CHAPTER XIX.

THE MODERN CITY AND ITS INHABITANTS.

Jerusalem stands upon a tongue of land, bounded on the west by the Valley of Hinnom, and on the east by the Valley of Jehoshaphat, two deep wádies, which, uniting at the southern extremity, under the name of the Kedron, flow down together to the Dead Sea. The promontory thus formed is divided again by a smaller valley, called the Tyropœon, bisecting the city from north to south, and running from the Damascus gate, by the Pool of Siloam, into the Kedron. Two hills, or spurs, thus project from the elevated ground on the north-west of the city, of which the western—the higher of the two—is called Mount Sion, and the eastern, Mount Moriah; upon the last stood the Temple of the Jews, and upon it at the present day stands the far-famed Masjid el Aksa, better known as the Haram es Sheríf, or “Noble Sanctuary.” Between the valley of Hinnom and that of the Tyropœon a narrow neck of ground is occupied by the Citadel or “Tower of David.”

In shape the city is an irregular rhomboid, the longest diagonal of which measures something less than a mile. It covers about two hundred and nine acres of ground, of which thirty-five are occupied by the area of the Haram es Sheríf. There are five gates: the Damascus gate in the centre of the north side; St. Stephen’s gate on the east, a little to the north of the Haram; the Water or Dung gate, in the Tyropœon valley, with the Sion gate on the south side, and the Jaffa gate immediately under the walls of the city on the west. The main street is about three-fifths of a mile long, and bisects the city from north to south; from this the other streets run, for the most part, at right angles; that which follows the direction of the north wall of the Haram being called the Via Dolorosa, and containing the Roman archway known as the “Ecce Homo Arch.” The city is divided into quarters, defined by the intersection of the principal street, and that which crosses it at right angles from the Jaffa gate to the Bab es Silsileh, one of the gates of the Haram; they are named after the different sects to whom they are appropriated.[81] The Mohammedan quarter comprises the north-east portion of the town, also, of course, including the Haram Area; the Christian quarter is in the north-west; the Jewish quarter consists of all the south-eastern part, except so much of it as it covered by the Haram; and the remaining quarter, the hill of Sion, on the south-west, is appropriated to the Armenians. The mountains which encompass Jerusalem are dull and unvaried in outline, and, being composed of white limestone, there is an utter absence of all pleasing variety of colouring. Nor does the intense clearness of the atmosphere add much to the general effect, diminishing as it does the distance, and dwarfing the proportions of all around. The view from the Mount of Olives, situated immediately to the east of the city, alone forms an exception to the monotony of the general appearance of the neighbourhood, and from this really fine views are obtained. Looking on the city itself, the eye rests upon the graceful form and rich colouring of the Dome of the Rock, standing in its picturesque and quiet enclosure, while the gilded dome of the Holy Sepulchre, the tapering minarets of numerous mosques, the massive walls and clustering buildings, combine to make a beautiful, and even impressive picture. Turning to look eastward, a scene no less grand and novel presents itself; before you, a little to the right, the mountains of Moab rise up high above the azure waters of the Dead Sea; the broad deep valley of the Jordan comes in from the left, the course of the stream just discernible by the thin fringe of verdure which lines its banks; while the blank dreary desert stretches almost to your very feet, making even the desolate hills of Jerusalem look green and fertile by the contrast.

Footnote 81:

For these particulars see the Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem, 1864-5.

There are many objects of interest outside the city walls, and a walk round the town, on the outside, furnishes food for much curious antiquarian speculation. Commencing with the head of the valley on the north-west side, you pass the upper and lower pools of Gihon, the former situated in the midst of a picturesque Mohammedan cemetery. Turning down into the Valley of Hinnom, and past the countless tombs excavated in the solid rock, you come to the well of Joab (the En-Rogel of Scripture), immediately opposite the queer little village of Siloam, which consists of caves faced with rude masonry or plaster.

In the Valley of Jehoshaphat—besides the modern Hebrew graves, which lie so thickly together that they appear almost to form one broad pavement—there are several curious monuments; the tomb of Jehoshaphat, of which nothing but a pediment rising a little out of the ground, and roughly bricked up, is now visible; the tomb of Zachariah, and the Pillar of Absalom, two monolithic monuments of uncertain date; and a little cave-chamber cut in the face of the rock, ornamented with two Doric columns, and leading into a sepulchral vault, which is said to have formed the hiding-place of St. James the apostle during the first Christian persecution. Then come the Fountain of the Virgin, the Garden of Gethsemane, and the site of the Ascension upon the Mount of Olives. All these, with many others, and the traditions which attach to each, have been too well and too frequently described by travellers to need that we should dwell upon them here.

The Cœnaculum, or Tomb of David, is situated at the south-west angle of the town, outside the city walls; the history of this has been already related on p. 436.

The olive groves by which the city is surrounded, and of which such glowing descriptions have been given by enthusiastic pilgrims, are scanty, and, like most other olive groves, exceedingly ugly and uninteresting; to tell the sober truth it is impossible to grow very rapturous over a stunted tree, with greasy, silver-grey foliage and dilapidated trunk. On a gala day, however, when a motley throng, dressed in bright colours and fantastic garb, crowd outside the Jaffa gate, disperse themselves amongst the tombs in the cemetery of the upper pool of Gihon, or cluster in animated groups beneath the olive trees, the scene is one which a lover of the picturesque might travel far to see.

The city is completely walled round, presenting the appearance of a huge fortress; by the Jaffa gate, where the tower of Hippicus rises above the walls, and the cypresses of the Armenian convent gardens peep over the battlements, they are pretty and picturesque, but, with this exception, there is nothing whatever in them to arrest the attention. Examining them more closely, you are struck with the great size of the stones used in their construction, many of which, especially in the lower portions, are doubtless of great antiquity. Captain Warren, in the course of his excavations at the south-east angle and elsewhere, has come upon blocks which may still occupy the place where Solomon’s workmen laid them, but now that the excavations are discontinued and the shafts closed the pilgrim will be grievously disappointed if he expect to find a single stone _in situ_.

The houses are all built of roughly-hewn blocks of stone. Syrian houses have flat roofs, but the want of timber for beams renders this construction impossible in the southern part of Palestine, and the deficiency is supplied by furnishing the buildings with large stone domes. From the nature of the ground there is not a single level street in Jerusalem. The streets are paved with the hard limestone of the country, worn smooth with constant traffic, and this makes them cleaner than those of many other Eastern towns.

Nothing could be more out of harmony with all sacred associations than the interior appearance of modern Jerusalem. True, there is something picturesque and romantic about the narrow streets, the quaint old archways, and the ruins upon which you stumble at every turn; but the ruins are those of Saladin’s city not of Herod’s, while the Jerusalem of David and of Solomon lies crushed and buried twenty fathoms under ground.

Of course, the two principal objects of attraction in Jerusalem are the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Haram es Sheríf.

The actual Sepulchre is covered by a small chapel coated with reddish marble, and is surrounded by a circular building of fine proportions, with a magnificent dome. The Greek church is immediately to the east of this rotunda, and Calvary to the south-east, and some twelve or thirteen feet above it. The only entrance is by a door leading into an open court on the south, and this is never opened except by the Mohammedan official who has charge of it, and with the permission of the patriarch of one of the Christian sects.

On a bench inside the door sits a Turkish guard, whose duty it is to see that the Christians do not cut each other’s throats in order to show their zeal for the faith, and the precaution is far from needless.

The open court in front of the entrance to the church is filled with native Christian pedlars from Bethlehem, who drive a thriving trade in crosses, rosaries, incense, and other devotional wares.

Of the various traditional sites within the church, and of the respective authenticity of each, it is not our province here to speak; suffice it to say, the priests have crowded into this small area every incident of the Passion and Crucifixion of our Lord, as well as a great many others of which the ordinary Christian has never heard.

It is refreshing to escape from the narrow streets and noisy stifling bazaars into the quiet shady close of the Haram es Sheríf.

The engraving prefixed to this volume conveys a good idea of the general effect of the buildings and the enclosure in which they stand; but in order completely to realise the scene one must have the bright colours and the atmospheric effect: and, above all, the dim religious light streaming in through the gorgeous stained-glass windows of the Cubbet es Sakhrah and the Mosque of El Aksa. A few years ago the traveller was debarred from this enjoyment, and could not even venture near the sacred spot without danger to life and limb from the infuriated fanatics who guard it. Now, however, a _douceur_ to the Sheikh, and the company of an attendant from the consulate, or police station, will be sufficient to procure the privilege. It is time that the jealous barbarity and insolent licence of the Turks should be modified by the good sense of civilized nations, and that sanctuaries such as these, which are common to Christian and Mohammedan, should be thrown open to both. Perhaps, some day, Europe may learn that it is scarcely worth while to make war upon a Christian power for the sake of upholding a rotten and corrupt government which repays the obligation by encouraging its own subjects to insult and murder the subjects of its allies.

The inhabitants of Jerusalem number about sixteen thousand, and the pilgrims and travellers who annually visit it at Easter time are reckoned at about fifteen thousand more.

The population is composed of such varied and discordant elements that to give an account of the different sects alone would occupy a volume. We do not profess to enter at all into the question from a theological point of view, but simply to give a brief account of the various peoples inhabiting Jerusalem as they appear to the traveller of the present day.

First in order come the Mohammedans, Turkish and native, who, although they give themselves the airs for which the true believer is distinguished, and look with ill-concealed aversion and contempt upon all besides themselves, yet are not, perhaps, quite so fanatical as those in other towns of the Holy Land. They are, for the most part, Orientals of the conventional type, leading lazy, useless lives, and dividing their time between smoking, praying, bargaining, and cursing. The Turks have the same stupid pasty look which all town-bred Turks have. The natives are remarkable for nothing but sturdy limbs, an inordinate appetite for brown bread and onions, and an incessant habit of reckoning up real or imaginary gains. If you see two Fellahín coming along the road you may venture anything that their conversation will be of piastres, and that the first word you hear will be a numeral. We must do the Mohammedans the justice to say that the bigotry is not all on their side, for a Jew’s life is not safe if he so much as venture into the neighbourhood of the Holy Sepulchre.

The Christians are of so many different types and nations that it is almost hopeless to attempt to enumerate them all; the following are, however, the chief divisions:

The native Christians are chiefly from Bethlehem; they are a fine athletic race, much fairer than the Muslim peasantry, and exhibiting unmistakable traces of an admixture of European blood, dating back, no doubt, from the Crusading times. The women are sometimes exceedingly pretty, and their costume very picturesque; they wear a loose-fitting, coloured dress, and a saucepan-shaped cap upon their head, over which is thrown a white mantle, or veil, reaching almost to the feet.

The men wear enormous turbans and the ordinary striped _abbah_, or cloak, of coarse goat’s-hair; this, with a linen shirt, leather belt, and enormous yellow slippers, completes their dress. They do a large trade in rosaries, crosses, carved shells, beads, and olive wood fancy articles, and are a quiet and industrious people.

The Syrians, or Jacobites, are a small body who occupy a monastery upon Mount Sion, called the House of St. Mark. The present bishop is an intelligent man, a native of Asia Minor; one or two monks of the monastery, and the old woman who cleans up the place, are natives of a village near ‘Aintáb, on the banks of the Euphrates, the only spot where the Syriac language is spoken. In this little convent the traveller may still hear the accents of that ancient tongue, and, probably—as the old lady is no lover of monkish indolence—he will have the opportunity of judging of its capabilities as a scolding medium.

The Greek community consists mainly of monks, with a slight sprinkling of dragomen and wine-shop keepers. The Greek monk, with his handsome face, reverend beard, and severely simple costume, is a noble and saintly figure as to the outward man; but Greek monks, known more intimately, are found to be a drunken and sensual crew, devoid alike of honour and religion. We speak of the monks only, for the Patriarch of Jerusalem and one or two of his bishops are gentlemanly and even learned men, while amongst the laymen attached to the educational branch of the convent may be made some agreeable acquaintances. Although the blasphemous fraud of the “Descent of the Holy Fire” on Easter Sunday, is countenanced by the Armenians, it is really kept up by the Greeks, and performed by the Greek Patriarch. A more degrading spectacle than this can scarcely be imagined: the Church of the Holy Sepulchre crammed to suffocation with eager, half-mad pilgrims, and the Chief Dignitary of the Orthodox Church of Christ solemnly entering into His tomb to juggle with a box of lucifer matches! What wonder that the “infidel” soldiers, who keep the peace in the church, gaze on the scene with a supercilious and derisive smile.

About Easter time the city begins to swarm with Russian pilgrims. These are, perhaps, the only real religious enthusiasts among the crowds who annually come to worship at the Holy City, and no one who has seen the reverence with which they look upon everything in the place—even to the drunken monk who admits them into the church—or the genuine emotion and awe which they display when kneeling before the site of some absurd tradition, can doubt for one moment of their sincerity. Many a weary mile must they tramp along in their native land, many an unheard of hardship must they encounter before they can toil up the sides of Mount Sinai, or reach the foot of Calvary; and yet they never seem to grow sick or faint-hearted, but plod on with a marvellous steadiness of purpose, and whenever you meet a Russian pilgrim, whether it be in the midst of the scorching desert or by the shady banks of Jordan, he will greet you with a respectful salutation and a bright contented face. At Jerusalem itself they may well be content, for the Russian government has built a hospice near the Jaffa gate where thousands of these poor pilgrims are taken in and cared for. This immense establishment is furnished with dormitories, refectories, chapel, reading-rooms, hospitals, &c., and for cleanliness and good management would compare favourably with any institution of the kind in Europe.

The Copts have a large monastery of their own immediately contiguous to the Holy Sepulchre, and have contrived, by bribing a Turkish official, to appropriate a great portion of the funds and buildings belonging to the Abyssinians too. At the back of the chapel of the Holy Sepulchre, under the dome, is a little oratory belonging to this sect. The Copts of Jerusalem are little better than transplanted Egyptian Fellahín; their large round features and heavy looks easily distinguish them from the rest of the population.

The Abyssinians are an exceedingly gentle and inoffensive community. They are principally employed as domestic servants by the European residents in the city. They have a monastery, or, rather, a few cells amidst the ruins of what was once a monastery, in an open court over the Chapel of Helena, part of the buildings of the Holy Sepulchre. Here a few monks and a few nuns live in the utmost squalor and misery, subsisting on charity, and in a chronic state of fever. They exhibit great kindness and affection for their compatriots, and are always ready to assist from their own scanty means any Abyssinian who may come to them in distress. They are perhaps the only monks to whom can be conscientiously applied the name of men.

The Armenians are a thriving and industrious people, and their quarter is the only one in Jerusalem in which any regard is evinced for cleanliness or order. The large convent of St. James, the son of Zebedee, on Mount Sion, belongs to them, and the street immediately outside its gates might almost be mistaken for that of some European continental town. The church is the most richly decorated of any in the city, and, amongst other curiosities, possesses the chair traditionally supposed to have belonged to St. James. The patriarch is a gentleman and an accomplished man of the world, and even amongst the monks may be found some who devote themselves to photography and other useful arts. The Armenian is easily distinguishable by a florid complexion, very prominent nose, and dark hair.

The Georgians are a small and insignificant body, occupying the Convent of the Holy Cross outside Jerusalem, to the left of the Jaffa road.

Of the Occidental Christian communities need only be mentioned the Latins. Amongst a number of monks of the conventional low Romish type, there are a few intellectual men, who devote themselves to educating the poor peasantry of the neighbourhood. Their convents are more orderly, have more of life in them, than those of the Oriental Christians, and one is bound to say that the Latin clergy in Jerusalem do make the best of that parent of all social evils, the celibacy of the priesthood.

The Jews of Jerusalem are almost entirely supported by their co-religionists in Europe, upon whose charity they impose, and whose name they disgrace. They are divided into two classes: the Ashkenazim, who consist chiefly of emigrants from Germany and Poland, and the Sephardim, who claim connexion with the old Hebrew families of Spain. The Sephardim are far superior to the others, both in culture and in manners, and have occasionally a certain air of Oriental dignity about them. The Ashkenazim, on the contrary, are, for the most part, mean and disreputable in appearance, and apparently belong to the lowest orders of society. With his dull, exaggerated German-Jewish features, his ridiculous garb,—a long eastern _caftan_, or vest, and a broad-brimmed slouch hat, from which depend on either side of the face the Pharisaic love-locks—the Ashkenaz Jew of Palestine resembles nothing so much as his representative in modern theatrical burlesque. The services in their synagogue are conducted in a shamefully careless and indifferent manner; and the weekly ceremony of “wailing over the stones of the Temple,” when not regarded through that distorting medium of religious enthusiasm which too many travellers bring with them to the Holy Land, is simply a farce.

This picture is a melancholy one; much as one may wish that it could have been painted in brighter colours, it is best to present truthfully the impression which the modern city makes upon most travellers whose eyes are not blinded by the associations clinging to its soil. Filled with abuses, its sacred shrines defiled, and their worshippers exposed to constant danger and insult, Jerusalem is indeed “trodden down of the Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”

APPENDIX. THE POSITION OF THE SACRED SITES.

There are very many difficulties in the way of a reconstruction of the City of Herod. The course of the second and third walls, the position of Antonia, and even that of the Temple itself, have been made the subject of very keen and bitter controversy; and, coming to later times, the site of Constantine’s buildings on and round the Holy Sepulchre has been assigned to two positions. Without attempting to go thoroughly into the question, which would not only take too much space, but would give this volume a character quite foreign to our purpose, let us only state the ground taken up as to the two chief sites only, that of the Temple and that of the Holy Sepulchre.

Everyone has seen plans of the modern city. The eastern side is mainly occupied by what is called the Haram Area, a four-sided space surrounded by vast walls, which are, in some places, buried a hundred feet deep in _débris_. One only of its angles is a perfect right angle, that at the south-west corner. In the middle is a platform constructed round a rough rock, projecting above the surface; in the rock is a cave. Above it is the Kubbet-es-Sakhrah—the Dome of the Rock—an octagonal building of very great beauty. Along the southern wall are various mosques and praying places, the most conspicuous being the Jámi‘-el-Aksa. Tradition has always assigned to the platform in the centre the site of Solomon’s and Herod’s Temples, but Mr. Fergusson, followed by Messrs. Lewin, Thrupp, and others, places the Temple in the south-west corner, measuring off six hundred feet from each angle to get its limits. We have thus, without considering minor points of difference, two sites for the Temple.

The so-called Church of the Holy Sepulchre is situated in the western part of the city, north of what is now called Mount Zion. There, according to the voice of tradition, were erected the buildings of Constantine, and there has existed, ever since, the cave which Christians have reverenced as the Sepulchre in which our Lord lay.

Mr. Fergusson maintains, on the other hand, that the Dome of the Rock is a building erected by Constantine to cover the Sepulchre of our Lord, and that the cave in the rock is the Sepulchre itself. To support this he endeavours to prove that the rock was not enclosed by the city walls at the time of the crucifixion; that the cave may very well have been a tomb: and that, independent of all argument from architecture, the description of historians and pilgrims accord with his position of the church, up to the end of the tenth century, over the rock in the Haram Area. And at some period, most probably after the demolition by Hakem in 969, the Christians abandoned the old site, and collected money to build a new church on the present site, which they pretended was the real site.

There are three ways of considering the question: by excavation, by history, and by arguments derived from a study of the architecture. For the first, Captain Warren is the only person who has excavated, on a scale of sufficient magnitude to produce results which bear upon the question at all. We subjoin a few of his results and opinions, with one or two brief explanatory remarks:

(1.) He has made a contour map of This makes the altar of the whole hill on which the Haram Solomon’s Temple, provided Area stands. From this, a most that was in the south-west important contribution to the angle, some forty feet below topographical question, it the present surface. But was appears that the hill was, much not the altar on the as Josephus describes it, steep threshing-floor of Araunah? and almost precipitous. From the Further, the threshing-floors top of the rock to the lowest of Syria are now about the point in the south wall, a tops of high places, open to distance of seven hundred feet, the four winds, and not on there is a dip of one hundred and slopes, particularly steep fifty feet, i.e., one in five. slopes.

(2.) He thinks that the east wall By Mr. Fergusson’s theory, the is the most ancient, and the east wall is more modern than south-west angle a later the west; but see, below, the addition, probably of Herod. His evidence of Josephus, p. 5. opinion is principally founded on the masonry of the stones laid bare at the foundations.

(3.) He has found what he thinks This wall, in Mr. Fergusson’s was the old Ophel wall, running plan, springs from the Triple from the south-east angle round Gate. the ridge of the hill.

(4.) He has examined the Triple Gate for remains of the eastern wall _and finds none_.

(5.) He has found what have been Would Phœnician characters pronounced by an eminent have been used by Herod’s authority to be Phœnician workmen? characters at the south-east and north-east angles.

(6.) He has found on the If Mr. Fergusson is correct, north-side of the platform of the these may be remains of the Dome of the Rock certain Church of Justinian. But they foundations, the remains of some may just as well prove to be older building. But as yet no part of the foundations of the further examination of the arches Temple. then discovered has been possible.

(7.) He discovered the actual The foundations of the wall remains of the great bridge which were found to cross a crossed the valley at the carefully constructed older south-west corner. aqueduct. Now if the west wall was Solomon’s, who built the aqueduct? It must have been either David or the Jebusites, and one always imagines that before Solomon’s time there were few buildings or constructions, if any, in Jerusalem; certainly not aqueducts.

(8.) Jar handles were found at Of course no direct inference the south-east corner with can be drawn from the finding inscriptions in Phœnician of anything small below the character of the same period as surface. Tobacco pipes were the Moabite stone. found thirty or forty feet below the surface, but no one has concluded therefrom that the kings of Israel smoked tobacco.

(9.) He thinks that “Solomon’s If this is so, no argument can Stables” are “a reconstruction rest upon the manifest from the floor upwards, and it is inability of the vaults as probable from the remains of an they now are to support the arch described by Captain Wilson Royal Cloister. at the south-east angle, that the original vaulting was of a much more solid and massive character.”

Most of these results and opinions, it will be found, weigh very heavily in favour of the traditional view. At the same time an opinion may always be wrong.

II. Let us pass on to the evidence given by history.

The only historical evidence we can rely on as to the actual site of the Temple, on which subject little information can be found in the Bible itself, is to be obtained from Josephus. We refer to three passages:

(1.) Antiq. viii., 3, § 9.

“When Solomon had filled up great Solomon, therefore, following valleys with earth, and had the practice common to all elevated the ground four hundred nations, built his temple in cubits, he made it to be on a such a place, that it should level with _the top of the occupy a commanding position, mountain on which the Temple was and should be an object of built_, and by this means the mark for the surrounding outmost temple, which was exposed country. to the air, _was even with the Temple itself_.”

(2.) Bell. Jud., v., ch. 5, § 1.

“Now this temple was built upon a This is exactly confirmatory strong hill. At first the _plain of the preceding. It proves at the top was hardly sufficient that Josephus, and therefore for the holy house and the the Jews, believed the altar, altar_, for the ground about it _wherever it really was_, to was very uneven, and like a be the top of the hill. precipice; but when King Solomon, See, however, above, Capt. who was the person that built the Warren’s results, No. 1. Temple, had built a wall to it on its east side, there was then added one cloister, founded on a bank cast up for it, and in the other parts the holy house stood naked; but in after ages, the people added new banks, and the hill became a larger plain. They then broke down the wall on the north side,and took in as much as sufficed afterwards for the compass of the entire Temple.”

(3.) Antiq. xx., ch. 9, § 7

“They persuaded Agrippa to This evidence proves that a rebuild the eastern cloisters. wall was built _before_ the These cloisters belonged to the time of Herod, and outer court, _and were situated traditionally by Solomon, _in in a deep valley_, and had walls a deep valley_ east of the that reached four hundred cubits Temple. By reference to Capt. [in length], and were built of Warren’s contour map, it will square and very white stones, the be observed that by no length of each of which stones possibility can this be stated was twenty cubits, and their of a wall starting from the height six cubits. This was the Temple gate. work of King Solomon, who first of all built the entire Temple. But King Agrippa, who had the care of the Temple committed to him by Claudius Cæsar, considering that it is easy to demolish any building, but hard to build it up again, and that it was particularly hard to do it to those cloisters, which would require a considerable time, and great sums of money, he denied the petitioners their request about that matter.”

Next, let us take the historical evidence from Eusebius downwards, as to the site of the Sepulchre. We adduce the principal passages which bear on the question.

First comes Eusebius. His evidence we have given in full (p. 57). It seems to us to amount to this:—

Constantine, taking down a temple to Venus which had been, according to tradition, built over the site of the Holy Sepulchre, and clearing away the earth, found a tomb, cut in the rock, still remaining. His workmen immediately concluded that this could be no other than the tomb of our Lord. He surrounded it with pillars and decorations. In front of it, or round about it, he made a level place. On the east side of the level place he built a magnificent church, the Basilica of the Martyrion, _the only church_ which he erected at all. In front of this church was an open market-place. Market-places, it may be remarked, are always in the middle of towns, not on the outside.

Eusebius is contemporary with the event, and writes as if he actually witnessed the building of the church and the decoration of the tomb. His evidence is therefore of the highest importance; and from him it would appear that Constantine _built no church over the Sepulchre at all_.

We come next to the accounts left behind by pilgrims and others. First in order comes the Bordeaux pilgrim, who was in Jerusalem while Constantine’s buildings were being erected. His account is as follows:—

“Also to you going out into Jerusalem, to ascend Sion, on the left hand and down below in valley by the wall in the pool which is called Siloam.... In the same way Sion is ascended, and then appears the place where was the house of Caiaphas the priest; and the column is still there at which they beat Christ with scourges. But within, inside the Sion wall, is seen the place where David had his palace, and [where were] seven synagogues, which once were there, [but] one only remains [standing], for the rest are ploughed up and sowed over, as Isaiah the prophet hath said. Thence, in order to go outside the wall, to those going to the Neapolitan gate, on the right hand, down in the valley, are walls where was the house or prætorium of Pontius Pilate. There our Lord was heard before He suffered. But on the left hand is the hill of Golgotha, where the Lord was crucified. Thence about a stone’s throw is the crypt where His body was placed, and (from which) He rose again on the third day. There, lately, by order of Constantine, a Basilica has been built, that is, a church of wonderful beauty,” &c., &c., &c.

(2.) St. Cyril. Fourth century.[82]

“The cleft (or entrance) which was at the door of the Salutary Sepulchre, was hewn out of the rock itself, as is customary here in the front of sepulchres. For now it appears not, the outer cave having been hewn away for the sake of the present adornment;[83] for before the sepulchre was decorated by royal seal, there was a cave in the face of the rock.”[84]

Footnote 82:

Taken from Williams’ ‘Holy City,’ vol. ii., p. 80, and p. 172.

Footnote 83:

Can this remark apply to the rock, rough and unshapen, in the Dome of the Rock? See Williams’ ‘Holy City,’ vol. ii.

Footnote 84:

It may be observed on this passage that the so-called Tomb of Absalom, as has been discovered by M. Clermont Ganneau, was originally a cave, but the rock has been cut away on all sides from it, so that it now stands out like a built monument.

(3.) Antoninus Martyrus gives the following facts:—

“From the monument to Golgotha is eighty paces,” _i.e._, about two hundred feet. But between Siloam and Golgotha is a distance of about a mile.

(4.) Antiochus the Monk. A.D. 630.

Modestus ... templa Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi, quæ quidem barbarico igni conflagrarunt, in sublime erigit omni prorsus digna veneratione, puta ædes Calvariæ ac Sanctæ Resurrectionis; domum insuper dignam omni honore venerandæ crucis, quæ mater ecclesiarum est.[85]

Footnote 85:

See Williams’ ‘Holy City,’ ii., 263.

(5.) Arculf. A.D. 695.

Bishop Arculf, returning from pilgrimage to the Holy Land to his bishopric in France, was wrecked and cast away in the Hebrides, whither contrary winds had carried the vessel. He was hospitably received by Adamnanus, the Abbot of Iona, and beguiled the winter evenings by narrating his adventures in Palestine, and describing the sacred sites. The abbot wrote down his account, and sent copies of it to different parts of England. Bede gives an abridgment. Arculf also made a plan of the Church of the Sepulchre, which has come down to our times.

“The Church of the Holy Sepulchre ... is supported by twelve stone columns of extraordinary magnitude. In the middle space is a round grotto (tegurium) cut in the rock itself, about a foot and a half higher than a man of full stature, _in which nine men could stand and pray_.[86] The entrance of the grotto is on the east side; on the north side, within, is the tomb of our Lord, hewn out of the rock, seven feet in length, and raised three feet above the floor. Internally the stone of the rock remains in its original state, and still exhibits the mark of the workman’s tools. To this round church, which is called the Anastasis, that is, the Resurrection, adjoins on the right side the square church of the Virgin Mary, and to the east of this another church of great magnitude is built on the spot called in Hebrew Golgotha, from the roof of which there is hung by ropes a great brazen wheel with lamps....”

And in another place, “In that famous place where was formerly the splendidly-built temple, in the neighbourhood of the eastern wall, the Saracens have erected a quadrangular house of prayer, ... which house is able to contain about three thousand men at once.”

Footnote 86:

The cave of the Sakhra contains an area of five hundred square feet; certainly one could hardly expect a writer having this area in his mind to say that it could only contain nine men.

(6.) Willibald. A.D. 765.[87]

The Sepulchre had been cut out of the rock: and the rock itself stands out above the ground, and is square at the bottom and grows pointed at the top. On its summit is the Cross of the Sepulchre; and thereupon is built a beautiful house; and on the eastern side in that stone of the Sepulchre is a gate by which men enter within to pray; and there is within the couch on which lay the body of the Lord.

Footnote 87:

Given in Fergusson’s ‘Jerusalem,’ p. 160, and in Bonney’s ‘Holy Places,’ p. 23.

(7.) Bernhard the Wise. A.D. 807. This account agrees with Bernhard[88] describes the Arculf’s. It is difficult to group, as of “four churches fit these churches into the connected together by walls, that Haram Area. Building was is to say, one in the east, which always going on, which has Mount Calvary: and one in the accounts for the difference place in which the Cross of the between this story and that of Lord was found, which is called Willibald’s. the Basilica of Constantine: another to the south, and a fourth to the west, in the middle of which is the sepulchre of the Lord.... Between these four churches is a Paradise without a roof, the walls of which shine with gold, and the pavement with precious marble. In the midst of it is an inclosure of four chains, which proceed from the aforesaid four churches, and in it said to be the centre of the world.”

Footnote 88:

Williams’ ‘Holy City,’ ii., 264.

With a very few trifling exceptions, which may be found enumerated in the ‘Bible Atlas,’ p. 73, the whole voice of writers since the tenth century is clearly and unmistakably in favour of the present site.

We must not omit to notice the opinion of Mr. Lewin, that the Dome of the Rock was originally the Temple of Jupiter, which Dion Cassius tells us was built on the site of Herod’s Temple. But he goes on to suppose that Hadrian was deceived as to the real situation of the Temple, a thing which seems to us impossible. The foundations which the Mohammedans found when they began to build, may very well have been those of the Temple of Jupiter, and many of the old pillars may have been used for the new Dome. The destruction of the Temple was probably due to Chosroes, who clearly left nothing standing at all. It may, however, have been destroyed by the pious zeal of the Christians.

So far therefore, as the historical evidence goes, it appears to us that the following facts come out with great clearness.

(1.) Josephus, and therefore the Jews generally, believed that Solomon’s temple was built on the highest part of the hill, the ground being afterwards raised artificially.

(2.) Herod’s temple was built, with greater magnificence, in the same spot.

(3.) Hadrian built a temple to Jupiter on the Temple Hill.

(4.) Julian attempted to rebuild the temple itself from its old foundations. Did he, to effect this object, first destroy the Temple of Jupiter? If not, who did?

(5.) For four centuries after this the place remained a receptacle for filth of all kinds, but not forgotten.

(6.) Omar erected a small mosque in front of it (p. 76).

(7.) ‘Abd el Melik and his successors repaired the whole Masjid (the Haram Area), built the Mosque el Aksa, and the Dome of the Rock (p. 79).

(8.) The Crusaders called the Dome of the Rock, _Templum Domini_, the Temple of the Lord, to distinguish it from the Mosque el Aksa, which they called _Templum Solomonis_, the Palace of Solomon.

With regard to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, we have the following data furnished us.

(1.) Constantine decorated the cave, and erected a magnificent Basilica over the site of the Crucifixion.

(2.) All Constantine’s buildings were destroyed by Chosroes; and rebuilt, after a fashion, by Modestus, with the assistance of John Eleemon, Patriarch of Alexandria.

(3.) The Mohammedans at the taking of the city spared the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

(4.) Hakem ordered the destruction of the church. This was done, and collections were made in every part of the Christian world to rebuild it.

(5.) This church was burned down in 1808.

With regard to the discrepancies in the accounts given by pilgrims, and the impossibility of completely harmonizing their descriptions with any theory of sites, this may be remarked: Too much stress must not be laid upon the accuracy or inaccuracies of stories told by early travellers. Why should we look for accuracy in the narrative of a pilgrimage spent in a state of mental _exaltation_, of which we cold-blooded Christians can have no possible idea? When the pilgrim, arrived at the goal of his journey, was crawling on his knees from site to site, praying and praising, abandoning himself to all the emotions which the memories of the places evoked, was it a time to pull out the measuring tape and to count the paces?

To sum up, next, the historical evidence as regards the Dome of the Rock.

(1.) When Mohammedan writers speak of the Masjid el Aksa, they mean, not the Mosque el Aksa, but the whole Haram Area, including all the oratories, mosques, minarets, &c.

(2.) All these were built, as has been related, chap. IV., by ‘Abd el Melik.

(3.) The Dome of the Rock is only a supplementary building (see p. 83).

(4.) When the pulpit, the ‘kiblah,’ &c., of the Masjid el Aksa is spoken of, we must refer it to the Jami‘ el Aksa.

The Haram Area, when Omar visited it first, presented an aspect somewhat similar to what it has at present, so far as its outward walls, dimensions, and general level are concerned. In the centre was the rock, where, as everybody knew, had been the Temple. This was covered with rubbish and filth. And round the rock, and about it, were certain old foundations, most likely those of Hadrian’s Temple to Jupiter, possibly those of the Temple of Herod. Along the south wall were extensive ruins. At the south-east angle lay arches and substructures overthrown; and further west the ruins of a Christian church, most probably that of Justinian’s church, now the Jami‘ el Aksa. All these substructures were repaired by the Mohammedans, the position of the walls being, naturally, retained. Then, being desirous of building a dome over the Sacred Rock, ‘Abd el Melik issued letters and collected money. He first designed and built a small dome, the same which is now called the Cubbet es Silsilah, for a treasury. He was so pleased with the work that he ordered his great dome to be built on the same model. The Dome of the Rock must not be compared with other mosques, because it is not one, and was never meant for one, but it may advantageously be compared with other _welis_, or Mohammedan oratories. Therefore no argument can be drawn from what would be an exceptional shape for a mosque.

It must be distinctly understood that Arabic historians are as clear and explicit as to the building of this splendid dome as we should be over the building of St. Paul’s by Christopher Wren; and that in the account given by us (p. 79 _et seq._) no single sentence is inserted for which there is not full authority in the Arabic historians.

The third and last method of argument is from architecture. History may be misinterpreted. It may even purposely deceive. But architecture cannot lie. Within limits, superior and inferior, the date of a building can be assigned to it. These limits approach each other more nearly as we come to modern times. Architects find no difficulty, for instance, in distinguishing buildings of the fifteenth from those of the sixteenth century. But the limits recede from each other as we go back. Therefore it is that this is an argument, as concerns the Holy Sepulchre, which can only be used by hands of the greatest experience. Nor ought any conclusion to be generally accepted by the world until it has been acceded to by a majority of that small number of architects competent to judge. Mr. Fergusson has written on the architecture of the Dome of the Rock; his conclusions however have not met with the approval of authorities, such as Professor Willis, or the Count de Vogüé, of equal rank with himself. Until architects agree, then, surely we have nothing to rest on but the historical evidence.

INDEX.

Abu Bekr, 66 Abu ’l Casím, 431 Abu ’l Faraj, 430 Abu ’l Fath Nasr, 431 Abu Ishak, 428 Abu Obeidah, 70, 423 Abu Saíd Barkúk, 435 Abu Táher, 95 Abúdat ibn es Sámit, 424 Abyssinians, 475 Acre, 367, 391, 406, 464 Adana, 166 Adhémar, 144, 145, 171, 173, 175 Ælia Capitolina, 54 Afdhal, 196, 330 Agrippa, chap. i. Akiba (Rabbi), 51 Albinus, 8 Alexandria surrenders to Shirkoh, 307; taken by Amaury, 308 Alexis Comnenus, chap. vi. Alice of Antioch, 253, 261 Alimi, El, 438 Al Imám es Shafi, 429 Amaury, King, chap. xiv. Amaury de Lusignan, 444 Andrew’s Crusade, 451 Anselm, vision of, 178 Antioch, siege of, 170 Antoninus, 118 Arabs, their character and arts, 91 Armenians, 475 Arm of Ambrose, loss of, 207 Arnold, 176, 185, 216 Arnulphus, 118 Ascalon, 107, 287, 408 Ashraf Barsebai, Sultan, 435 —— Catibai, Sultan El, 439 —— Einál, Sultan El, 438 —— Shaban, Es Sultan, 434 Assassins, murder of messenger, 319; sect of, 322 Assises de Jerusalem, 202

Babain, battle of, 307 Baghi Seyan, 170 Baldwin I., chap. viii., 166, 201 —— II., chap. ix. —— III., chap. xi., 269 —— IV., chap. xiii. —— V., 343 Baldwin du Bourg, 225, 231, and chap. ix. Balian of Ibelin, 352 Barcochebas, 52 Battle of Lake Huleh, 292 Bedawín in Jerusalem, 441 Beirût, attempt on, 413 Bellál ibn Rubáh, 424 Benjamin of Tudela, 328 Berenice, 14 Bernard, 277 Bertram of Tripoli, 227 Bertrand de Blanqueford, 310 Bether, 53 ——, identification of, 54 Beyrout, 10 ——, taking of, 228 Bir el Warakah (Well of the Leaf), 421 Bishop’s Pilgrimage, 136 Blanchegarde, 267 Bohemond, 156, 224 Bordeaux Pilgrim, 116 Burham-ed-dín, Sheik, 437 Burzíyeh, castle of, 395

Cadam es Sheríf, 419 Cadhi of Jerusalem, 437 Cæsarea, 7, 16, 179, 219 Calaun, Es Sultan, 434 Caliph of Cairo, 305 Carmathians, the, 95 Carrier pigeons, 401 Cestius Gallus, 10; defeat of, 17 Chain, ordeal of the, 420 Charlemagne, 123 Chiefs of First Crusade, 135 Children’s Crusade, 448 Chosroes takes Jerusalem and destroys Church of Holy Sepulchre, 63 Christians of city imprisoned, 441 Claudius Felix, 6 Clermont, Council of, 144 Cœnaculum, 436 Coloman, King, chap. vi. Completion of Temple, 9 Conrad of Tyre, 367 Constance of Antioch, 288 Constantine builds Basilica, 59; decrees against Jews, 60 Copts, 475 Cruelty of Christians, 404, 406 Crusades, time ripe for, 169 Crusaders, return of, 199 Cubbet el Míráj, 420 Cuspius Fadus, 3

Dagobert, 201, 214, 216, 217, 222 Damascus, siege of, 283 Damietta, 452 ——, Greek fleet at, 315 Darúm, capture of, 411 Dhaher Chakmak, El Melik, 435 ——, El Melik el, 433 Dhia-ed-Dín, 432 Dome of the Rock, erection of, 79; repair of, 83, 93; inscription in, 86; not a mosque, 85 Druzes, their teaching, 106

Earthquake in Palestine, 316 Eastern Cloisters, 9 Edessa, fall of, 272 Edgar Atheling, 155 Edrei, 273 Effects of Christian occupation, 245 El Adhed, 332 El Arish, 233 El Emád, 387 El Ghazálí, 432 Eleanor, Queen, 281 Emico, 151 End of the world expected, 133 Es Sirát, Bridge of, 422 Eusebius, 57, _et seq._ Eustace de Bouillon, 237 —— Garnier, 239 Ezz-ed-dín, 438

Fair of September, 127 Fakhr-ed-dín, 456 Fálek-ed-dín, 411 Famine in Egypt, 445 —— in city, 439 Fatemite Caliphs, 300 Festus, 8 Florus, Gessius, 10, 11, 12, 13 Foulcher de Chartres, 213 Fragrant herb, consecration of the, 427 Francis of Assisi, 458 Frederic D. of Swabia, 367 Frederick II., 453 —— Redbeard, 365 Freisingen, Bishop of, 280 Frotmond, story of, 124 Fulke, chap. x., 254 —— the Black, 133 —— de Neuilly, 445

Garnier de Grey, 211 Georgians, 476 Gessius Florus, 10 Ghars-ed-dín, 439 Godfrey, chap. vii., 154, 181 Gorgona, disaster in Valley of, 164 Gotschalk, 151 Gregory IX., 454 Guy de Lusignan, chap. xiv., 339 Guymer, 167

Hadrian, 51; builds Temple of Jupiter on site of Temple, 54 Hajj, the, 417 Hakem, el, 99, 129 Haram repaired, 442 Harûn Er Raschíd, 123 Helena, Life of, 55; Invention of the Cross, 56 Henry of Champagne, 367, 369, 443 Heraclius, 64, 67, 68 —— the Patriarch, 341 Hisam-ed-dín, 438 Holy Fire, miracle of, 216 Holy Grail, the, 219 Holy Lance, vision of the, 173; discovery of, 174 Holy Sepulchre, discovery of, 57; adornment of, 58 Hugh of Cæsarea, 304 —— of Jaffa, 263 —— Vermandois, 157, 205, 209 Humphrey de Toron, 346, 394

Ida of Austria, 209 Ilgazi, 238 Imposture of Easter fire, 474 Innocent III., 445 Interdicts in Palestine, 290

Jamí-en-Nisá, 421 Jerome, 114 Jerusalem, Repair of the walls, 410 —— Siege of, by Titus, chap. ii. —— Siege and fall of, 354 —— Taking of, by Saladin, 385 Jesus, son of Ananus, 25 Jews, heroism of, 44 Jocelyn, 239, 241, 260 —— II., 271 John de Brienne, 446, 452 —— Comnenus, 265 —— of Gischala, chap. ii. Josephus, chap. ii Judas the Galilæan, 3 Julian, attempts to rebuild the Temple, 61

Ka‘abeh, the, desertion of, 96 Khalit ibn el Walíd, 424 Kharezmians, 459 Khotbah of Muhiy-ed-dín, 388 King, choice of, 191 Knights Hospitallers, foundation of, 247 —— Templars, foundation of, 249 Kokeb, capture of, 397

Lietbert, 135 Longsword, William, 337 Louis VII., chap. x. —— IX., 461

Macám en nebé, 421 Macarias, 135 Maghárah, the, 419 Manahem, 15 Manners of the Syrian Christians, 295 Maria of Constantinople, 309 Masjid el Aksa, 75, 381 Mejír-ed-dín, 439 Milan, Bishop of, 206; his army entirely destroyed, 207 Milicent, 263, 270, 293 Milo de Plancy, 336 Moazzem, El Melik el, 433 Modern city, chap. xix. —— native Christians, 473 —— Jews of Jerusalem, 476 Mohammedan beliefs, 422 —— pilgrims, chap. xvii. Mohammed ibn Karrám, 430 ——, Sultan, 434 Montferrat, assassination of Marquis of, 369, 410 Montreal, capture of, 302 Mount Tarsus, passes of, 169

Nahr el Casb, battle of, 407 Nasir-ed-dín, 438 Nasír Farj, Sultan, 435 Naval defeat of Mohammedans, 392 Nero, 8 Nevers, Duke of, 208; defeat of, 209 —— Count of, 309 Nicæa, battle of, 153; siege of, 162 Nicephorus Phocas, 97, 128 Nicolas, preacher, 447 Nûr-ed-dín, 284, 292, 294, 301, 303, 309, 319, 327 Nuseiríyeh, doctrines of the, 425

Odolric, 132 Omar, Caliph, 68, _et seq._ Ordeal by fire, 177 Order of St. Lazarus, 247

Pancrates, 168 Paula and Eudoxia, 114 Penances, 446 Peregrinationes, majores et minores, 121 Peter the Hermit, 141, and throughout chap. vi. Philip Augustus, 365 —— of Flanders, 337 Pilgrim’s Progress, The, 118 —— service, the, 120 Pilgrimage, passion for, 113 Plague in Jerusalem, 441 Pons of Tripoli, 265 Population of Jerusalem, 23 Porphyry, 114 Position of sacred sites, _Appendix_ Pyrrhus, 171

Rabbinical Law, 48 Rains at Jerusalem, 440 Ramleh, 179, 220 Raymond, grand master of Hospitallers, 289 —— of Plaisance, 134 —— Poitiers, 262 —— Toulouse, 155, 198, 200, 206, 225 Relics, finding of, 126, _et passim_ Renaud de Chatillon, 288, 289, 291, 339, 371, 380 —— of Sidon, 398 Renegades, story of, at Cyprus, 403 Richard Cœur de Lion, chap. xv., and 404 —— of St. Vitou, 135 —— of Cornwall, 459 Robert of Flanders, 158, 172, 190 —— Normandy, 155, 171 —— Orleans, 130 Roger of Antioch, 230 Russian pilgrims, 475 Rutebeuf, 462

Safiyah bint Hai, 429 Sakhrah, Mohammedan belief concerning, 419 —— purification of, by Saladin, 388 Saladin, 319, 338, 347, 350, 365, chap. xvi. Saladin’s holy war, 377 Samaritans, 5, 62 Second Crusade, 277 Seif-ed-dín, 358, 404 Selman el Farsí, 427 Sepulchre, Church of the, destroyed by Chosroes, 64; rebuilt by Modestus, 64; by Thomas, 93; destroyed by Hakem, 103 Shakíf, fortress of, 397 Sharafál, 437 Shawer, 301, 311, 313 —— and Dhargam, 301 Sheddád ibn Aus, 427 Shehab-ed-dín, 439 Sherf-ed-dín, 439 Shírkoh, 312 Sicarii, 6 Sigard of Norway, 228 Simon Ben Gioras, chap. ii. Sophronius, 72 Stephanus, 5 Stephen of Blois, 155, 172, 205 ——, Count of Perche, 292 Sufyan eth Thori, 429 Súkel Marifah, 421 Sybille, 337, 339, 367, chap. xiv. Sylvester converts the Jews, 60

Tancred, 157, 179, 225 Tell es Siyásíyeh, 399 Templars, defeat of, 348 Theodora of Constantinople, 293 Theudas, 4 Thierry of Flanders, 266 Thomas (patriarch) rebuilds Church of Sepulchre, 93 Tiberias, battle of, 350, 378 Tiberius, Alexander, 4 Tithe of Saladin, 363 Titus: his army, 19; number of, 20, 21; besieges Jerusalem, chap. ii. Toghrul Beg, 109 Tomb of David, 436 Tours, Council of, 458 Trajan, revolt under, 49 Tripoli, 226 Truce between Saladin and Richard, 414 True Cross, Invention of, 56; discovery of piece of, 195 —— loss of, 381 Tutush, 111 Tyre, 243 —— siege of, 393

Umm el Kheir, 429

Ventidius Cumanus, 4, 5 Vespasian in Galilee, 17; taxes the Jews, 49

Walter the Penniless, 148 Walter of Cæsarea, 263 William of Cerdagne, 226 Willibald, 123

Yaghmúri, El, 435 Yarmúk, battle of, 69

Zanghi, 253, 262, 265, 270, 272, 330 Zidugdi, 438 Zimisces, 97, 129 Ziráyeh, the, 417

LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.

Transcriber’s Note

The transliteration of Arabic words proved difficult to render, particularly with respect to multiple diacritical marks. The printer seemed somewhat undecided about how best to represent the hamza (ʿ) and ayn (ʾ). For example, , , or , and sometimes omitting them (e.g. = ‘Shafiíte’ or ‘Shafiite’ for ‘Shafi‘íte’). They are rendered here as left and right single quotes. Where the mark is printed atop a letter, in mid-word, it is inserted to the left. This avoids a number of unacceptable approximations, e.g., where that hamza appears atop a Latin i, as in , where the dot is retained in the italic form used in the text (_dái̔_)

The page reference (p. 585) for Saladin’s taking of Jersulem is incorrect. It has been corrected to p. 385.

Other errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected, and are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the original. The following issues should be noted, along with the resolutions.

127.19 for dy[e]ing. Inserted.

138.12 but instead of helping Afsi[s/z] Replaced.

160.32 occupied by the caliphat[e] of Cordova Added.

179.9 the time was gone by fo[t/r] negotiation Replaced.

226.33 The next important place attac[h/k]ed Replaced.

239.3 allowed to d[e/i]sperse in various directions Replaced.

283.19 make themselves masters of the position[,/.] Replaced.

331.18 Shaw[a/e], as perfidious as he was ambitious Replaced.

343.1 religion, a famil[i]ar thing, Inserted.

353.14 Guy had taken it all[.] Added.

383.22 Saladin next attacked Beir[u/ú]t Replaced.

383.28 While he was at Beir[u/ú]t Replaced.

389.1 leaving an empty space between;[”] Removed. Prob. spurious.

400.2 the Grand Master of the Templars[,/.] Added.

473.18 called the House of St. Mark[,/.] Replaced.