights, which bring water from south of Bethlehem (Bliss, op. cit., pp. 17-82). About 2000 feet from this gate, Guthe, in 1881, and, later, Bliss, have proved the existence of another gate, also containing three floors and protected by a tower. This is the Gate of the Fountain (II Esd., ii, 14; iii, 15; “water gate”, xii, 36) and, probably, also “the gate that is between two walls, and leadeth to the king’s garden” by which Sedecias escaped (Jer., lii, 7; IV Kings, xxv, 4). Starting from the tower, the wall takes a northwesterly direction and then turns abruptly to the north, leaving the Pool of Siloe outside the city, in accordance with what we are told by Josephus (Bell. Jud., V, iv, 2; ix, 4). To the south of the Pool of Siloe the valley is crossed by a great dam, 233 feet long, a vast rain-water reservoir. The dam is 20 feet thick and is finished off, at about half its height, by a wall 10 feet thick, flanked by seven buttresses of equal strength. In spite, however, of successive reinforcements, it was unequal to resisting the pressure of the water. The Empress Eudocia had a second dam built, fifty feet to the north of the former one. This is “the king’s aqueduct” (or pool) of II Esd., ii, 14.

Bliss followed the eastern wall of Mount Sion for only 650 feet, that is, as far as 150 feet north of the Pool of Siloe. According to Nehemias (II Esd., iii, 16-19), the wall passed in front of the street of stairs which went down to the sepulcher of David, then by the reservoir which Josephus calls the Pool of Solomon (Bell. Jud., V, iv, 2), and, lastly, by the House of the Heroes—all places as yet unidentified. The wall then formed an angle and then a reentrant angle (II Esd., iii, 24) but we are ignorant as to the point where it crossed the valley to ascend Ophel. On the eastern flank of Ophel it has been ascertained that a small fragment of a wall exists, running from southwest to northeast and, 100 feet farther on, a remarkable hydraulic structure anterior in date to the tunnel of Siloe. The latter is a gallery, hewn in the rock, leading to a wall which goes down to the surface level of the Fountain of the Virgin, whence water could be drawn by means of buckets and ropes (Wilson and Warren, op. cit., pp. 248 sq.). Beyond doubt, “the water gate” and “the tower that stood out” (II Esd., iii, 26; xii, 36) must be located hereabouts. The wall has been found again at a distance of 700 feet in the same direction; it then turns to the north for a length of 70 feet and runs into the southeast angle of the Temple enclosure. At the elbow formed by this wall, there rose a tower, the “great tower that standeth out” (II Esd., iii, 27), intended as a defense for the royal palace. In course of time the kings of Juda prolonged the wall of Ophel so as to protect the eastern enclosure of the Temple. This line was pierced by numerous gates: “the horse gate” (II Par., xxiii, 15; IV Kings, xi, 16; II Esd., iii, 28), discovered in 1902, by the English engineers, facing the southeast angle of the Haram, which is called “Solomon‘s Stables”; the eastern gate (of the Temple), corresponding to “the Golden Gate”; the Mephkad, or “judgment gate” (II Esd., iii, 30) opposite to the Golden Gate; the Prison Gate (D. V. “watch gate”) (II Esd., xii, 38); the Gate of Sur (IV Kings, xi, 6) “the gate of the shieldbearers” (D. V.), or “of the guard” (A. V.) (IV Kings, xi, 19); the Gate of Benjamin (Jer., xxxvii, 12; xxxviii, 7) are names of different gates which existed previously or protected the suburbs that stretched north of the Temple from the time of Ezechias to Herod. Lastly, there is the Sheep Gate (D. V. “flock gate”) (II Esd., iii, 1; xii, 38), near the Probatic Pool.

Of the ancient Temple nothing is now to be seen but the holy rock and a number of cisterns. The Haram esh Sherif is four-sided, and has right angles on the southwest and northeast. The southern wall measures 922 feet and is pierced by three entrances: the Double Gate, the Triple Gate, and the Single Gate—remarkable works of the type of the Golden Gate and, like it, restored in the sixth century of our era. The eastern and the northern walls are each 1042 feet: a length; the western 1601. The stones are carefully shaped and beveled, 31 feet in height, the longest of them 20 to 39 feet long, while on the south there is one course, 600 feet long, in which the stones are 7 feet high. At the southwest angle this colossal wall goes down to a depth of 85 feet below the present surface of the soil. Forty feet to the north of this angle may be seen three rows of stones, forming a vault 51 feet in width, called “Robinson’s Arch“, after the explorer who first recognized in these remains the fragments of a viaduct. The English engineers have as a matter of fact discovered, 54 feet to the west of this fragment of vaulting, and 55 feet below the actual level of the soil, three courses of the corresponding upright supporting wall. At the foot of Mount Sion, 246 feet from Robinson’s Arch, more remains have been found of the same viaduct, of which, indeed, Josephus clearly makes mention (Antiq. Jud., XIV, iv, 2; Bell. Jud., I, vii, 2; VI, vi, 2). The supporting wall rests upon a paved foundation, which in its turn is supported by a bed of earth 23 feet in thickness. In this mass of earth, in which no traces of masonry are found, there lie vaulting-stones of from 3 to 31 feet in height and width, and 7 feet in length—the remains of a much older bridge. Authorities have attributed the first viaduct to Herod and the second to the Kings of Juda, or even to Solomon. At the very bottom of the valley there is a channel cut into the rock and vaulted in the Phoenician manner; this is an aqueduct which was later used as a drain (Wilson and Warren, op. cit., pp. 76-111; Perrot and Chipiez, “Hist. de lart”, IV, 168. Cf. III Kings, xi, 27).

The second entrance to the Temple, called “Barclay’s Gate”, opens 180 feet farther north; then, beyond the Wailing Place, comes a third gate called “Wilson’s Arch“. This is a viaduct arch 42 feet along the axis and 39 feet in span, built of blocks from 6 to 12 feet in length. In the bottom of the valley, round about the viaduct, Wilson has discovered some very ancient habitations and pieces of handiwork which seem to be of Phoenician origin. The viaduct, which is supposed to date from the time of Herod, was reconstructed in the Byzantine period. It both connected the Temple with Mount Sion and served as an aqueduct for the canal that runs from Bethlehem. Near Wilson’s Arch there is an ancient vaulted pool, Birket el Bouraq, to which an aqueduct leads down from the citadel. Josephus places the Xystus, the gymnasium constructed by the High Priest Jason, between the two viaducts. Beyond Wilson’s Arch the first city wall joined the Temple enclosure (Wilson and Warren, op. cit., pp. 76 sq.).

The Second Wall.—”The second wall”, says Josephus, “began at the gate that is called Gennath, which belongs to the first city wall. Enclosing only the southern district, it continued as far as the Antonia” (Bell. Jud., V, iv, 2). It is the work of Ezechias and of Manasses. In 1881, in the course of excavations for the foundations of a house, 20 feet to the north of the ditch of the citadel, a wall was brought to light, constructed of large stones, extending east and west to a distance of about 100 feet. At its western extremity it forms a somewhat obtuse angle with a stronger and still better constructed wall which runsnorth (Selah Merill, “Quart. Stat.”, 1886, pp. 21 sq.; 1887, p. 217; 1888, p. 21). In 1900 a Greek high school was built 180 feet farther on, and it was found that the rock is almost on a level with the ground to the west, while it forms a counterscarp to the east. In the accumulated fillings of the hollow remains of medieval structures were discovered; but the explorations on this spot were not followed up. Many Palestinologists, however, see here marked indications of a ditch. At the northeast angle of the Greek school, C. Schick (“Quart. Stat.”, 1897, p. 219; 1883, p. 19) had already ascertained that the wall turns once more at an angle eastwards. Up to this point the city wall skirts the Pool of Ezechias at a distance of 180 feet to the west and 65 feet to the north. In building the great Greek bazaars south of the Basilica of the Holy Sepulcher, the workmen came upon a scarp which had once been crowned with a thick wall, some fine blocks of which were found still in situ; the wall sloped back from the face of the rock (Schick, “Quart. Stat.”, 1888, p. 571; 1894, p. 146). Next, in 1893, while building the German Protestant church which took the place of the church of St. Mary the Latin, the engineers found that the latter edifice had stood upon filled ground. Digging down 30 feet below the actual level of the ground, they came to the rock, and then, under the great nave of the old church, they found a strong wall to the east and the west, though in bad preservation. It keeps, however, some of its facing in the shape of carefully dressed slabs. Guthe (in “Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastinavereins”, XVII, p. 128) and Schick (in “Quart. Stat.”, 1894, p. 146), with many others, regard this as a part of the second wall.

In the time of Christ, Calvary was thus shut out from the perimeter of the second city enclosure. Indeed, the existence of the Jewish hypogea—the Holy Sepulcher, another one 30 feet to the west, and a third to the northeast—leaves no room for doubt on this point; for only the kings enjoyed the privilege of sepulture within the city. Some thirty years ago English engineers asserted that the wall of Ezechias must necessarily enclose Golgotha, because this zigzag city wall would, otherwise, have been built contrary to all the rules of military art. But since then the exploration of ancient Jewish and Chanaanitish cities has revealed irregularities of the same kind. While, upon the line indicated, the haphazard diggings made on various structures have all brought to light fragments of braces of a homogeneous wall, the religious communities in the Christian quarter to the northwest of Golgotha have in recent times executed important building operations without finding any traces of ditch or of rampart.

At the angle where the wall turned northwards should be found the new Gate of Ephraim (II Esd., xii, 38). But the course of the wall from this point is less easy to follow. It was, very probably, replaced in the time of Hadrian by the colonnaded street which led, almost in a straight line, from Mount Sion to the Gate of Damascus, and which was founded upon rock throughout. Following this street, we pass, on the left, the first courses of the facade of Constantine’s Basilica, which was completely discovered in 1907, and, on the right, 230 feet from this structure, the Khan ez Zeit, which is built in a Jewish cistern partly hewn out of the rock. To the east of this cistern, on the slope of El Wad, the rock appears, cut obliquely. Farther on, the Old Gate (II Esd., iii, 6; xii, 38) may be placed. Where the Street of the Columns was crossed by another, coming from the west, a tetra-pylon marked the intersection; one superb marble column of it still remains in situ, 23 feet high, leaning against a fine wall of Roman construction. Investigation has demonstrated the existence, at a point 200 feet west of this column, of a counterscarp and a deep ditch, running from south to north (Schick, “Quart. Stat.”, 1887, p. 154). It was by this gate that, according to tradition, Jesus went out from the city to the place of His crucifixion. North of the column and slightly to the east, at a distance of 100 feet, is to be seen a rocky scarp which extends about 250 feet towards the north. Near here the wall descended eastward into El Wad, where it came to the Fish Gate (II Par., xxxiii, 14; II Esd., iii, 3; xii, 38). This gate opened on the road by which the Tyrian fishermen came from Jaffa (cf. II Esd., xiii, 16). The wall then crossed Mount Bezetha, and the Tower of Hananeel (Jer., xxxi, 38; II Esd., iii, 1; xii, 38) must be located on the ridge which descended from the Hill of Jeremias to Mount Moria, and which was the vulnerable point of the Holy City. On this same ridge there was another tower, or stronghold, as early as the period of the kings of Juda; Nehemias, who restored it, named it Birah, an Aramaic word derived from the Assyrian biretta, “palace”, or “fortress of the temple” (in D.V., “tower of the house”; II Esd., ii, 8). This tower (see I Mach., xiii, 53; etc.) bore, in the time of Josephus, the hellenized name of Baris. Under the Hasmonean dynasty, the whole rock on which this tower stood was removed on all sides, to a depth of 30 feet on the south, and of 15 feet on the north, the length of the excavation being 350 feet from east to west. On the north, where there is a deep cistern, the mountain was leveled away to a distance of 160 feet (cf. I Mach., xiii, 53). Herod caused the reservoir to be vaulted over, and built the fortress of Antonia on the rock of Baris and on the southern esplanade (Bell. Jud., V, v, 8). It was in this building that Pontius Pilate had his prietorium, where Jesus was condemned to death. In saying that the second wall “went up to the Antonia”, Josephus does not indicate where it ended, but only its direction. He himself does not place the Antonia at the end of the wall of Ezechias; on the contrary, he says that the Romans could approach it only after they had become masters of the city as far as the first wall (Bell. Jud., V, ix). From the Tower of Hananeel the wall was prolonged to the Sheep (or Flock) Gate (II Esd., iii, 1, 31; xii, 38), near the Probatic Pool, with the five porches, and the other great reservoirs, necessarily, within the walls.

Third Wall.

—From A.D. 41 to 44 Herod Agrippa I undertook to build the third wall, which also began at the Tower of Hippicus and crossed the Camp of the Assyrians to the north, as far as the octagonal Tower of Psephinus (Antiq. Jud., XIX, vii, 2; Bell. Jud., V, iv, 3). Traces of this tower were found at the northwest corner of the city, at the place where the Qasr Djaloud, or Tower of Goliath, was erected in the twelfth century. Thence Agrippa’s wall took an easterly direction, towards the Towers of the Women, opposite the sepulcher of Helen of Adiabene, which is situated 2000 feet to the north. The Towers of the Women, some traces of which have been found, protected the gate which corresponded to the Fish Gate. It still stands, as to a considerable part of its height, though sunken into the ground, below the actual Gate of Damascus, or Bab el Amoud. Thence the wall passed over the royal grottoes (Bell. Jud., V, iv, 3) to cross the ridge of Bezetha. The stone of this lofty hill is of excellent quality, and could be transported in immense blocks as far as the Temple by means of inclined planes. This is why, as early as the time of Solomon, the hill was used as a quarry, as is shown by the figure of a Phoenician cherub cut in the wall of one of the royal grottoes. Already perforated with numerous caverns, the hill was cut in two under Agrippa I, and the cut served as a ditch for the new city wall. Thus it was that the summit became a separate hill, called, since the sixteenth century, the Hill of Jeremias. It again served as a quarry in the period of the Crusades and its present aspect has been taken on since the time of Christ. From the royal grottoes, the wall continued eastwards as far as the height above Cedron, and then turned south to rejoin the second city wall. The line of the third wall has with slight modifications been kept in that of the actual city.

BARNABAS MEISTERMANN

II. FROM A.D. 71 TO A.D. 1099.

(1) To the Time of Constantine. (71-312).

—When Titus took Jerusalem (April-September, A.D. 70) he ordered his soldiers to destroy the city (Josephus, “De hello Jud.”, VI, ix). They spared only the three great towers at the north of Herod‘s palace (Hipplcus, Phasael, Mariamne) and the western wall. Few Jews remained. The Roman Tenth Legion held the upper town and Herod‘s castle as a fortress; Josephus says that Titus handed the fields around to his soldiers (“Vita”, 76, ed. Dindorf, Paris, 1865, p. 832). The presence of these heathens would naturally repel Jews, though in this period there was no law against their presence in Jerusalem. The Jewish Rabbis gathered together at Jabne (or Jamnia, now Jebna) in the plain, northwest of the city, two hours from Ramleh. Meanwhile the Christian community had fled to Pella in Pertea, east of the Jordan (southeast of Jenin), before the beginning of the siege. The Christians were still almost entirely converts from Judaism (Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, IV, v). After the destruction they came back and congregated in the house of John Mark and his mother Mary, where they had met before (Acts, xii, 12 sq.). It was apparently in this house that was the Upper Room, the scene of the Last Supper and of the assembly on Whit-Sunday. Epiphanius (d. 403) says that when the Emperor Hadrian came to Jerusalem in 130 he found the Temple and the whole city destroyed save for a few houses, among them the one where the Apostles had received the Holy Ghost. This house, says Epiphanius, is “in that part of Sion which was spared when the city was destroyed”—therefore in the upper part (“De mens. et pond.”, cap. xiv, P.G., XLIII). From the time of Cyril of Jerusalem, who speaks of “the upper Church of the Apostles, where the Holy Ghost came down upon them” (Catech., ii, 6; P.G., XXXIII), there are abundant witnesses of the place. A great basilica was built over the spot in the fourth century; the crusaders built another church when the older one had been destroyed by Hakim in 1010. It is the famous Coenaculumor Cenacle—now a Moslem shrine—near the Gate of David, and supposed to be David’s tomb (Nebi Daud). During the first Christian centuries the church at this place was the center of Christianity in Jerusalem, “Holy and glorious Sion, mother of all churches” (Intercession in “St. James’ Liturgy“, ed. Brightman, p. 54). Certainly no spot in Christendom can be more venerable than the place of the Last Supper, which became the first Christian church. The constant use of the name Sion for the Coenaculum has led to considerable discussion as to the topography of Jerusalem. Many writers conclude that it is on Mount Sion, which would therefore be the southwest hill of the city (Meistermann, “Nouveau Guide de Terre Sainte”, Paris, 1907, p. 121, plan). Others (Baedeker, “Palastina u. Syrien”, 6th ed., 1904, p. 27) oppose this tradition on the strength of the passages in the Old Testament that clearly distinguish Sion from Jerusalem and state that the Lord dwells in Sion and that the king’s palace is there (Is., x, 12; viii, 18; Joel, iii, 21; etc.). So Sion would be the hill on the west, the place of the Temple and David’s palace. It seems that later the name Sion began to be used for all Jerusalem. Josephus never uses it at all; already in the Old Testament the way was prepared for this extended use. Jerusalem is the “daughter of Sion” (Jer., vi, 2; etc.), all its inhabitants without distinction are “Sion” (Zach., ii, 7; etc.). In early Christian times Sion seems to have lost its special meaning as one definite hill and to have become merely another name for Jerusalem. Naturally then they called their center there by the name of the city, although it did not stand on the original Mount Sion. The pilgrim Etheria (Silvia), at the end of the fourth century, always speaks of the Coenaculum as Sion, just as the Holy Sepulcher is always Anastasis (see ed. Heraeus, Heidelberg, 1908).

From this Coenaculum the first Christian bishops ruled the Church of Jerusalem. They were all converts from Judaism, as were their flocks. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., IV, v) gives the list of these bishops. According to a universal tradition the first was the Apostle St. James the Less, the “brother of the Lord”. His predominant place and residence in the city are implied by Gal., i, 19. Eusebius says he was appointed bishop by Peter, James (the Greater), and John (II, i). Naturally the other Apostles when they were at Jerusalem shared the government with him (Acts, xv, 6, etc.; Eus., “Hist. Eccl.”, II, xxiii). He was thrown from a rock, then stoned to death by the Jews about the year 63 (Eus., ib.; Josephus, “Antiq. Jud.”, XX, ix, 1, ed. cit., p. 786). After his death the surviving Apostles and other disciples who were at Jerusalem chose Simeon, son of Cleophas (also called Our Lord’s brother, Matt., xiii, 55), to succeed him. He was bishop at the time of the destruction (70) and probably then went to Pella with the others. About the year 106 or 107 he was crucified under Trajan (Eus., “Hist. Eccl.”, III, xxxii). The line of bishops of Jerusalem was then continued as follows: Judas (Justus), 107-113; Zachaeus or Zacharias; Tobias; Benjamin; John; Matthias (d. 120); Philip (d. c. 124); Seneca; Justus; Levi; Ephraim; Joseph; Judas Quiriacus (d. between 134-148). All these were Jews (Eus. “Hist., Eccl.”, IV, v). It was during the episcopate of Judas Quiriacus that the second great calamity, the revolt of Bar-Kochba and final destruction of the city, took place. Goaded by the tyranny of the Romans, by the reerection of Jerusalem as a Roman colony and the establishment of an altar to Jupiter on the site of the Temple, the Jews broke out into a hopeless rebellion under the famous false Messias Bar-Kochba about the year 132. During his rebellion he persecuted the Jewish Christians, who naturally refused to acknowledge him (Eus., “Chron.”, for the seventeenth year of Hadrian). The Emperor Hadrian put down this rebellion, after a siege that lasted a year, in 135. As a result of this last war the whole neighborhood of the city became a desert. On the ruins of Jerusalem a new Roman city was built, called Aelia Capitolina (i lia was Hadrian‘s family nomen), and a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus was built on Mount Moria. No Jew (therefore no Jewish Christian) was allowed under pain of death inside the town. This brought about a complete change in the circumstances of the Church of Jerusalem. The old Jewish Christian community came to an end. In its place a Church of Gentile Christians, with Gentile bishops, was formed, who depended much less on the sacred memories of the city. Hence the Church of Jerusalem did not for some centuries take the place in the hierarchy of sees that we should, expect. Aelia was a town of no importance in the empire; the governor of the province resided at Csarea in Palestine. The use of the name Aelia among Christians of this time marks the insignificance of the little Gentile church, as the restoration of the old name Jerusalem later marks the revival of its dignity.

Even as late as 325 (Nicaea I, can. vii) the city is still called only Aelia. The name lasted on among the Arabs in the form Iliya till late in the Middle Ages. As the rank of the various sees among themselves was gradually arranged according to the divisions of the empire (Orthodox Eastern Church, p. 22 sq.), Caesarea became the metropolitan see; the Bishop of “Ella was merely one of its suffragans.

The bishops from the siege under Hadrian (135) to Constantine (312) were: Mark (the first Gentile bishop, d. 156); Cassian; Publius; Maximus; Julian; Caius; Symmachus; Caius II; Julian II (ordained 168); Capito (d. 185); Maximus II; Antonius; Valens; Dolichianus (d. 185); Narcissus (Eus., “Hist. Eccl.”, V, xii). Narcissus was a man famous for his virtues and miracles, but hated by certain vicious people in the city who feared his severity. They accused him of various crimes and he, for the sake of peace, retired to an unknown solitude (Eus., “Hist. Eccl.”, VI, ix). The neighboring bishops, hearing nothing more of him, proceeded to elect and consecrate Dios as his successor. Dios was succeeded by Germanion and Gordios. Then suddenly Narcissus reappeared, an old man of 110 years. The other bishops persuaded him to resume his place as bishop. Too old to do anything but pray for his flock, he made a Cappadocian bishop, Alexander, who came on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, his coadjutor. Alexander thus became a practically diocesan coadjutor even before the death of Narcissus in 212. Alexander was a friend of Origen and founded a library that Eusebius used for his “History” (VI, x). He died in prison in the Decian persecution (250). Then followed Mazabanes or Megabezes (d. 266); Hymenaeus (d. 298); Zabdas; Hermon (d. 311); Macarius (d. 333).

(2) Constantine and the Holy Places (312-337).

—During the episcopate of Macarius a great change came to the whole empire that incidentally affected the See of Jerusalem profoundly. The Christian Faith was acknowledged as a religio licita and the Church became a recognized society (Edict of Milan, January, 313). At Constantine’s death (337) Christianity had become the religion of the Court and Government. As a natural result the Faith spread very rapidly everywhere. The same generation that had seen Diocletian‘s persecution now saw Christianity the dominant religion and the old paganism gradually reduced to country villages and out-of-the-way towns. There was then a great movement of organization among Christians; churches were built everywhere. A further result of the freedom and the dominance of Christianity was a revival of enthusiasm for the holy places where the new religion had been born, where the events that every one now read about or heard of in sermons had taken place. Already in the fourth century there began those great waves of pilgrimage to the Holy Land that have gone on ever since. It was in the fourth century that the Bordeaux pilgrim and Etheria made their famous journey thither (Peregrinatio Silviae). St. Jerome (d. 420) says that in his time pilgrims came there from every part of the world, even from distant Britain (Ep. xliv ad Paulam; lxxxiv ad Oceanum). A great number of monks from Egypt and Libya also came and established themselves in the desert by the Jordan. This led to an increased respect for the bishop who ruled over the very places where Christ had lived and died. These pilgrims on their arrival found themselves under his jurisdiction; they took part in the services of his church and eagerly watched the rites that were carried out at the Mount of Olives, the Coenaculum, and the Holy Sepulcher. Etheria’s careful account of all she saw in the churches of Jerusalem at Eastertide is typical of this interest. When the pilgrims returned home they remembered and told their friends about the services they had seen in the most sacred places of Christendom; and they began to imitate them in their own churches. Thus a great number of our well-known ceremonies (the Palm Sunday procession, later the Stations of the Cross, etc.) were originally imitations of local rites of Jerusalem. All this could not fail to bring about an advancement of rank for the local bishop. From the freedom of the Church the development was inevitable that changed the Bishop of Aelia, mere suffragan of Caesarea, into the great “Patriarch of the Holy City Jerusalem and of the whole Land of Promise”.

Meanwhile another result of these pilgrimages was the discovery of the Holy Places. Naturally the pilgrims when they arrived wanted to see the actual spots where the events they had read of in the Gospels had happened. Naturally too each such place when it was known or conjectured, became a shrine with a church built over it. Of these shrines the most famous are those built by Constantine and his mother St. Helena. St. Helena in her eightieth year (326-327) came on a pilgrimage and caused churches to be built at Bethlehem, and on the Mount of Olives. Constantine built the famous church of the Holy Sepulchre (Anastasis). Eusebius (Vita Constantin, III, xxvi) says that the place of Calvary in about 326 was covered with dirt and rubbish; over it was a temple of Venus. Emperor Hadrian had built a great terrace round the place enclosed in a wall, on this he had planted a grove to Jupiter and Venus (St. Jerome, Ep. 58). When St. Helena came and was shown the place she determined to restore it as a Christian shrine. By order of the emperor all the soldiers of the garrison were employed to clear away the temple, grove, and terrace. Underneath they found Golgotha and the tomb of our Lord. Constantine wrote to Bishop Macarius saying: “I have nothing more at heart than to adorn with due splendor that sacred place”, etc. (Vita Const., III, xxx). Two great buildings were erected near each other on this spot. To the west the rock containing the tomb was carved away, leaving it as a little shrine or chapel standing above ground. Over it was built a round church covered by a dome. This is the Anastasis, which still has the form of a rotunda with a dome, containing the Holy Sepulcher in the middle. Quite near, to the east, was a great basilica with an apse towards the Anastasis, a long nave, and four aisles separated by rows of columns. Above the aisles were galleries, the whole was covered by a gable roof. Around the apse were twelve columns crowned with silver, at the east were a narthex, three doors, and a colonnade in front of the entrance. This basilica was the Martyrion; it covered the ground now occupied by part of the Katholikon and St. Helena’s chapel. Etheria speaks of it as “the great church which is called the Martyrium” (Per. Silv., ed. cit., p. 38). Underneath it was the crypt of the Invention of the Cross. The Mount of Calvary was not enclosed in the basilica. It stood just at the southeast side of the apse. Etheria always distinguishes three shrines, Anastasis, Crux, Martyrium. The place of the Cross (Calvary) was in her time open to the sky and surrounded by a silver balustrade (op. cit., p. 43). People went up to it by steps (Ens., “Vita Const.”, III, xxi-x1; Mommert, “Die h. Grabeskirche zu Jerusalem in ihrem ursprunglichen Zustande”, Leipzig, 1898). Later in the fifth century St. Melania the younger (439), a Roman lady who came with her husband Pinianus to Jerusalem where they both entered religious houses (see Nilles, “Kal. Man.” December 31, pp. 372-373), built a small chapel over the place of the Crucifixion. These buildings were destroyed by the Persians in 614.

It is not possible to enter here upon the endless discussion that still takes place as to the authenticity of this shrine. The first question that occurs is as to the place of the wall of Jerusalem in Christ’s time. It is certain that He was crucified outside the city wall. No executions took place within the city (Matt. xxvii, 33; John xix, 17; Hebr. xiii, 12, etc.) If then it could be shown that the traditional site was within the wall (the second wall built by Nehemias) it would be proved to be false. It is, however, quite certain that all attempts to prove this have failed. On the contrary, Conder found other contemporary tombs near the traditional Holy Sepulcher, which show that it was without the city, since Jews never buried within their towns. Supposing then its possibility, we have this chain of evidence: if Hadrian really built his temple of Venus purposely on the site, the authenticity is proved. Constantine’s basilica stood where that temple was; that the present church stands on the place of Constantine’s basilica is not doubted by any one. A number of writers (as Eusebius, op. cit.) of the fourth century describe the temple as built on the site of Calvary in order to put a stop to its veneration by Christians, just as the temple of Jupiter was built purposely where the Jewish Temple had been. We have seen that an unchanging Christian community lived at Jerusalem down to Hadrian‘s time (Bar-Kochba’s revolt). It would be strange if they had not remembered the site of the Crucifixion and had not reverenced it. The analogy of Hadrian‘s profanation of the Temple leaves no difficulty as to a similar deliberate profanation of the Christian sanctuary. The theory of Fergusson who thought that the cave under the Qubbet-es-Sachra, on the site of the Temple, was the Holy Sepulcher of Constantine’s time, and Conder and Gordon’s site outside the Damascus gate (Conder, “The City of Jerusalem”, London, 1909, pp. 151-158) hardly deserve mention. With the finding of the Holy Sepulcher and the building of the Anastasis and Martyrion is connected the story of the Invention of the Holy Cross. It is told by Rufinus (Hist. Eccl. X, viii, P.L. XXI, 477—about the year 402), Paulinus of Nola (Ep. xxi, v; P.L. LXI, 329; A.D. 403) and others. When the soldiers were removing the old balustrade and digging out the Holy Sepulcher they found to the east of the tomb three crosses with the inscription separated from them. Bishop Macarius discovered which was our Lord’s Cross by applying each in turn to a sick woman. The third Cross healed her miraculously (see the lessons of the second nocturn for the feast, May 3). Paulinus (op. cit.) adds that a dead man was raised to life by the Cross of Christ.

The fame of the great shrines, Anastasis and Martyrion, then began to eclipse that of the Coenaculum. From this time the Bishop of Jerusalem celebrated the more solemn functions in the Martyrion. But Constantine had a new “Church of the Apostles” built over the Coenaculum. Other shrines that go back at least to his time are the place of the Ascension on the top of the Mount of Olives, where he built a church, and the still extant magnificent basilica at Bethlehem.

(3) The Patriarchate (325-451).

—From the time of Constantine then begins the advancement of the See of Jerusalem. The first General Council (Nicaea I, 325) meant to recognize the unique dignity of the Holy City without disturbing its canonical dependence on the metropolis, Caesarea. So the seventh canon declares: “Since custom and ancient tradition have obtained that the bishop in Aelia be honored, let him have the succession of honor (echeto ten akolouthia tes times) saving however the domestic right of the metropolis (te metropplei sozomenou tou oikeiou aksiomatos).” The canon is in the “Decretum” of Gratin, dist. 65, vii. The “succession of honor” means a special place of, honor, an honorary precedence immediately after lie Patriarchs (of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch); but this is not to interfere with the metropolitan rights of Caesarea in Palestine. The situation of a suffragan bishop who had precedence over his metropolitan was an anomalous one that obviously could not last. The successors of Macarius were: Maximus II (333-349); St. Cyril of Jerusalem (350-386); (Eutychius intruded 357-359; Irenaeus intruded 360-361; Hilarion intruded 367-378); John II (386 417); Praylios (417-421); Juvenal (421-458). Already in the time of St. Cyril difficulties arose about his relation to his metropolitan. While he was defending the Faith against the Arians, Acacius of Caesarea, an extreme Arian, summoned a Synod (358) to try Cyril for various offenses, of which the first was that he had disobeyed or behaved with insubordination towards Acacius, his superior. It is difficult to be sure exactly what the accusation was. Sozomen (IV, xxv) says it was that he had disobeyed and had refused to acknowledge Caesarea as his metropolis; Theodoret says it was only about his quite lawful claim to precedence. The case shows how difficult the position was. Cyril refused to attend the synod and was deposed in his absence. His refusal again opens a question as to his position. Did he refuse merely because he knew that Acacius was a determined Arian and would certainly condemn him, or was it because he thought that his exceptional “succession of honor” exempted him from the jurisdiction of any but a patriarchal synod? The three usurpers, Eutychius, Irenaeus, Hilarion, were Arians intruded into his see by their party during his three exiles.

It was Juvenal of Jerusalem (420-458) who at last succeeded in changing the anomalous position of his see into a real patriarchate. From the beginning of his reign he assumed an attitude that was quite incompatible with his canonical position as suffragan of Caesarea. About the year 425 a certain tribe of Arabs was converted to Christianity. These people set up their camp in the neighborhood of Jerusalem. Juvenal then proceeded to found a bishopric for them. He ordained one Peter as “Bishop of the Camp” (episkopos parembolon). This Peter (apparently the sheikh of the tribe) signed at Ephesus in 431 with that title. Juvenal’s action may perhaps be explained as merely the ordination of an Arabic-speaking coadjutor for these people whose language he himself did not know; but Peter’s title and presence at Ephesus certainly suggest that he considered himself a diocesan bishop. Juvenal had no sort of right to set up a new diocese nor to ordain a suffragan to his own see. The “See of the Parembolai” disappeared again in the sixth century (Vailhe “Le Monastere de S. Theoctiste et l’eveche des Paremboles” in the “Revue de l’Orient chretien”, III, 58). From the Acts of Ephesus it appears that Juvenal had ordained other bishops in Palestine and Arabia. A number of bishops of the Antiochene patriarchate wrote a letter to the Emperor Theodosius II in which they appear to have some doubts as to the regularity of their position since, as they say, they have “been ordained formerly by the most pious Juvenal” (Mansi, IV, 1402). Now the right of ordaining a bishop always meant in the East jurisdiction over him. We see an instance of this in the Acts of the Council. Saidas, Bishop of Phaino in Palestine, describes Juvenal as “our bishop” (o episkopos emon = our metropolitan, apparently. See Vailhe: “L’erection du patriarcat de Jerusalem” in “Rev. de l’Or. chret.”, IV, 44 sq.). Clearly then even before the council Juvenal had been making tentative efforts to assume at least metropolitical rights. At the council he made a stroke whose boldness is amazing. He tried to get his see recognized not merely as independent of and equal to Caesarea, but superior to the great Patriarchate of Antioch. Antioch, he pretended, must submit to the see that canonically (in spite of its honorary position) was the suffragan of Antioch‘s suffragan. His attempt failed altogether. Ike might perhaps have shaken off the authority of Caesarea; but this was too startling. Nevertheless the opportunity was a splendid one for him. We see Juvenal’s cleverness in seizing it. At Ephesus he was the second bishop present. Celestine of Rome was represented by his legates; Cyril of Alexandria was president, but was already having trouble with Candidian the Imperial Commissioner; John of Antioch arrived late and then set up a rival council in favor of the heretics, Nestorius of Constantinople was the accused. Juvenal’s own metropolitan (of Caesarea) was not present. The schismatical attitude of John of Antioch especially gave Juvenal his chance. Surely Cyril’s council would not support John. Juvenal then, under color of supporting Cyril and the pope, tried to get the council to acknowledge no less than his own jurisdiction over Antioch. In a speech he explained to the Fathers that John of Antioch ought to have appeared at the council to give the ecumenical synod an explanation of what had happened (his late arrival and the anti-council he was setting up) and to show obedience and reverence to the Apostolic See of Rome and the Holy Church of God at Jerusalem. “For it was especially the custom according to Apostolic order and tradition that the See of Antioch be corrected and judged by that of Jerusalem. Instead of that John with his usual insolence had despised the council” (Mansi, IV, 1312). To mix up his own impudent claim with the just grievance of the other Fathers was a master-stroke. But Cyril would have none of him. The pretense was too wildly absurd. Leo the Great, writing afterwards to Maximus of Antioch, says that Juvenal had tried to confirm his insolent attempt by forged documents; but Cyril had warned him not to urge such lawless claims (Ep. 119, ad Max.). So this first attempt did not succeed. For the next twenty years matters remained as they had been. Juvenal still went on acting on his claim and behaving as the chief authority of Palestine. After the Council he ordained a Bishop of Jamnia (“Vita S. Euthymii”, P.G., CXIV, c. 57).

When the Monophysite heresy began Juvenal was at first on the side of the heretics. He was present at the Robber Synod of 449, on the side of Dioscurus, and joined in the deposition of Flavian of Constantinople. That fact should have ruined his chance of getting any advantage from Chalcedon (451). Yet he was clever enough to turn even this position to his advantage. Chalcedon at last gave him a great part of what he wanted. At first he appeared at the council with the other Monophysites as an accused. But he saw at once which way the tide had turned, threw off his former friends, turned completely round and signed Pope Leo’s dogmatic letter to Flavian. The orthodox Fathers were delighted. In a general council the titular rank given to Jerusalem by Nicaea would naturally make itself felt. The adherence of so venerable a see was received with delight, the illustrious convert deserved some reward. Juvenal then explained that he had at last come to a friendly understanding with Maximus of Antioch, by which the long dispute between their sees should be ended. Antioch was of course to keep her precedence over Jerusalem and the greater part of her patriarchate. But she would sacrifice a small territory, Palestine in the strict sense (the three Roman provinces so called), and apparently Arabia, to make up a little patriarchate for Jerusalem. The emperor (Theodosius II) had already interfered in the quarrel and had pretended to cut a much larger territory away from Antioch for the benefit of Jerusalem. So this arrangement appeared as a sort of compromise, The council in the seventh and eighth sessions (Hefele: “Conciliengesch.” II, 477 and 502) accepted Juvenal’s proposal (Maximus’s correspondence with Leo the Great shows that he was still not quite satisfied) and made Jerusalem a patriarchate with this small territory. From this time then Jerusalem becomes a patriarchal see, the last (fifth) in order and the smallest. So was the number, afterwards so sacred, of five patriarchates established. The Quinisext Council (692) admits this order. It enumerates the patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and adds: “After these he of the city of Jerusalem” (can. xxxvi). Such too is the order proclaimed by the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869) in Canon xxi and incorporated in our canon law (C. I. C., dist. 22, c. 7). Since Chalcedon no one has disputed the place of Jerusalem in the hierarchy of patriarchates. But it will be noticed how late its rank was given, how unedifying the conduct of the bishop who obtained it. Like the other comparatively modern Patriarchate of Constantinople (made finally by the same council, can. xxviii) it represents a later concession that upset the much older, more venerable ideal of three patriarchates only—Rome, Alexandria, Antioch. Jerusalem owes its place not to St. James, the brother of the Lord. but to the astute and unscrupulous Juvenal. Nothing, then, could show a greater ignorance of the whole situation than the naive proposal of Anglicans at various times (e.g. the Non-Jurors in their letter to the patriarchs, 1720) that every one should admit Jerusalem “mother of all Churches” as the first see of all.

The frontiers of this new patriarchate, as established by Chalcedon, are to the north the Lebanon, to the west the Mediterranean, to the south Sinai (Mount Sinai was certainly originally included in its boundaries), to the east Arabia and the desert. Under the patriarch were these metropolitans: (I) Caesarea in Palestine (who now had to obey her former subject), Metropolis of Paleestina I, with twenty-nine suffragans; (2) Scythopolis (in the Vulgate Bethsan, Jos. xvii, 11; Judges i, 27; now Besan, seven hours south of Tiberias), Metropolis of Palwstina II (Samaria), with fourteen suffragans; (3) Petra (Sela’ in the Hebrew, II Kings, xiv, 7; Is. xvi, 1 in the Wadi Musa, half-way between the Dead Sea and the Red Sea), Metropolis of Palmstina III with thirteen suffragans.

(4) From Juvenal to the Saracen Conquest (458-636).

—The patriarchs of this time were: Theodosius (Monophysite usurper, 452); Anastasius (458-478); Martyrius (478-486); Salustius (486-494); Elias (494-513: see Elias of Jerusalem); John III (513-524); Peter (524-544); Macarius (544-574); (Eustachius, Origenist, intruded—563); John IV (574-593); Neamus (593-601); Isaac (601-609; Zacharius (609-631); Moderatus (631-634); Sophronius (634-638 or 644). An important event for the city was the residence there of the Empress Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II. She arrived first in 438 and then settled at Jerusalem from 444 to her death about the year 460 (see Eudocia). She spent this last part of her life in ardent devotion at the Holy Places, in beautifying the city and building churches. She rebuilt the walls along the south so as to include the Ceenaculum within the city. On the north she built the church of St. Stephen at the traditional place of his martyrdom (now the famous Dominican convent and Ecole biblique). Justinian I (527-565) also added to the beauty of the city by many splendid buildings. Of these the most famous was a great basilica dedicated to the Blessed Virgin with a house for pilgrims attached. It steed in the middle of the city, but has now completely disappeared. He also built another great church of the Blessed Virgin at the southern end of the old Temple area (now the Al-aqsa Mosque). The famous mosaic map of Jerusalem discovered lately at Madaba (Guthe and Palmer, “Die Mosaikkarte von Madeba”, 1906) gives an idea of the state of the city in Justinian’s time. During this period the See of Jerusalem, like those of Alexandria and Antioch, was troubled continually by the Monophysite schism. Under Juvenal the great crowd of monks who had settled in Palestine broke out into a regular revolution against the government and against the patriarch, whose change of front at Chalcedon they bitterly resented. They set up one of their own number, Theodosius, as anti-patriarch. For a short time (in 452) Juvenal had to give way to this person. So also in the other sees of the patriarchate orthodox bishops were expelled and Monophysites (such as Peter the Iberian at Majuma-Gaza) were set up in their place. The Empress Eudocia was at first an avowed Monophysite and helped that party nearly all the time she was in the city. Juvenal fled to Constantinople and implored the help of the emperor (Martian, 450-457). He returned with a body of soldiers who reinstated him, killed a great number of the monks, and finally took Theodosius, who had fled, prisoner. Theodosius was then kept in prison at Constantinople almost till his death. The disturbance was not finally put down till 453. Eventually the orthodox Abbot Euthymius converted Eudocia, who died in the communion of the Church (c. 460).

The further Monophysite disturbances affected Jerusalem, of course, too. Martyrius accepted the Henoticon (see his letter to Peter Mongus of Alexandria in Zacharias Scholasticus: “Syriac Chronicle”, ed. Ahrens and Kruger, Leipzig, 1899, VI, i, pp. 86, 18-20) with the bishops of his patriarchate. Elias of Jerusalem supported Flavian of Antioch in resisting the Emperor Anastasius’ (491-518) condemnation of Chalcedon. He was then banished and John, Bishop of Sebaste, intruded in his place (513) (seeElias of Jerusalem). But John became orthodox, too, and broke his engagement with the Monophysite emperor as soon as he had possession of the see (Theophanes Confessor, “Chronographia”, ed. de Boors, Leipzig, 1883-1885, I, 156). Meanwhile St. Sabas (d. 531) from his monastery by the Dead Sea was a mighty support to the orthodox. John III of Jerusalem accepted the decrees of the orthodox Synod of Constantinople in 518 and the formula of Pope Hormisdas (514-523). John III’s successor, Peter, held a synod in September, 536, in which he proclaimed his adherence to Chalcedon and Orthodoxy by agreeing to the deposition of the Monophysite Anthimus of Constantinople (deposed in that year; the Acts of this synod are in Mansi, VIII, 1163-1176). From this time the patriarchs seem to have been all orthodox; though the Monophysites had a strong party in Palestine and eventually set up Monophysite bishops in communion with the (Jacobite) patriarchs of Antioch of the line of Sergius of Tella (since 539) even at Jerusalem itself. The first of these Jacobite bishops (they did not take the title patriarch) of Jerusalem was Severus in 597. From him descends the present Jacobite line. In the year 614 a great calamity befell the city; it was taken by the Persians. In 602 the Roman Emperor Maurice had been barbarously murdered by order of Phocas (602-610), who usurped his place. Chosroes (Khusru) II, King of Persia, had found protection from his enemies at home with Maurice, who had even sent an army to restore him (591). The Persian king, furious at the murder of his friend and benefactor, then declared war against Phocas and invaded Syria (604). The war with Persia continued under Phocas’s successor, Heraclius (610-642). In 611 the Persians took Antioch, then Caesarea in Cappadocia and Damascus. In 614 they stormed Jerusalem. Chosroes’s son-in-law Shaharbarz besieged the city; in his camp were 26,000 Jews eager to destroy Christian sovereignty in their holy city. It is said that no less than 90,000 Christians perished when Jerusalem fell. The Patriarch Zacharius was taken captive to Persia. The Anastasis, Martyrion and other Christian sanctuaries were burned or razed to the ground. St. Helena’s great relic of the Holy Cross was taken off to Persia in triumph. The Jews as a reward for their help were allowed to do as they liked in the city. But their triumph did not last long. In 622 Heraclius marched across Asia Minor, driving back the Persians. In 627 he invaded Persia; Chosroes fled, was deposed, and murdered in 628 by his son Siroes. In the same year the Persians had to submit to a peace which deprived them of all their conquests. The Persian soldiers evacuated the cities of Syria and Egypt which they had conquered, the relic of the True Cross was given back. In 629 Heraclius himself came to Jerusalem to venerate the Cross. This is the origin of the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross (September 14: see the lessons of the second nocturn on that day). The emperor as a punishment for the treason of the Jews renewed the old law of Hadrian forbidding them to enter the city.

After the Persian assault on the town, even before the Romans reconquered it, Modestus, Abbot of the monastery of St. Theodosius in the desert to the south, acting apparently as vicar for the captured patriarch, had already begun to restore the shrines. It was impossible under Persian rule to restore the splendor of Constantine’s great Martyrion. Modestus therefore had to be content with a more modest group of buildings at the Holy Sepulcher. He restored the round Anastasia, much as it had been before, except that a conical roof replaced the old cupola. The custom of orientating churches had now become universal; so a new apse was made at the east (where the entrance had been) for the altar. Doors were pierced in the round wall north and south of this apse. The Anastasis, formerly a shrine subsidiary to the great basilica, now became the chief building. Modestus restored the little chapel of the Crucifixion, originally built by Melania, but did not attempt to rebuild any part of the basilica (Martyrion) except the crypt of the Invention of the Holy Cross. The whole esplanade around these buildings was enclosed by a wall and so made into a great atrium. During the next centuries a great number of chapels were built here to contain various relics of the Passion. Heraclius when he reconquered the city rebuilt the walls and restored many more of the ruined shrines. From his time to the Arab conquest Christian Jerusalem enjoyed a short period of peace and prosperity. St. Sophronius (634-638 or 644), who saw that conquest, was one of the more famous patriarchs of Jerusalem. In his time Monothelism had arisen as one more of the many hopeless attempts to conciliate the Monophysites. Sophronius distinguished himself as an opponent of this new heresy. He was born in Damascus and had been a monk of the monastery of St. Theodosius. In defense of the Faith against the Monothelites he had traveled through Syria and Egypt and had visited Constantinople. As patriarch in 634 he wrote a synodal letter in defense of the two wills in Christ that is one of the most important documents of this controversy (Mansi XI, 461 sq.). In 636 he had to give up his city to the Moslems.

(5) From the Arab Conquest to the First Crusade (636-1099).

—The Moslems in the first zeal of their new faith proceeded to invade Syria. Caliph Abu-bakr (632-634) gave the command of the army to Abu-‘Ubaidah, one of the original Ashab (companions of Mohammed in his flight, 622). They first took Bosra. In July, 633, they defeated Heraclius’s army at Ajnadain near Emesa; in 634 they stormed Damascus and again defeated the Romans at Yarmuk. Emesa fell in 636. The Moslems then consulted Caliph Omar (634-644) as to whether they should march on Jerusalem or Caesarea. By ‘Ali’s advice they received orders to take the Holy City. First they sent Mo’awiyah Ibn-Abu-Sufyan with 5000 Arabs to surprise the city; soon afterwards it was invested by the whole army of Abu-‘Ubaidah. It was defended by a large force composed of refugees from all parts of Syria, soldiers who had escaped from Yarmuk and a strong garrison. For four months the siege continued, every day there was a fierce assault. At last, when all further resistance was hopeless, the Patriarch Sophronius (who acted throughout as the head of the Christian defenders) appeared on the walls and demanded a conference with Abu-‘Ubaidah. He then proposed to capitulate on fair and honorable terms; the Christians were to keep their churches and sanctuaries, no one was to be forced to accept Islam. Sophronius further insisted that these terms should be ratified by the caliph in person. Omar, then at Medina, agreed to these terms and came with a single camel to the walls of Jerusalem. He signed the capitulation, then entered the city with Sophronius “and courteously discoursed with the patriarch concerning its religious antiquities” (Gibbon, ci, ed. Bury, London, 1898, V, 436). It is said that when the hour for his prayer came he was in the Anastasis, but refused to say it there, lest in future times the Moslems should make that an excuse for breaking the treaty and confiscating the church. The Mosque of Omar (Jami’Saidna’Omar), opposite the doors of the Anastasis, with the tall minaret, is shown as the place to which he retired for his prayer. Under the Moslems the Christian population of Jerusalem in the first period enjoyed the usual toleration given to non-Moslem theists. The pilgrimages went on as before. The new government did not make Jerusalem the political center of Palestine. This was fixed at Lydda till the year 716, then at Ar-Ramla (Ramleh). But in the Moslem view, too, Jerusalem, the city of David and Christ, to which Mohammed was taken miraculously in one night (Koran, Sura. XVII), which had been the first Qibla of their religion, was a very holy place, third only after Mecca and Medina. They call it Beit al-mukaddas, Beit al-makdis (now generally Al-Kuds).

In the rein of Caliph ‘Abd-al-malik (684-705, the fifth Ommaid caliph, at Damascus) the people of Irak revolted and got possession of the Hijaz. In order to give his followers a substitute for the haraman (Mecca and Medina), which they were prevented from visiting, he resolved to make Jerusalem a center of pilgrimage. He, therefore, set about to adorn the place of the Temple with a splendid mosque. It appears that the Christians had left the place where the Temple had once stood untouched. Omar visited it and found it filled up with refuse. In his time a large square building with no architectural pretension was put up to shelter the True Believers who went there to pray. In 691 `Abd-al-malik replaced this by the exquisite “Dome of the Rock” (Qubbet-es-Sachra), built by Byzantine architects, that still stands in the middle of the Temple area. This is the building long known as the Mosque of Omar, falsely attributed to him. It is an eight-sided building crowned with a dome, covered outside with marble and most beautiful many-colored tiles, certainly one of the most splendid monuments of architecture in the world. It stands over a great flat rock, probably the place of the old altar of holocausts. `Abd-allah al-Iman al-Mamun (Caliph, 813-833) restored it. The dome fell in an earthquake and was rebuilt in 1022. The Crusaders (who turned it into a church) thought this was the original Jewish Temple; hence the many round temple-churches built in imitation of it. Raphael in his “Espousal of the Blessed Virgin” has painted it, as well as he could from descriptions, in the background as the Temple. The whole of the Temple area became to Moslems the “illustrious Sanctuary” (Haram-ash-sherif) and was gradually covered with colonnades, minbars (pulpits), and smaller domes. At the south end Justinian’s basilica became the “most remote Mosque” (Al-Masjid-al-aqsa, Sura XVII, 1). The description of Arculf, a Frankish bishop who went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the seventh century, written down from his account by Adamnan, monk of Iona (d. 704): “De locis term sancta”, lib. III (P.L., LXXXVIII, 725 sq.), gives us a not unpleasant picture of the conditions of Christians in Palestine in the first period of Moslem rule. The caliphs of Damascus (661-750) were enlightened and tolerant princes, on quite good terms with their Christian subjects. Many Christians (e.g. St. John Damascene, d. c. 754) held important offices at their court. The Abbaside caliphs at Bagdad (753-1242), as long as they ruled Syria, were also just and tolerant to the Christians. The famous Harun Abu-Ja-‘afar (Haroun al-Raschid, 786-809) sent the keys of the Holy Sepulcher to Charles the Great, who built a hospice for Latin pilgrims near the shrine. Revolutions and rival dynasties that tore the union of Islam to pieces then made Syria the battle-ground of the Moslem world; the Christians under new masters began to suffer the oppression that eventually led to the Crusades.

In 891 the sect of the Karamita (Carmathians) under Abu-Said al-jannabi arose in the neighborhood of Kufa. They defeated the troops of the Caliph Al-Mutazid (Ahmed Abu’l Abbas), entered Syria (903-904) and devastated the province. They seized Mecca and prevented the pilgrims from going there from 929 to 950, when they were finally destroyed. During this time Moslems again began to go in pilgrimage to Jerusalem instead of to the Hijaz. The religious importance that the city thus gained for them was the beginning of intolerance towards the Christians there. It is the invariable result in Islam; the more sacred a place is to Moslems the less they are disposed to tolerate unbelievers in it. The Fatimide dynasty now arose in Africa (908). About the year 967 they got possession of Egypt. Meanwhile a frontier war with the empire went on always. The Romans took advantage of the dismemberment of the Moslem world to invade their former provinces. Already in 901, in the reign of Leo VI (886-911), the Roman armies had advanced into Syria as far as Aleppo and had carried off a great number of prisoners. In 962 Nicephorus Phocas with 100,000 men again came as far as Aleppo and devastated the country. In 968 and 969 the Romans reconquered Antioch. It was inevitable that the Christians of Jerusalem should try to help their fellow-countrymen to reconquer the land that had been Roman and Christian; inevitable, too, that the Moslems should punish such attempts as high treason. In 969 the patriarch, John VII, was put to death for treasonable correspondence with the Romans; many other Christians suffered the same fate, and a number of churches were destroyed. Meanwhile the first wave of the great Turkish race (the Seljuks) was pouring over the caliph’s empire. In 934 a Turk, Ikshid, revolted and his successors held Palestine for a few years. In 969 Mu-‘ezz-li-Din-Allah, the fourth Fatimide Caliph in Egypt, conquered Jerusalem. A Moslem pilgrim, Al-Muqaddasi, wrote a description of the city, especially of the Haram ash-sharif, at this time (quoted by Le Strange, “Palestine under the Moslems,” 1890). The infamous Hakim (Al-Hakim bi-amr-Allah, the sixth Egyptian Caliph, 996-1021, who became the god of the Druses) determined to destroy the Holy Sepulcher. This was really only one incident in his persecution of Christians: his excuse was that the miracle of the holy fire (already practiced in his time) was a scandalous imposture. In 1010 the buildings erected by Modestus were burned to the ground. The news of their destruction, brought back by pilgrims, caused a wave of indignation throughout Europe. It was one of the causes of the feeling that eventually brought about the first Crusade. Mean-while funds were collected to rebuild the sanctuary. The Emperor Constantine IX (1042-1054) persuaded the Caliph Al-Mustansir-bi-llah (1036-1094) to allow the rebuilding on condition of releasing 5000 Moslem prisoners and of allowing prayer for Al-Mustansir in the mosques in the empire (Lane-Poole, “Hist. of Egypt in the Middle Ages,” London, 1901, p. 136). Byzantine architects were sent to Jerusalem. The rebuilding was finished in 1048. The work of Modestus was restored with a few additions, hurriedly and not well (Conder, op. cit., p. 262). The Holy Sepulcher remained in this state till the crusaders replaced it by the present group of buildings (1140-1149).

In 1030 merchants of Amalfi were able to establish themselves permanently in Jerusalem. They had leave to trade freely with the people of Palestine, built a church (S. Maria Latina), a Benedictine monastery, and a hospice for pilgrims. In 1077 the Seljuk Turks became masters of Palestine. From this time the condition of the Christians became unbearable. The Turks forbade Christian services, devastated churches, murdered pilgrims. It was the news of these outrages that provoked the Council of Clermont (1095) and brought the crusaders in 1099. The patriarchal succession after Sophronius was: (The see vacant from Sophronius‘s death to 705. Meanwhile Stephen of Dora acted as papal vicar for Palestine); John V (705-735); John VI (735-760, possibly the same person as John V); Theodore (760-c. 770); Eusebius (772); Elias II (driven out in 784, d. c. 800); (meanwhile for a time Theodore occupied the see); George of Sergius (800-807); Thomas (807-821); Basil (821-842); Sergius (842-c. 859); Solomon (c. 859-c. 864); Theodosius (c. 864-c. 879); Elias III (c. 879-907); Sergius II (907-911); Leo or Leontius (911-928); Anastasius or Athanasius; Nicholas; Christopher of Christodorus (d. 937); Agatho; John VII (murdered 969); Christopher II; Thomas II; Joseph II; Alexander; Agapius (986-?); Jeremias or Orestes (banished and murdered c. 1012); Theophilus; Arsenius (c. 1024); Jordanus; Nicephorus; Sophronius II; Mark II; Euthymius II (d. 1099).

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

III. THE LATIN KINGDOM OF JERUSALEM

… was founded, as a result of the First Crusade, in 1099. Destroyed a first time by Saladin in 1187, it was reestablished around Saint-Jean d’Acre and maintained until the capture of that city in 1291. During these two centuries it was for Western Europe a genuine center of colonization. As the common property of Christendom, it retained its international character to the end, although the French element predominated among the feudal lords and the government officials, and the Italians acquired the economic preponderance in the cities.

(1) Kings and Succession to the Throne.

—Godfrey of Bouillon, elected Lord of Jerusalem, July 22, 1099, did not assume the royal crown and died July 18, 1100, having strengthened the new conquest by his victory over the Egyptians at Ascalon (August 12, 1099). After his death the barons invited his brother Baldwin, Count of Edessa, to assume the lordship of Jerusalem. Baldwin accepted and had himself crowned King of Jerusalem by the Patriarch Daimbert in the basilica of Bethlehem (December 25, 1100). Baldwin I (1100-1118) was the real founder of the kingdom. With the aid of new crusaders, and more especially the help afforded by the Genoese, Pisan, and Venetian fleets, he took possession of the principal cities on the coast of Syria. Besides, the Countship of Tripoli and the Principality of Edessa became fiefs of the new kingdom, but the Principality of Antioch preserved its independence. Baldwin I attacked even the Caliphate of Egypt but died at El-Arish (1118) in the course of this expedition. His cousin, Baldwin du Bourg, Count of Edessa, was chosen by the barons to succeed him. Baldwin II (1118-1131), who had followed Godfrey of Bouillon to the crusade, was a valiant knight and, in 1124, took possession of Tyre. In 1129 he married his (laughter Melisende to Fulc, Count of Anjou, who was the father of Geoffrey Plantagenet and already sixty years of age. Fulc (1131-1141) succeeded his father-in-law. Under his son, Baldwin III (1144-1162), who married Theodora Comnena, the kingdom attained its greatest dimensions after the capture of Ascalon (1153), but the Principality of Edessa was wrested from it in 1144. Amaury I (1162-1174), brother of Baldwin III, succeeded to the throne on the latter’s death, being only twenty-seven years of age. He was one of Jerusalem’s most brilliant sovereigns, and thought to profit by the anarchy that prevailed in Egypt in order to acquire possession of that country, reaching Cairo twice (1167 and 1168) and, for the moment, having Egypt under his protectorate. But the formation of Saladin’s power soon placed the kingdom in peril. Amaury died prematurely in 1174, leaving as his successor his son Baldwin IV (1174-1185), a very gifted young man, who had been the pupil of William of Tyre, but who was attacked with leprosy and rendered incapable of taking charge of affairs. He at first reigned under the guardianship of Milon de Planci and, assisted by Renaud de Chatillon, inflicted a defeat upon Saladin at Ramleh (1177). By 1182 the dreadful disease had gained such headway that the unfortunate Baldwin “the Leprous” (“le Mesel”) had the son of his sister Sibylla by the Count of Montferrat crowned under the name of Baldwin V. He also had Sibylla take as her second husband Guy of Lusignan, who had put himself at Baldwin‘s service and had been appointed by him regent of the kingdom. However, as Guy seemed incompetent, the barons took the regency away from him and confided it to Raymond, Count of Tripoli. Baldwin IV died in 1185, at the age of twenty-five, without having married, and left the kingdom a prey to discord and exposed to the attacks of Saladin. The young Baldwin V, his nephew, died in 1186, supposedly of poisoning.

It was largely due to the instrumentality of Renaud de Chatillon that the barons elected Guy of Lusignan, (1186-1192) and Sibylla sovereigns of Jerusalem. Incapable of defending his kingdom against Saladin, Guy was made prisoner at the battle of Tiberias (July 4, 1187), which was followed by the capture of Jerusalem (October 2), and purchased his liberty by yielding Ascalon to Saladin. The Kingdom of Jerusalem was destroyed. Then took place the Crusade of Saint-Jean d’Acre, of which Guy commenced the siege in 1188. However, Queen Sibylla died in 1190 and Conrad of Montferrat, who had married Isabella, Sibylla’s sister, disputed the title of king with Guy of Lusignan, and this rivalry lasted throughout the siege of Saint-Jean d’Acre, which city capitulated July 13, 1191. On July 28, Richard Coeur de Lion, King of England, imposed his arbitration upon the two rivals and decided that Guy should be king during his lifetime and have Conrad for his successor, the latter to receive Beirut, Tyre, and Sidon as guarantees; but on April 29, 1192, Conrad was assassinated by emissaries of the “Old Man of the Mountain”. Guy, on his side, renounced the title of king (May, 1192) and purchased the Island of Cyprus from the Ternplars. He died in 1194 and his widow married Henry I, Count of Champagne (1194-1197), who was elected king, but in 1197 Henry died from an accident and Isabella married a fourth husband, Amaury of Lusignan (1197-1205), brother of Guy and already King of Cyprus. The turning of the course of the crusade to Constantinople obliged him to conclude a truce with the Mussulmans. Amaury died in 1205, leaving an only daughter Melisende who married Bohemond IV, Prince of Antioch. However, it was to Mary, daughter of Isabella and Conrad of Montferrat, that the barons gave the preference, and they requested the King of France to provide her with a husband. Philip Augustus accordingly selected John of Brienne (1210-1225), who hesitated for a long time before accepting and did not arrive in Palestine until 1210, having first obtained from the pope a considerable loan of money. He directed the Crusade of Egypt in 1218 and, after his defeat, came to the West to solicit help. Hermann von Salza, the Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights, advised him to give his only daughter Isabella (Yolande) in marriage to the Emperor Frederick II. In 1225, Henry of Malta, Admiral of Sicily, came to seek the young princess at Saint-Jean d’Acre, and on November 9 she married Frederick II at Brindisi. Immediately after the ceremony the emperor declared that his father-in-law must renounce the title of King of Jerusalem, and he himself adopted it in all his acts. After the death of Isabella, by whom he had a son Conrad, Frederick II attempted to take possession of his kingdom and to fulfill his crusader’s vow, the execution of which he had so long deferred, and landed at Saint-Jean d’Acre (September, 1228), excommunicated by the pope and in disfavor with his new subjects. By a treaty concluded with the Sultan of Egypt, Frederick regained Jerusalem, and on March 18, 1229, without any religious ceremony whatever, assumed the royal crown in the church of the Holy Sepulcher. Having confided the regency to Balian d’Ibelin, Lord of Sidon, he returned to Europe. To strengthen his power in the East he sent to Saint-Jean d’Acre Richard Filangieri, Marshal of the Empire, whom he named baile (guardian) of the kingdom. The new regent combated the influence of the Ibelins and tried to secure possession of the Island of Cyprus, but was conquered and had to content himself with placing an imperial garrison at Tyre (1232).

In 1243 Conrad, son of Frederick II, having attained his majority, the court of barons declared that the regency of the emperor must cease, and invited the legitimate king to come in person and exercise his rights. Alix of Champagne, Queen of Cyprus and daughter of King Henry I, claimed the regency on the ground of being Isabella of Brienne’s nearest relative; and it was conferred upon her and her second husband Ralph, Count of Soissons, the imperial garrison, besieged in Tyre, being forced to capitulate. On the death of Alix (1244) her son Henry of Lusignan, King of Cyprus, assumed the regency but, in the month of September, 1244, a troop of Kharizmians seized Jerusalem, whilst the Mongols threatened Antioch. After his Crusade of Egypt, St. Louis landed at Saint-Jean d’Acre (1250) and remained four years in Palestine, putting the fortresses of the kingdom in a state of defense and endeavoring to reconcile the factious barons. However, just at the time that the Christian states were menaced by the Mongols and the Mamelukes of Egypt, interior strife was at its height. In 1257, Henry of Lusignan having died, some of the barons acknowledged Queen Plaisance regent in the name of her son Hugh II, whereas others would give their allegiance to none other than Conradin, grandson of Frederick II. Moreover, civil war broke out at Acre between the Genoese and the Venetians, between the Hospitallers and the Templars, and on July 31, 1258, the Venetians destroyed the Genoese fleet before Acre. The Mameluke Sultan Bibars, “the Cross-bowman” (El-Bundukdaree), recommenced the conquest of Syria without meeting any resistance and, in 1268, the last Christian cities, Tripoli, Sidon, and Acre, were cut off from one another. King Hugh II of Lusignan had died in 1267, and his succession was disputed by his nephew, Hugh III, already King of Cyprus, and Mary of Antioch, whose maternal grandfather was Amaury of Lusignan. In 1269 the barons acknowledged Hugh III, but the new king, unable to cope with the lack of discipline among his subjects, retired to Cyprus after naming Balian d’Ibelin regent of the kingdom (1276). But, in 1277, Mary of Antioch sold her rights to Charles of Anjou, King of Naples, who, thinking to subdue the East, sent a garrison under command of Roger of San Severino to occupy Acre. After the Sicilian Vespers (1282), which ruined the projects of Charles of Anjou, the inhabitants of Acre expelled his seneschal and proclaimed Henry II of Cyprus (August 15, 1286) their king. But at this time the remnants of the Christian possessions were hard pressed by the Mamelukes. On April 5, 1291, the Sultan Malek-Aschraf appeared before Saint-Jean d’Acre and, despite the courage of its defenders, the city was taken by storm on May 28. The Kingdom of Jerusalem no longer existed, and none of the expeditions of the fourteenth century succeeded in reestablishing it. The title of King of Jerusalem continued to be borne in a spirit of rivalry: by the Kings of Cyprus belonging to the House of Lusignan; and by the two Houses of Anjou which claimed to hold their rights from Mary of Antioch. In 1459 Charlotte, daughter of John III, King of Cyprus, married Louis of Savoy, Count of Geneva, and in 1485 ceded her rights to Jerusalem to her nephew Charles of Savoy; hence, from that time up to 1870, the title of King of Jerusalem was borne by the princes of the House of Savoy.

(2) Institutions and Civilization.

—Towards the middle of the twelfth century, when the Kingdom of Jerusalem had attained its greatest dimensions, it comprised the entire coast of Syria from Beirut on the north to Raphia on the south. On the northeast its territory, bounded by the Lebanon district, which separated it from the Mussulman principality of Damascus, was hardly more than a few leagues in breadth; on the southeast it extended beyond the Dead Sea and the Jordan as far as the Arabian Desert and even included the port of Alla on the Red Sea. In the north the Countship of Tripoli was under the suzerainty of the King of Jerusalem. But in the very interior of the kingdom the power of the king was checked by numerous obstacles, and the sovereignty belonged less to the king than to the body of feudatories whose power was centered in the High Court, composed of vassals and rear-vassals. Its authority governed even the succession to the throne, in event of dispute between two members of the royal family; it alone was empowered to make laws or “assizes”, and to its initiative was due the compilation of the “Assizes of Jerusalem”, erroneously ascribed to Godfrey of Bouillon. The king took an oath in presence of this court and had no right to confiscate a fief unless in accordance with the regular judgment of that assembly. Moreover, if the king were to violate his oaths, the assizes formally proclaimed the right of the lieges to resist. The High Court, presided over by the constable or marshal, assembled only when convoked by the king; in judicial matters it constituted the supreme tribunal and its judgments were without appeal: “Nulle chose faite par court n’en doit estre desfaite” (Assizes, I, clxxvii). A “Court of the Burgesses”, organized in the twelfth century, had analogous jurisdiction over the burgesses and could sentence to exile or even condemn to death. In the great fiefs mixed courts of knights and burgesses had similar control independently of the liege. Even within these limits the king was incapable of compelling vassals to fulfill their feudal obligations. Domiciled in impregnable castles, the architecture of which had been perfected after Mussulman models, the nobles led an almost independent life A fief like that of Montreal with its four castles of Crac, Crac de Montreal, Ahamant, and Vau de Molse, situated between the Dead and Red Seas, formed a really independent state. Renaud de Chatillon, who became Lord of Montreal in 1174, himself waged war against the Mussulmans, whom he terrified by his cruise in the Red Sea, and his individual policy was counter to that of King Baldwin IV, who was powerless to prevent him from waging war against Saladin.

The Church, at this period, was also a power independent of the kings, and, with the exception of the king, the Patriarch of Jerusalem was the most important personage in the realm. After the First Crusade a very powerful Latin Church was established in Palestine; numerous monasteries were founded and received large donations of landed property in Palestine as well as in Europe. Some patriarchs, especially Daimbert, who was at enmity with Baldwin I, even endeavored to found a power thoroughly inpendent of royalty; nevertheless, both of these powers generally lived in harmony. The Patriarch of Jerusalem, who was elected by the clergy and acclaimed by the people, had his powers confirmed by the pope, who continued to exercise great authority in Palestine. Moreover, the orders of religious knighthood, the Hospitallers of St. John, organized in 1113, the Templars founded by Hugh of Payens in 1128, and the Teutonic Knights created in 1143, formed regular powers, equally independent of Church and State. Most lavishly endowed, they soon owned an incalculable number of fiefs and castles in Palestine and in Europe. In spiritual matters they were directly subject to the pope; but the king could not interfere in their temporal affairs, and each of the three orders had its own army and exercised the right of concluding treaties with the Mussulmans.

Although royal authority was restricted to rather narrow limits by these various powers, it nevertheless succeeded in having at its disposal resources adequate to the defense of the Christian states. Its financial revenues were more considerable than those of the majority of the European princes of the twelfth century, amongst the most profitable sources of income being the customs duties enforced at all the ports and of which the register was kept by natives who wrote in Arabic. The king also levied toll upon caravans, had the monopoly of certain industries, and the exclusive right to coin money. At times he obtained from the court of barons authority to levy extraordinary taxes; and in 1182, in order to meet the invasion of Saladin, all revenues, even those of the Church, were subjected to a tax of 2 per cent. Although the kings of the twelfth century were surrounded by high officials, and kept a sufficiently grand court, at which Byzantine etiquette ruled, they devoted most of their income to the defense of their kingdom. Their vassals owed military service, unlimited as to time, unlike the prevailing Western customs, but in exchange they received pay. Moreover, the king enlisted natives or foreigners, settling on them a life-annuity or fief de soudee; a light cavalry of Turcopoles mounted and equipped in Saracenic style, Maronite archers from the Lebanon, and Armenian and Syrian foot-soldiers completed the list of this cosmopolitan army of which the effective force was hardly over 20,000 men, some few hundreds of them being knights. To these regular resources already mentioned we must add the bands of crusaders constantly arriving from Europe, but whose turbulence and lack of discipline often rendered them more of an encumbrance than a help; besides, many considered that, having once engaged in combat with the Mussulmans, they had accomplished their vow and therefore returned to Europe, thus making continuous warfare wellnigh impossible. This explains why, with the well-organized Mussulman states arrayed against it, the Kingdom of Jerusalem could only dispute the ground foot by foot for two centuries.

Nevertheless, despite its imperfect organization, the economic prosperity of the Latin kingdom attained an extraordinary height of development in the twelfth century. In order to repopulate the country, Baldwin I held out inducements to the Christian communities dwelling beyond the Jordan; in 1182 the Maronites of the Lebanon abjured their Monothelite heresy Most of the natives did likewise, and constituted the influential middle class or burgesses of the various cities, having the right to own land and an autonomous administration under magistrates called reis. In the ports, the Italian cities of Genoa, Venice, and Pisa, and the French cities of Marseilles, Narbonne, etc., received grants of houses and even of districts independently administered by their own consuls. Each of these colonies had lands or casaux on the outskirts of the city, where cotton and sugarcane were cultivated; the colonial merchants had the monopoly of commerce between Europe and the East, and freighted their outgoing ships with costly merchandise, spices, China silk, precious stones, etc., which the caravans brought from the interior of Asia. Industries peculiar to Syria, the manufacture of silk and cotton materials, the dye-works and glass factories of Tyre, etc., all helped to feed this commerce, as did also the agricultural products of the land. In exchange, the Western ships brought to Palestine such European products as were necessary to the colonists; two flotillas sailed yearly from Western ports, at Easter and about the feast of St. John, thus ensuring communication between Palestine and Europe. Thanks to this commerce, during the twelfth century the Kingdom of Jerusalem became one of the most prosperous states in Christendom. In the castles, as in the cities, the Western knights loved to surround themselves with gorgeous equipments and choice furniture, the latter often of Arabian workmanship. In Palestine there was a marked development along artistic lines, and churches were erected in the towns according to the rules of Roman architecture. Even now, the cathedral of St. John at Beirut, built about 1130-1140 and transformed into a mosque, shows us the style of edifice reared by Western architects, its structure recalling that of the monuments of Limousin and Languedoc. The specimen of ivory used as a binding for the Psalter of Melisende, daughter of Baldwin II, and preserved in the British Museum, displays a curious decoration in which are combine designs of Byzantine and Arabian art. But it was military architecture that reached the greatest development and probably furnished models to the West; even today the ruins of the Crac of the Knights, built by the Hospitallers, astonish the beholder by their double gallery, their massive towers, and elegant halls. The Kingdom of Jerusalem, established as a result of the First Crusade, was thus one of the first attempts made by Europeans at colonization.

—LOUIS BREHIER

IV. FROM THE END OF THE LATIN KINGDOM TO THE PRESENT TIME.

(1) Political History.

—The Latin dominion over Jerusalem really came to an end on October 2, 1187, when the city opened its gates to Saladin (Yusuf ibn Ayyub, Salah-ed-din, Emir of Egypt, 1169-93), although fragments of the Latin kingdom in Palestine lasted for another century. Frederick II acquired a short possession of Jerusalem itself by treaty later, and the title “King of Jerusalem” added an empty splendor to the styles of various European sovereigns almost to our own time. Nevertheless after 1187 the episode of Christian and Latin rule over the Holy City is closed. From that time it falls back again into its former state of a city under Moslem government, in which Christian pilgrims are at best only tolerated.

As soon as Saladin’s army entered the city they set about to destroy all traces of the Christian rule. They tore the great gilt cross from the Dome of the Rock, broke up the bells, plundered churches and convents, restored all the buildings that had been mosques (notably the Dome of the Rock and the El-Aqsa mosque), turned other churches into stables or granaries, founded Moslem schools, hospitals, and all the pious institutions that go by the general name of waqf. While Europe was thunderstruck at the loss of the Holy City, and was preparing a new crusade to recapture it, letters were sent to all parts of the Moslem world announcing the glad tidings that El-Quds was now purified and restored to the true believers. But—true to the promise made by Omar (see above)—Saladin left the Holy Sepulcher, as well as a few other churches, to the Christians (the Orthodox). For the use of these they had to pay a heavy tribute. The church of the Knights of St. John was turned into a hospital (at the place still called Muristan, where the German Protestant church now stands). Saladin further strengthened the walls of the city when the Third Crusade (with King Richard of England) approached and threatened it (1191). In 1219 the Sultan Malik-el-Mu’azzam (d. 1227, viceroy at Damascus for El-Mansur) ordered these walls to be destroyed, lest they should become a protection for the Franks. In 1229 another short interlude began. Emperor Frederick II (1212-50) came on his (the Fifth) Crusade. He obtained by treaty with the Sultan of Egypt, El-Kamil (1219-38), possession of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth, and the pilgrim roads from Jaffa and `Akka for ten years and a half. The city was not to be fortified, and the Haram eshsherif (the Temple area) was to remain in exclusive possession of the Moslems. In 1239 the Emir of Kerak, En-nasir Daud, conquered Jerusalem again and destroyed the Tower of David. But in 1243 he made over the city to the Latins without any stipulations. This led to the final loss of the city. For Essalih Ayyub, Caliph of Egypt (1238-49), then called on the savage Khwarizmian tribes from Mesopotamia to recapture it. They poured over Syria plundering and murdering, and in September, 1244, stormed Jerusalem. In the massacre that followed 7000 Christians perished; Jerusalem was restored once more, and finally, to the Empire of the Caliph. From this time the remaining Latin possessions in Palestine were lost one by one in quick succession. The last town, ‘Akka (Saint-Jean d’Acre), fell in 1291.

The title “King of Jerusalem” went from Guy of Lusignan (King of Jerusalem and Cyprus, 1186-92) to Henry of Champagne (1192-7), to whom it was already only a title of pretense, since the Moslems ruled in the city. Amaury (Amalric) of Lusignan (brother of Guy), King of Cyprus (1194-1205), was elected king by the crusading army at Tyre, and married Isabel, daughter of Amaury I of Jerusalem (1162-73). He then added the title of Jerusalem to that of Cyprus (Amaury II). From his time the Lusignan kings of Cyprus used the title of Jerusalem and quartered its arms (argent, a cross potent between four crosslets or) with their paternal coat (barry of ten azure and argent, a lion rampant or, crowned gules. See the arms of “die coninc von capers” in Gelre’s Wapenboeck, 1334-72). The Lusignan “Kingdom of Jerusalem and Cyprus” came to an end in 1474, when Catherine Cornaro, widow of the last king (James III), abdicated in favor of the Republic of Venice. Whatever rights they may be supposed to have had to the title of Jerusalem passed to the House of Savoy. Meanwhile, at the death of Amaury II (1205), John of Brienne who married Mary, daughter of the same Isabel and Conrad of Montferrat, began a rival line of titular Kings of Jerusalem. His daughter Isabel (Iolanthe), married Emperor Frederick II, who then assumed the title, and (as we have seen) for a short time actually reigned in Jerusalem. He crowned himself in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher on March 17, 1229. After him the title was borne by his descendants to Conradin (d. 1268). Then Hugh III, Prince of Antioch (1267-80) and regent of the scattered Latin possessions in Palestine for the absent kings of this line, began another series of titular Kings of Jerusalem. He was crowned at Tyre in 1269. His claim was maintained by his son Henry at ‘Akka. But Mary of Antioch, also descended from Isabel, set up a claim to this visionary crown, and then sold it to her grand-nephew Charles of Anjou, King of Sicily (1285-1309), who had already obtained another claim by marrying Margaret, grand—daughter of John of Brienne. While the Moslems were gaining ground and driving back the thin remnant of the Latin kingdom every year, the Sicilians and the party of Hugh of Antioch were fighting for the empty title. Eventually the kings of Sicily added it to their style, and “Jerusalem and the two Sicilies” existed as a royal title down to the Italian revolution (1860). Lastly, the House of Habsburg also added this shadowy royalty to its long list of titles. Iolanthe—daughter of Rene the Good (d. 1480), titular King of Jerusalem and Naples—married Duke Frederick of Lorraine; from her the title came to the Dukes of Lorraine, and so, through Maria Theresa‘s marriage with Francis of Lorraine (1736), to the House of Austria. The arms of Jerusalem formed one of the fifty-eight quarterings of the Imperial Arms of Austria; and “Kong von Jerusalem” was one of the emperor’s long string of titles, till Ferdinand I (1835-48) had the good sense to reduce both quarterings and titles to those that had a real meaning. The story of this title of Jerusalem forms a curious by-path in history, and is a typical example of the pretense that medieval heralds loved. Meanwhile, the Moslem ruled again over the Holy City. The crusading idea lingered on in the West for centuries. Pope Pius II (1458-64) still hoped to renew the work of Urban II; but nothing ever came of these attempts. Jerusalem was lost to Christendom in 1187; it is lost still.

Till the sixteenth century Syria belonged to the caliphs in Egypt; but it was constantly overrun for short periods by their various enemies. In the thirteenth century the Mongols, who had destroyed the line of caliphs at Baghdad, poured over Syriaplundering and destroying under their chief Hulagu (capture of Aleppo, 1260). Kutuz (1259-60) sent his famous general, Beibars el-bundukdari, by whom the Mongols were driven out. Beibars then had Kutuz murdered and reigned as caliph in his stead (1260-77). He succeeded in driving the Crusaders nearly back to their last stronghold, ‘Akka, crushed the “Assassins” (Hashishiye)—fanatical Isma’ilis who had been the terror of Syria for nearly two centuries—and conquered a great part of Asia Minor. The name of Beibars (Ks-sultan el-malik ez-zahir, rukn-ed-dunya wa-din, “The sultan, the manifest king, prop of the world and the faith”) may be seen on many monuments in Jerusalem. Kala’un (1279-90) deposed Beibars’ son, made himself caliph, further harassed the Crusaders, and built splendid monuments all over Syria. In 1400 the Mongols under Timur again devastated the land.

Meanwhile the Osmanli Turks were becoming the dominant race in Islam. In 1516 under Sultan Selim I (1512-20), after they had crushed the Persians (1514), they turned southward towards Syria. On August 14, 1516, Selim routed the Egyptian army and killed the Caliph Kansuh el-Ghuri. On January 22, 1517, Selim entered Cairo in triumph. Mutawekkil, the last Egyptian caliph, died a captive of the Turks in 1538, bequeathing his title to the conquering House of Osman. It is on the strength of this (quite illegal) legacy that the Turkish sultan still calls himself Caliph of Islam. From this time the Turk has been master of Jerusalem. In 1799 Napoleon I invaded Syria and reached Nazareth. In 1831 the Egyptian army under Ibrahim Pasha defeated the Turks near Horns (Emessa), and kept possession of Syria and Jerusalem till England and Austria conquered them back for the Turks in 1840. During the nineteenth century Syria has had her share of various Turkish reforms. Jerusalem and the holy places especially, as being the most interesting parts of the empire to Christians and the scene of continual Christian pilgrimages, were the places where the Turkish government was most anxious to show that its reforms were really meant. The great number of Christian institutions of various sects and the large Christian population of Jerusalem have almost taken from it the appearance of an Eastern town. The latest development is the enormous increase of Jews, who, in spite of repeated attempts on the part of the government to keep them out, form large colonies in and around the city. They and the European Christians are now the predominant element. There are no cities of the Turkish Empire where Moslems are so little in evidence as in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth.

(2) The Holy Sepulcher.

—The Crusaders found the group of buildings as they had been left by Constantine IX’s restoration (1048; see above). Prom 1140 to 1149 they made a complete restoration of the whole under their architect Master Jordan. The effect of this was a great French-Romanesque cathedral. At the east of the round building over the Anastasis a transept, and beyond it a choir and an apse were built; an aisle surrounded the choir and apse. At the junction with the round building they put a triumphal arch. All the various chapels opened into the central church. From the apse steps led down to the chapel of St. Helena. The entrance was at the south. In this way the Holy Sepulcher became one great building. From the choir one could see into the Anastasis and into all the chapels. This Crusaders’ Church is the one that still stands: the beautiful Romanesque doors, at the south especially, still give it a Western appearance. Slight restorations were made in 1244, 1310, 1400 and 1719. In 1808 the round building was burnt down. The Orthodox persuaded the Turkish government to allow them alone to restore it. Their architect closed up the triumphal arch, thus again destroying the unity of the whole, and replaced the old columns of the rotunda by clumsy pillars. He also enclosed the tomb in the present ugly marble covering. The choir of the Crusaders’ Church became the present OrthodoxKatholikon. The arches between it and its aisles were walled up; the aisles became dark passages. The cupola they built over the rotunda threatened to fall in 1869. France and Russia together had it restored by the iron dome that still exists. It was the dispute between Catholics and Orthodox as to the keys of the Holy Sepulcher that immediately caused the Crimean War (1853). All the parts of the church now need repairs which are not executed, because no religion will allow the other to undertake them for fear of disturbing their various rights. The inside of the cupola over the Anastasis especially is rotting daily. But the reparation of the roof is the most dangerous of all, since by Turkish law the right to repair implies possession and the possession of a roof means possession of all it covers. In the present building, walled up and divided into a complex mass of dark passages and chapels laden with tawdry ornament, it is still possible to trace the plan of the great Crusaders’ Church. For the rights of the various religions see below.

(3) The Orthodox Patriarchate.

—Through all the political changes, under Saracens, Egyptians, and Turks, the old line of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem (who followed the Church of Constantinople into schism in the eleventh century) goes on. But there is little to tell of their history. The line was often broken, and there have been many disputed successions. For the list of these patriarchs since Sophronius see Le Quien, “Oriens Christianus”, III, 498-516. When the Crusaders took Jerusalem (1099), the Orthodox patriarch (Simon II) fled to Cyprus. As long as the former held the city, it was impossible for the schismatical rival of their Latin patriarchs to live in it. In 1142 the Orthodox continued their line by electing Arsenius II: he resided at Constantinople. After the Moslems had recaptured the city, the Orthodox patriarchs came back and lived in or near it. The only event of any importance in the later history of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem is the Synod of Jerusalem (often wrongly called the Synod of Bethlehem) in 1672. This synod represents the climax of the Orthodox reaction against the heresies of Cyril Lucaris (d. 1638). Cyril was Patriarch of Constantinople (Cyril I) at five separate intervals (1620-3, 1623-30, 1630-4, 1634-5, 1637-8); he had imbibed Protestant ideas from his friends in Germany and England. As patriarch he organized—or tried to organize—a reforming party, and he wrote in 1629, a famous “Confession” (Eastern Confession of the Christian Faith), which is full of pure Calvinism.

Eventually Lucaris was accused of treason against the sultan, and strangled by the janizaries in 1638. He left a certain number of Protestantizing disciples, but the enormous majority of the Orthodox abhorred his new doctrines. In the years following his death four synods were held—at Constantinople (1639), Yassy in Moldavia (1643), Jerusalem (1672), and Constantinople again (1672)—in which the Orthodox faith was asserted against Protestantism in the most uncompromising terms. Of these synods that of Jerusalem was by far the most important. It is indeed one of the most important, as it is the last, of the official pronouncements of the Orthodox Church, and may be compared to our Council of Trent. Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem (1669-1707), who summoned the synod, was certainly the most distinguished bishop of that line during this later period. He was one of the most important and learned of all modern Orthodox theologians. As patriarch he defended the claims of his see, did all he could to persuade the Turkish Government to expel Latins and Armenians from the holy places, and reorganized the monasteries of his patriarchate on a stricter basis. As a theologian he wrote works against Catholics, and collected evidences from former writers about the various questions that were being discussed in his time—the eternal questions of the papacy and the procession of the Holy Ghost, the Hesychast controversy, etc., and then, most of all, the new questions raised by Lucaris and his friends. His chief works are tomos katallages (1692), tomos agapes (1699), tomos charas (1705). In the first of these he publishes the acts of a pretended Synod of Constantinople against the Latins in 1540. No such synod was held; the acts are a palpable forgery. Dositheus also wrote a “History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem”, published after his death (Bukarest, 1715). This work contains more than is promised by its title. It almost amounts to a general history of the Church from the Orthodox side with vehement polemics against other Churches.

But Dositheus’s chief work was the Synod of Jerusalem. He summoned it on the occasion of consecrating a church at Bethlehem in 1672 (hence the common name “Synod of Bethlehem”). It met in the same year at Jerusalem. The acts are signed by Dositheus, his predecessor the ex-patriarch Nectarius, six metropolitans and bishops, the Archimandrite of the Holy Sepulcher, Josaphat, and a great number of other archimandrites, priests, monks, and theologians. There are sixty-eight signatures in all. The Church of Russia was represented by a monk, Timothy. The acts are dated March 20, 1672; they bear the title: “Christ guides. A shield of the Orthodox Faith, or the Apology composed by the Synod of Jerusalem under the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus against the Calvinist heretics, who falsely say that the Eastern Church thinks heretically about God and Divine things as they do.” The first part begins by quoting the text: “There is a time to speak and a time to be silent,”which text is explained and enlarged upon at length. It tells the story of the summoning of the synod, and vehemently denies that the Orthodox Eastern Church ever held the opinions attributed to Lucaris. To show this the relations between the Lutherans and Jeremias II of Constantinople are quoted as well as the acts of former synods (Constantinople and Yassy). An elaborate attempt is then made to prove that Lucaris did not really write the famous “Confession“. To do this the “Confession” is compared clause by clause with other statements made by him in sermons and in other works. This denial, it should be noted, is a palpable piece of bad faith on the part of the synod. There is no doubt at all as to the authenticity of Lucaris’s “Confession“. That he used other language on other occasions, especially in preaching, is well-known and very natural. In chapter ii the synod declares that in any ease Lucarisshowed the “Confession” to no one (this is also quite false), and tries to find further reasons for doubting his authorship. Chapter iii maintains that, even if he had written it, it would not thereby become a confession of the Faith of the Orthodox Church, but would remain merely the private opinion of a heretic: here the Fathers are on safe ground. Chapter iv defends—no longer Cyril but—the Orthodox Church by quoting her formularies, and contains a list of anathemas against the heresies of the “Confessions”. Chapter v again tries to defend Cyril by quoting various deeds and sayings of his, and transcribes the whole decree of the Synod of Constantinople in 1639, and then that of Yassy (giasion) in 1643. Chapter vi gives the decrees of this synod in the form of a “Confession of Dositheus”. It has eighteen decrees (oroi), then four “questions” (erotesels) with long answers. In these all the points denied by Lucaris’s “Confession” (Church and Bible, predestination, cult of saints, sacraments, the Real Presence, the liturgy a real sacrifice, etc.) are maintained at great length and in the most uncompromising way. A short epilogue closes the acts. Then follow the date, signatures, and seals.

Because of its determined anti-Protestantism (Protestants are described as being patently heretics and airetikon koruphaiotatoi, Protestant writers have described this synod as a work of the Jesuits, of the French ambassador at that time, Olivier de Nointel, and of other Catholics who were undermining the Eastern Church. It is true that the Synod of Jerusalem represents a strongly Catholic reaction after Lucaris’s troubles (it accepts and defends the word transubstantiation—metousiosis—for instance). It is all the more remarkable that its decrees have been accepted unreservedly by the whole Orthodox Church. They were at once approved by the other patriarchs, the Church of Russia, etc.; they are always printed in full among the symbolic books of the Orthodox Church, and form an official creed or declaration in the strictest sense, which every Orthodox Christian is bound to accept. Since this synod the Orthodox Church has not spoken again officially.

An affair that concerned the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem was that of the independence of the great monastery of Mount Sinai. This monastery, one of the richest and most famous of Eastern Christendom, was undoubtedly at one time subject to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Jerusalem. In 1782, after a great struggle, the Abbot of Mount Sinai succeeded in asserting his independence of any patriarch. As Archbishop of Sinai the abbot now reigns over the smallest autocephalous Church of their communion. But he is still ordained in Jerusalem, and the patriarchs have constantly tried to assert some kind of authority over their independent daughter-church. The last great quarrel was in 1866, when the archbishop (Cyril Byzantius) had a dispute with his monks. Instead of applying to Jerusalem he wrote to Constantinople for help. Sophronius III of Constantinople (1863-67) at once took up his cause against the monks. The Patriarch of Jerusalem then summoned a synod (1867), in which he protested hotly against the interference of Constantinople. Less for the sake of Jerusalem’s shadowy rights over Sinai than because of the ever-welcome chance of opposing the arrogant interference of Constantinople, the other Orthodox Churches all supported Jerusalem, so that Byzantius was deposed and the Patriarch of Constantinople had to resign. But that is the last attempt made by Jerusalem to interfere in the affairs of what is now universally recognized as the autocephalous Church of Sinai (see Fortescue, “Orth. Eastern Church“, pp. 310-1).

During these centuries the patriarchate, never very rich, suffered from steadily increasing poverty. Dositheus complains bitterly of this. He says that pilgrimages are rarer, and that the pilgrims who do come bring little money; he himself is obliged to travel constantly for the sake of collecting alms to Constantinople, Russia, Moldavia, etc. A result of the Tur-kish conquest was that since 1517 the Patriarchs of Jerusalem have been subject to their brothers of Constantinople in civil matters, as far as the government is concerned. The Turks made the ecumenical patriarch civil head of all the “Roman nation” (rummillet), that is the Orthodox Church. The other patriarchs can approach the Porte only through him. This civil authority must not be confused with ecclesiastical jurisdiction. In Orthodox canon law the Church of Jerusalem is autocephalous, having no superior authority but that of Christ and the Seven Councils. Jerusalem, like the other freebranches of their communion, has always indignantly withstood the many attempts of Constantinople to assert a kind of papal authority, and has always upheld the axiom that the ecumenical bishop has no ecclesiastical jurisdiction outside his patriarchate. Nevertheless, during these centuries till quite modern times, the independence of Jerusalem was only theoretical. The patriarchs were all Greeks. Originally, under the Egyptian rule, they had been Arabs, taken naturally from the native clergy of Palestine. But in 1534 Germanus, a Greek of the Peloponnesus, succeeded in being elected and from that time to this his successors have all been Greeks. Germanus further succeeded in hellenizing all the administration of his patriarchate: the monks of the Holy Sepulcher, thebishops, archimandrites, and officials of the patriarchal court are all Greeks. It became a recognized principle that no native Arab should ever be appointed to any office in the patriarchate. The result of this is that for over three centuries the patriarchal curia of Jerusalem has been and remains a foreign colony in the land, utterly separate from the native Arab lower clergy and the people. But this state of things will soon come to an end. Following the triumphant example of Antioch there is at this moment a great agitation among the Orthodox Arabs to assert their place in their own patriarchate. And as they aresupported by Russia they will succeed. The reigning patriarch, Damianus, though of course a Greek, is not unfriendly to the Arab agitators. On the other hand the monks, the “Fraternity of the Holy Sepulcher,” stand out as a bulwark of Orthodoxy for the presentstate of things, and treat the Arabs as schismatical revolutionaries. Everyone has heard of the scandalous riots that took place in 1908, and culminated in the pretended deposition of the patriarch. Till quite lately, moreover, most of these Greek patriarchs did not even take the trouble to reside in their titular city. Mere servants of the ecumenical bishop, having no interest in their Arab flock, they were content to fritter away their lives in Constantinople, useless ornaments of the Phanar. Since the accession of Cyril II (1845-72), this abuse has been removed and the patriarchs live near the Monastery of the Holy Sepulcher.

Meanwhile the sees of the patriarchate have almost entirely disappeared. In Juvenal’s time (420-58) fifty-nine bishops in the three Palestines obeyed the new patriarch. The Moslem conquest, the Crusades, and the other troubles of the Orthodox Church in Syria gradually reduced this number, till there are now only a handful of titular bishops who reside at Jerusalem instead of in their dioceses, and a few sees whose titles are registered but are always vacant. Only one bishop (the Metropolitan of ‘Akka) now lives in his diocese (see the list below). The full list of patriarchs of Jerusalem during this period will be found in Le Quien, “Oriens Christianus”, III; for the later ones see Williams, “Holy City”, I, pp. 487-8. The patriarchs in the nineteenth century are: Anthimus, 1787-1808; Polycarp, 1808-27; Athanasius V, 1827-45; Cyril II, 1845-72. The last-mentioned refused to sign the excommunication of the Bulgars in 1872, and was deposed the same year. Procopius was intruded while Cyril still claimed to be patriarch. Russia and the native Arabs acknowledged Cyril; the Phanar and nearly all the rest of the Orthodox world Procopius. Russia deposed Procopius in 1875, and Cyril died. Russia then appointed Hierotheus, who, however, to every one’s surprise took the side of the Phanar in the Bulgarian quarrel. So Russia fell foul of him, and took the opportunity of confiscating the property of the Holy Sepulcher in Bessarabia. Hierotheus died in 1882. There were then three candidates for the vacant see, Nicodemus, Gerasimus and Photius. Photius (always a determined enemy of Russia) was elected canonically. But the Russians made the sultan refuse him the berat, and give it to Nicodemus instead. Gerasimus became Patriarch of Antioch in 1885. Photius went back to his monastery at Sinai. Nicodemus reigned from 1883 to 1890. In 1890 the Phanar persuaded the sultan to depose Nicodemus, and give the berat to Photius. Nicodemus retired to Halki. But the Russians absolutely refused to allow Photius to become patriarch. So the third original candidate, Gerasimus, was persuaded to leave Antioch and come to Jerusalem. He reigned from 1891 to 1897. Photius became Metropolitan of Nazareth, and in 1899 Patriarch of Alexandria. Gerasimus died in 1897 and the Russians tried to have their candidate Euthymius, Archimandrite of the Holy Sepulcher, appointed. But the candidate of the Phanar, Damianus, Metropolitan of Philadelphia, was appointed in 1897 and still reigns. For further information about the Orthodox patriarchate see below.

(4) The Catholic Church in Jerusalem.

—The organization of the Catholics in Palestine dates from the time of the Crusades. As soon as Godfrey of Bouillon became King of Jerusalem in 1099, a Latin patriarchate was set up. Arnulf, chaplain of the Normans, was made administrator of this patriarchate by the synod held in Jerusalem at Christmas, 1099. But he was soon set aside because of his immoral life, and Dagobert, Archbishop of Pisa, elected patriarch. The line of Latin patriarchs is: Dagobert of Pisa, 1099-1107 (Ehremar, anti-patriarch set up by Bald-win I while Dagobert was traveling to Rome to answer the king’s complaints); Ghibellin of Arles, 1107-11; Arnulf (the original administrator), 1111-8; Guarimund, 1118-28; Stephen, 1128-30; William, 1130-45; Fulcher, 1146-57; Amalric, 1157-80; Heraclius, 1180-91.—During the episcopate of Heraclius the Saracens took Jerusalem (1187), and the Orthodox patriarch returned. From this time the Latin patriarchs resided at the court of the Latin kings; when that court was at ‘Akka (during the last period of the kingdom) the patriarchate was united to the bishopric of that town (Ptolemais in Latin).—Michael; Bl. Albert of Parma (d. 1214); Gerald or Girold, 1214-27; Robert, 1227-54; James Pantaleon (afterwards Pope Urban IV), 1254-61; William, 1261—; Thomas; John, 1270-8; Nicholas, 1278-94.

Since Akka fell in 1291, the Latin line was continued by merely titular patriarchs, living at Rome and using the basilica of St. Laurence Without the Walls as their patriarchal church, till Pius IX restored the real patriarchate at Jerusalem in 1847. The patriarchs of the crusading time were in most cases not very edifying persons. Much of the history of the Latin Kingdom is taken up with their quarrels with the kings, intrigues, and generally scandalous adventures. An amusing, if hostile account of these intrigues will be found in Besant and Palmer’s “Jerusalem” (throughout the book). The patriarchate extended to the limits of the Crusaders’ territory; as they conquered new cities, so were new Latin sees established. There were four provinces: Palcestina I(metropolis, Caesarea; two suffragan sees, Sebaste and Saba), Palcestina II (Nazareth with one suffragan, Tiberias), Palcestina III (metropolis Petra, suffragan Sinai), Phoenicia (metropolis Tyre; suffragans, St. Jean d’Acre, Sidon, Beirut, Paneas). Bethlehem and Ascalon (joined), Hebron and Lydda (Diospolis) were immediately subject to the patriarch. But the number of sees fluctuated with the fortunes of the Crusaders; there are various lists given by contemporary authors representing different circumstances. There were many abbeys besides the priory of the Holy Sepulcher (following the Augustinian rule); for these see Le Quien, III, 1279 sqq., and the “Gesta Dei per Francos” (Hanover, 1611), 1077.

From the thirteenth century, when this hierarchy disappeared, down to our own time, the Catholic cause was upheld almost solely by the Franciscan Order. The friars were first sent to Palestine by St. Francis himself in 1219. The order has a special province, the “Custodia Terrae Sanctae”, which includes Lower Egypt, Cyprus, and Armenia. The head of this province, and till 1847 the supreme authority for Catholics in Palestine, is the Franciscan provincial who bears the title “Custos Terrie Sanctae”. He had episcopal jurisdiction (but not orders), and the Turkish government granted him many privileges as civil head of the “Latin nation” in Palestine. This province (commonly called by the Italian form “Terra Santa”, which has passed into Arabic and Turkish) is recruited from all the other Franciscan provinces. Its official language is Italian. During the long centuries since the fall of the Latin kingdom the heroic friars have guarded the interests of the Catholic Church around the Holy Places. Always exposed to the jealousy of the Orthodox and other sects, continually persecuted by the Turks, they have kept their place till today, and with it our rights in the Holy Land, constantly at the price of their blood. It was in their hospices (the case nuove, which they have built all over Palestine) that the Catholic pilgrim found shelter. They have kept the Latin altars in repair, and have never ceased offering the Latin Mass on them for six centuries when no one else cared for them. The “Reverendissimus Custos Term Sanctae” now fills a much less important place in the Catholic Church of Palestine; but no changes can ever make one forget what we owe to the friars for defending our cause during those dark years.

In the nineteenth century it was felt that a state of things of which the result was practically Franciscan monopoly in Palestine had become an anomaly. The Turkish government had become tolerant, the number of Catholic pilgrims increased enormously, many other religious orders had built houses at Jerusalem and other cities, there were Arab Catholics who wished to become priests and to serve their own people, but who had not necessarily a vocation for the Franciscan Order. So the old conditions that reserved practically all cure of souls to Franciscans and submitted every one to the jurisdiction of the custos natural enough when there had been no one else to undertake the work—were no longer reasonable now. There was no reason why the Catholics of Palestine should not be governed by an episcopal hierarchy in the normal way. Moved by these considerations Pius IX decided to change the titular Latin patriarchate at Rome into a real see again at Jerusalem. The titular patriarch, Augustus Foscolo (1830-47), was requested to resign. In his place Joseph Valerga was made patriarch in 1847, and ordered to take up his residence in the Holy City (Brief of July 23, 1847). He was consecrated by the pope himself on October 10, 1847, and arrived in his patriarchate in January, 1848. He found 4200 Latin Catholics there; at his death in 1872 he had doubled the number. The succession of these restored Latin patriarchs is: Joseph Valerga, 1847-72; Vincent Bracco, 1873-89; Louis Piavi, 1889-1905. Msgr. Piavi died on January 24, 1905. After some delay, the present patriarch, Msgr. Philip Camassei, formerly Latin Bishop of Syra, was promoted in November, 1906, and entered Jerusalem just before Easter, 1907.

(5) Present Condition of the City.

—Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis idara; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures: Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000: Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Uniate Syrians, 50. During the nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly half the present population.

The Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem has jurisdiction over all Latins of. Palestine, extending to Egypt on the south, the Latin Delegacy of Syria (seat at Beirut) on the north, and including Cyprus. He is appointed by the Roman Curia (libera collatio S. Pont.), and is personally exempt from Turkish authority (still nominally under the protectorate of France). He is represented in the majlis. The patriarchate has no suffragan sees. The Custos Terrce Sanctae retains the use of episcopal insignia and certain rights of admission to the holy places; otherwise, he must now be counted only as the Provincial of the Franciscans. Appointments to the “Order of the Holy Sepulcher” (a military order of knighthood which began with the crusades and continues as a small dignity given to deserving Catholics), formerly made by the custos, are now in the hands of the patriarch. The patriarchal church in theory is the Holy Sepulcher. But since Catholics have only alternative rights there with the Orthodox and Armenians, Foscolo built a pro-cathedral near the Jaffa Gate (to the north): the patriarch’s house and a seminary adjoin this church. But the patriarch celebrates the functions of Holy Week and others at the Holy Sepulcher according to the rights conceded to Catholics, which are carefully drawn up and enforced by the Government. The Franciscan custos lives at the Convent of St. Savior to the north of the Muristan. This convent is the Franciscan headquarters at Jerusalem. It was originally a Georgian monastery, and was acquired by the friars in 1551. Next to it is the large parish church of St. Savior, finished in 1885 at the expense of the Austrian Emperor Francis Joseph I; the Casa Nuova (hospice for pilgrims) is close at hand. Then there are an orphanage, a school, a library, printing press, etc., all in charge of the friars, clustered around the convent. The Franciscans have also the little convent of the Holy Sepulcher with the “Chapel of the Apparition,” that forms the northern part of the group of buildings at the Anastasis. This has been Franciscan property since the thirteenth century (P. Barnabe Meistermann’s “Nouveau Guide” contains an excellent plan of the Anastasis, colored according to the possessions of the various religions). Six or seven priests and as rhany lay-brothers are sent from the convent of St. Savior to reside here for periods of three months in turn. These are the “Fathers of the Holy Sepulcher” who are always on guard to celebrate the Latin Offices receive pilgrims, and maintain our traditional rights. They have a hard time while they are on duty. There is no way out of the convent except by the door to the whole complex on the south. This door is locked by the Turkish guardians at night, so the friars are locked in. Their food is brought to them from St. Savior, and passed through a wicket in the great door every day. Formerly the residence in the narrow damp convent shut in among the other buildings, which they do not leave during their time of office, was very injurious to their health. But in 1869 Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria, when he made his pilgrim-age to Jerusalem, obtained from the Turkish government some improvement in the ventilation of the convent and leave to build a terrace and a belfry behind it. In 1875 the friars rang their bells to summon Catholics to their services for the first time at this place since centuries (the Orthodox do not use bells but clappers—symantra; bells are an abomination to Moslems). The third Franciscan convent in Jerusalem is by the Chapel of the Scourging in the Tariq Bab Sitti Miriam, opposite the Antonia castle. This property belonged to them from the time of the Crusades till 1618. It was then taken away by the Pasha and turned into a stable. It was given back in 1838, and restored at the expense of King Maximilian of Bavaria.

Other Latin properties in Jerusalem are the College of St. Ann for Melkite clergy governed (since 1878) by Cardinal Lavigerie’sPeres blancs near the Bab Sitti Miriam (Gate of the Lady Mary), the Dominican convent and Ecole biblique at St. Stephen outside the Damascus Gate (1884), the great French Hospice “Notre Dame de France“, directed by the Augustinians of the Assumption outside the walls to the northwest near the Bab `Abdu-l’hamid (1887), the Benedictine monastery with a seminary for Syrian Uniates on the Mount of Olives (1899), the new German Benedictine monastery at the “Dormitio B. M. V.” on Mount Sion, given by the German Emperor in 1906, the German and Austrian hospices, the French Passionists and Lazarists, the Italian Salesians, and French Peres de Sion and Christian Brothers. There are convents of the French Carmelite nuns (on the Mount of Olives, since 1873), Poor Clares, Franciscan nuns, “Dames de Sion“, Sisters of St. Vincent de Paul, Benedictine nuns, Sisters of the Rosary, of St. Joseph and of “Marie-Reparatrice”. Of all these Latin institutions the older colonies (e.g. the Franciscans) have on the whole an Italian character, by far the greatest number are French, but the Germans (especially since the troubles about the protectorate) are now getting considerable influence. As throughout the Turkish Empire, French is the European language most spoken at Jerusalem.

Most of the Uniate Churches have establishments in the Holy City. The Melkite Patriarch of Antioch also bears the titles of Alexandria and Jerusalem. He has a church (St. Veronica) in the Khan-ezzeit just behind St. Savior where the Melkite patriarchal vicar (who generally resides at Jaffa) and the patriarch himself (when present) officiate; near it is a hospice for Melkites. There is also a Melkite monastery near the New Bazaar (Es-suk el-jedid). The Maronites have a parish church served by their patriarchal vicar; that of the Uniate Armenians (Notre Dame du Spasme) is in the Via Dolorosa opposite the Austrian hospice. The Armenians had an Archbishop of Jerusalem (Michael Alessandrius) from 1855 to 1867. No successor has been appointed to him. The Syrian Uniates have also a small church where their patriarchal vicar officiates. The Syrian Uniate Patriarch of Antioch is considered as administrator of an Archdiocese of Jerusalem; but he does not use the title. A hardship felt by all these Uniates is that they cannot celebrate their Offices at the Holy Sepulcher. Among Catholics the Turk recognizes only the rights of Latins there.

The Orthodox Church naturally also fills a large place among the Christian communities of Jerusalem. The patriarch bears the title “the most blessed and holy Patriarch of the holy city Jerusalem and all Palestine, of Syria, Arabia beyond the Jordan, Cana of Galilee and Holy Sion“. It should be noticed that of all the persons who bear the title “Patriarch of Jerusalem”, this one alone represents historic continuity from the original line. His patriarchate extends to the Lebanon on the north and the Red Sea on the south (except the autocephalous convent on Sinai). East and west it is bounded by the Syrian desert and the sea. The patriarch resides by the “Great Laura” in the Haret deir-er-rum not far from the Anastasis; he has also properties in the country at Katamon near Jerusalem (where they say St. Simeon lived) and near Deir Aban (between Jerusalem and Jaffa). The sees of the Patriarchate are Caesarea, Scythopolis (Beisan), Petra, Ptolemais (‘Akka), Nazareth, Bethlehem, Lydda, Gaza, Nablus, Sebaste, Tabor, the Jordan, Tiberias, Philadelphia, Pella, Kerak, Diocaesarea (Sepphoris), Madaba. The only resident bishop is the Metropolitan of ‘Akka; those of Lydda, Gaza, Nablus, Sebaste, the Jordan, Philadelphia, Kerak and Madaba live at Jerusalem and form the Patriarch‘s Court. The other sees are left vacant.. In the administration of his Church the patriarch is assisted by a synod consisting of ten bishops and ten archimandrites. Near the patriarchate is the large Orthodox monastery (St. Constantine) with a printing-press and hospice for pilgrims.

In the Holy Sepulcher the Orthodox possess the central part (the “Katholikon”) and various chapels. They have a monastery built against it (to the west). The actual Anastasis under its cupola is too precious to be given to any one religion; so it is common property, used in turn by all. There are sixteen other Orthodox monasteries in and around the city and various hospices, hospitals and schools. For the education of their clergy they have the “Monastery of the Holy Cross” (Deir el-musallebe) about one and a half miles west of the city. This monastery (said to be at the place where the tree grew from which the cross was made) was originally Georgian. Inscriptions in that language may be seen in the church. It was sold to the Greeks, opened as a theological college in 1855, since then several times closed and reopened. Many students do not belong to the patriarchate, but come from Asia Minor, Cyprus, Greece, etc., to study here. There are hardly any Arabs. The only language used in the college is Greek. The Greek element has hitherto had exclusive possession of the older Orthodox establishments in Jerusalem.

We have alluded to the troubles now raging through the attempt of the Arabs to break this monopoly. It is considerably broken, though not in favor of the Arabs, by the Russian establishments. The autocephalous Russian Church is represented in Palestine by a great number of large colonies and institutions altogether separate from those of the patriarchate. The first Russian archimandrite arrived in 1844; the consulate dates from 1858. The Russian Palestine Society builds churches, in which the liturgy is celebrated in Slavonic, and hospices for Russian pilgrims all over the country to the great annoyance of the Greek patriarchal element. It is because Russia has taken up the cause of the native Arabs that they can no longer be ignored as obscure revolutionaries of the lower classes. On the contrary, the Greek influence is already doomed; when Lord Damianus dies or is successfully deposed, we may expect to hear of an Arab patriarch as his successor. It remains to be seen whether the Phanar will then repeat the blunder it made at Antioch by excommunicating him. The chief Russian establishments at Jerusalem are the enormous group of buildings outside the city on the Jaffa road. These contain a large and very handsome church where the Russian archimandrite officiates, huge hospices for pilgrims, a hospital and other buildings, all close to the Russian consulate. Then they have a gorgeous church in Gethsemane, and another one with a high tower, a convent of nuns, and other buildings on the top of the Mount of Olives (the place of the Ascension in their tradition). There are also another Russian hospice in the Muristan, a lunatic asylum, and schools. But the Russians have no rights at the Holy Sepulcher. Each time they want to have a service there they must ask leave of the patriarch. About 8000 Russian pilgrims visit the Holy Places every year.

The Gregorian Armenians have a Patriarchate of Jerusalem as one of their two minor patriarchates. In the seventeenth century the Katholikos of Echmiadzin gave the Armenian Bishop of Jerusalem the right to consecrate chrism; whereupon the bishop assumed the title patriarch and began ordaining bishops. The title is now acknowledged by the Armenian Church. The jurisdiction of the Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem extends throughout the Pashaliks of Damascus, ‘Akka, Tarabulus (Tripoli), and Cyprus. Under him are seven archbishops and bishops who live with him and form his synod, and fourteen suffragans. The patriarchate is at the great Armenian monastery of St. James to the southwest of the city, near the Bab Nebi Daud. This was formerly a Georgian monastery; the Armenians possess it since the thirteenth century. Besides the patriarch and bishops about a hundred vartabeds live here. There are also a seminary and schools and a hospice for pilgrims adjoining the great church. They also have a monastery just outside the same gate (the reputed house of Caiphas), a convent of nuns (Deir-ez-zeituni) near the patriarchate, and land outside the city opposite the great Russian colony. The whole southwest of Jerusalem around their patriarchate is the “Armenian quarter”. At the Holy Sepulcher they possess the Chapels of St. Helena, of St. John, of the “Division of Garments”, of St. James (behind the Anastasis), and the “Stone of the Holy Women” (cf. Meistermann’s plan). The Armenians have further rights of walking in procession about the Anastasis, and take their turn to celebrate their offices at it.

The Jacobite Syrians have a little church (claimed as the house of John Mark) in the Haret-en-nebi Daud, with a monastery where the vicar of their maphrian (who now unites with this dignity that of Metropolitan of Jerusalem) resides, and the central chapel behind the Anastasis. The Copts have a large monastery (Deir-es-sultan) close to the Holy Sepulcher to the north, at the ninth Station of the Cross, with a hospice. Another Coptic church is at their Khan north of the Birket Hammam-el-batrak (Pool of Hezekiah), and they have several chapels in the Holy Sepulcher itself. The Copts have had a Bishop of Jerusalem since the eleventh century. He now resides at Cairo with the title Bishop of the East (Sharkiye), or of the Anastasis (Kayame), or Jerusalem (El Quds), and ranks immediately after the Abuna of Abyssinia. The Abyssinians possess a large round church outside the city to the northwest (beyond the Russian buildings) and a monastery touching the Holy Sepulcher and the Coptic monastery. They have no special place in the great church itself; but share with the Copts (with whom, of course, they are in communion). The Nestorians had a Metropolitan of Jerusalem from the ninth to the thirteenth century. Since 1282 the title seems to have disappeared (Le Quien, II, 1299).

Lastly, English, German and American Protestants of all sects have a great number of establishments, churches, hospitals, and hospices in Jerusalem. The most important of these are the German Evangelical Erloserkirche in the Muristan (built in 1898 on land given by the German Emperor) with a school, the Johanniterhospiz, Hospital of the Kaiserwerth Deaconesses, the Leper-house kept by the Moravians, and the Syrian Protestant orphanage. In 1841, by arrangement between the Prussian and English governments, an Anglo-Lutheran “Bishopric of St. James” at Jerusalem was founded. The bishops were to be appointed alternately by the two governments and to have jurisdiction over all Anglicans and Lutherans in Syria, Chaldea, Egypt and Abyssinia. This is the famous “Jerusalem bishopric” that gave so great scandal to the leaders of the Oxford Movement. The bishops were: Michael Samuel Alexander (appointed by England), 1842-5; Samuel Gobat von Cremines (by Prussia), 1845-79; Joseph Barclay (by England), 1879-81. Already during Gobat’s time the two elements had drifted apart; when Barclay died, the arrangement fell through.

The Anglicans have now a bishopric “in” Jerusalem of quite a different type (since 1887). Bishop Blyth and his archdeacons are conciliatory to all the Eastern Churches and on excellent terms with the Orthodox patriarch. The Anglican Collegiate Church of St. George (with a college) is the seat of the bishop in Jerusalem. It is situated outside the city to the north, beyond the Dominican convent. St. Paul’s Church belongs to the Church Missionary Society (outside, northwest); there is a large Anglican school (founded by Bishop Gobat) at the southwest corner of the walls. The London Jews’ Society has a church, two hospitals and several schools.

The following persons use the title of Jerusalem in some form: (I) Catholics: the Latin Patriarch, residing in the city; the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and all the East, residing at Alexandria or Damascus; the Melkite Patriarchal Vicar of Jerusalem residing at Jaffa; the Maronite Patriarchal Vicar of Jerusalem residing in the city; (2) Non-Catholics: the Orthodox Patriarch residing in the city; the Armenian Patriarch residing in the city; the Jacobite Maphrian (Metropolitan of Jerusalem) residing with his Patriarch (of Antioch) in the Zapharan monastery near Mardin; the Jacobite Vicar of Jerusalem (for the Maphrian) residing in the city; the Coptic Bishop of Jerusalem (or the East or the Anastasis) residing at Cairo: the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE