is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite and thy
mother a Hittite.' Hence, also, the dualistic form of the name
Jerusalem in Hebrew, signifying 'Twin-Jerusalem.' Indeed the
opinion has been broached that Jerusalem is the compound of
the two names, Jebus and Salem, softened 'euphoniæ gratiâ'
into Jerusalem. It is remarkable that to the very last the
quarter lying between the High Town and Low Town, though in
the very heart of the city when the different parts were
united into one compact body, was called the Suburb. The first
notice of Jerusalem is in the time of Abraham. The king of
Shinar and his confederates captured Sodom and Gomorrah, and
carried away Lot, Abraham's brother's son; when Abraham,
collecting his trainbands, followed after the enemy and
rescued Lot; and on his return 'at the valley of Shaveh, which
is the king's vale, Melchizedek, king of Salem—the priest of
the Most High God—blessed Abram.' The king's vale was the
Valley of Jehoshaphat: and Salem was identical with the
eastern hill, the real Zion as we learn from the Psalms, 'In
Salem is his tabernacle, and his dwelling-place in Zion;'
where Salem and Zion are evidently used as synonymous. Whether
Moriah, on which Abram offered his sacrifice, was the very
mount on which the Temple was afterwards built, must be left
to conjecture. But when the Second Book of Chronicles was
written, the Jews had at least a tradition to that effect, for
we read that 'Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at
Jerusalem in Mount Moriah.' On the exodus of the Israelites
from Egypt, we find distinct mention made of Jerusalem by that
very name; for after Joshua's death, 'the children of Judah
fought against Jerusalem, and took it … and set the city on
fire.' But Josephus is probably right in understanding this to
apply to the Low Town only, i. e., the eastern hill, or Sion,
as opposed to the western hill, the High Town, or Pseudo-Sion.
The men of Judah had only a temporary occupation even of the
Low Town, for it was not until the time of David that
Jerusalem was brought permanently under the dominion of the
Israelites."
T. Lewin,
Jerusalem,
chapter 1.
{1881}
JERUSALEM:
Conquest and occupation by David.
"David had reigned seven years and a half in Hebron over the
tribe of Judah alone.
See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.
He was now solemnly installed as king by the elders of all
Israel, and 'made a league with them before Jehovah in
Hebron.' This was equivalent to what we now call a 'coronation
oath,' and denoted that he was a constitutional, not an
arbitrary monarch. The Israelites had no intention to resign
their liberties, but in the sequel it will appear, that, with
paid foreign troops at his side, even a most religious king
could be nothing but a despot. Concerning David's military
proceedings during his reign at Hebron, we know nothing in
detail, though we read of Joab bringing in a large spoil,
probably from his old enemies the Amalekites. David had an
army to feed, to exercise, and to keep out of mischief; but it
is probable that the war against Abner generally occupied it
sufficiently. Now however he determined to signalize his new
power by a great exploit. The strength of Jerusalem had been
sufficiently proved by the long secure dwelling of Jebusites
in it, surrounded by a Hebraized population. Hebron was no
longer a suitable place for the centre of David's
administration; but Jerusalem, on the frontier of Benjamin and
Judah, without separating him from his own tribe, gave him a
ready access to the plains of Jericho below, and thereby to
the eastern districts; and although by no means a central
position, it was less remote from Ephraim than Hebron. Of this
Jebusite town he therefore determined to possess himself. …
The Jebusites were so confident of their safety, as to send to
David an enigmatical message of defiance; which may be
explained,—that a lame and blind garrison was sufficient to
defend the place. David saw in this an opportunity of
displacing Joab from his office of chief captain,—if indeed
Joab formally held that office as yet, and had not merely
assumed authority as David's eldest nephew and old comrade in
arms. The king however now declared, that whoever should first
scale the wall and drive off its defenders, should be made
chief captain; but his hopes were signally disappointed. His
impetuous nephew resolved not to be outdone, and triumphantly
mounting the wall, was the immediate means of the capture of
the town. … Jerusalem is henceforth its name in … history;
in poetry only, and not before the times of king Hezekiah, is
it entitled Salem, or peace; identifying it with the city of
the legendary Melchisedek. David's first care was to provide
for the security of his intended capital, by suitable
fortifications. Immediately to the north of Mount Zion, and
separated from it by a slighter depression which we have
named, was another hill, called Millo in the Hebrew. … In
ancient times this seems to have been much loftier than now;
for it has been artificially lowered. David made no attempt to
include Millo (or Acra) in his city, but fortified Mount Zion
separately; whence it was afterwards called, The city of
David."
F. W. Newman,
A History of the Hebrew Monarchy,
chapter 3.
"The Jebusite city was composed of the fortress of Sion, which
must have been situated where the mosque of El Akasa now
stands, and of a lower town (Ophel) which runs down from there
to the well which they called Gihon. David took the fortress
of Sion, and gave the greater portion of the neighbouring
lands to Joab, and probably left the lower town to the
Jebusites. That population, reduced to an inferior situation,
lost all energy, thanks to the new Israelitish influx, and
played no important part in the history of Jerusalem. David
rebuilt the upper town of Sion, the citadel or millo, and all
the neighbouring quarters. This is what they called the city
of David. … David in reality created Jerusalem."
E. Renan,
History of the People of Israel,
book 2, chapter 18 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 2, section 1, B.
JERUSALEM:
Early sieges.
Jerusalem, the ancient stronghold of the Jebusites, which
remained in the hands of that Canaanite people until David
reduced it and made it the capital of his kingdom, was the
object of many sieges in its subsequent history and suffered
at the hands of many ruthless conquerors. It was taken, with
no apparent resistance, by Shishak, of Egypt, in the reign of
Rehoboam, and Solomon's temple plundered. Again, in the reign
of Amaziah, it was entered by the armies of the rival kingdom
of Israel and a great part of its walls thrown down. It was
besieged without success by the tartan or general of
Sennacherib, and captured a little later by Pharaoh Necho. In
B. C. 586 the great calamity of its conquest and destruction
by Nebuchadnezzar befell, when the survivors of its chief
inhabitants were taken captive to Babylon. Rebuilt at the
return from captivity, it enjoyed peace under the Persians;
but in the troubled times which followed the dissolution of
Alexander's Empire, Jerusalem was repeatedly pillaged and
abused by the Greeks of Egypt and the Greeks of Syria. Its
walls were demolished by Ptolemy I. (B. C. 320) and again by
Autiochus Epiphanes (B. C. 168), when a great part of the city
was likewise burned.
Josephus,
Antiquity of the Jews.
ALSO IN:
H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews.
See, also, JEWS.
JERUSALEM: B. C. 171-169.
Sack and massacre by Antiochus Epiphanes.
See JEWS: B. C. 332-167.
JERUSALEM: B. C. 63.
Siege and capture by Pompeius.
See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.
JERUSALEM: B. C. 40.
Surrendered to the Parthians.
See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.
JERUSALEM: B. C. 37.
Siege by Herod and the Romans.
See Jews: B. C. 40—A. D. 44.
JERUSALEM: A. D. 33-100.
Rise of the Christian Church.
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100.
JERUSALEM: A. D. 70.-Siege and destruction by Titus.
See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.
THE GREAT REVOLT.
JERUSALEM: A. D. 130-134.
Rebuilt by Hadrian.
Change of name.
The revolt of Bar-Kokheba.
See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.
JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.
Siege, sack and massacre by the Persians.
In the last of the wars of the Persians with the Romans, while
Heraclius occupied the throne of the Empire, at
Constantinople, and Chosroës II. filled that of the
Sassanides, the latter (A. D. 614) "sent his general,
Shahr-Barz, into the region east of the Antilibanus and took
the ancient and famous city of Damascus. From Damascus, in the
ensuing year, Shahr-Barz advanced against Palestine, and,
summoning the Jews to his aid, proclaimed a Holy War against
the Christian misbelievers, whom he threatened to enslave or
exterminate. Twenty-six thousand of these fanatics flocked to
his standard; and having occupied the Jordan region and
Galilee, Shahr-Barz in A. D. 615 invested Jerusalem, and after
a siege of eighteen days forced his way into the town and gave
it over to plunder and rapine.
{1882}
The cruel hostility of the Jews had free vent. The churches of
Helena, of Constantine, of the Holy Sepulchre, of the
Resurrection, and many others, were burnt or ruined; the
greater part of the city was destroyed; the sacred treasuries
were plundered; the relics scattered or carried off; and a
massacre of the inhabitants, in which the Jews took the chief
part, raged throughout the whole city for some days. As many
as 17,000, or, according to another account, 90,000, were
slain. Thirty-five thousand were made prisoners. Among them
was the aged patriarch, Zacharias, who was carried captive
into Persia, where he remained till his death. The Cross found
by Helena, and believed to be 'the True Cross,' was at the
same time transported to Ctesiphon; where it was preserved
with care and duly venerated by the Christian wife of
Chosroës."
G. Rawlinson,
The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 24.
See, also, ROME: A. D. 565-628.
JERUSALEM: A. D. 637.
Surrender to the Moslems.
In the winter of 637, the Arabs, then masters of the greater
part of Syria, laid siege to Jerusalem. After four months of
vigorous attack and defense, the Christian Patriarch of
Jerusalem held a parley from the walls with the Arab general,
Abu Obeidah. "'Do you not know,' said he, 'that this city is
holy, and that whoever offers violence to it draws upon his
head the vengeance of heaven?' 'We know it,' replied Abu
Obeidah, 'to be the house of the prophets, where their bodies
lie interred; we know it to be the place whence our prophet
Mahomet made his nocturnal ascent to heaven; and we know that
we are more worthy of possessing it than you are, nor will we
raise the siege until Allah has delivered it into our hands,
as he has done many other places.' Seeing there was no further
hope, the patriarch consented to give up the city, on
condition that the Caliph would come in person to take
possession and sign the articles of surrender." This proposal
being communicated to Omar, the Caliph, he consented to make
the long journey from Medina to Jerusalem, and, in due time,
he entered the Holy City, not like a conqueror, but on foot,
with his staff in his hand and wearing his simple,
much-patched Arab garb. "The articles of surrender were drawn
up in writing by Omar, and served afterwards as a model for
the Moslem leaders in other conquests. The Christians were to
build no new churches in the surrendered territory. The church
doors were to be set open to travellers, and free ingress
permitted to Mahometans by day and night. The bells should
only toll, and not ring, and no crosses should be erected on
the churches, nor shown publicly in the streets. The
Christians should not teach the Koran to their children; nor
speak openly of their religion; nor attempt to make
proselytes; nor hinder their kinsfolk from embracing Islam.
They should not assume the Moslem dress, either caps,
slippers, or turbans, nor part their hair like Moslems, but
should always be distinguished by girdles. They should not use
the Arabian language in inscriptions on their signets, nor
salute after the Moslem manner, nor be called by Moslem
surnames. They should rise on the entrance of a Moslem, and
remain standing until he should be seated. They should
entertain every Moslem traveller three days gratis. They
should sell no wine, bear no arms, and use no saddle in
riding; neither should they have any domestic who had been in
Moslem service. … The Christians having agreed to surrender
on these terms, the Caliph gave them, under his own hand, an
assurance of protection in their lives and fortunes, the use
of their churches, and the exercise of their religion."
W. Irving,
Mahomet and His Successors,
volume 2, chapter 18.
See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.
JERUSALEM: A. D. 908-1171.
In the Moslem civil wars.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST and EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171.
JERUSALEM: A. D. 1064-1076.
Great revival of pilgrimages from western Europe.
See CRUSADES: CAUSES, &c.
JERUSALEM: A. D. 1076.
Taken by the Seljuk Turks.
See CRUSADES: CAUSES, &c.
JERUSALEM: A. D. 1094.
Visit of Peter the Hermit.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094-1095.
JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099.
The Blood "Deliverance" of the Holy City by the Crusaders.
The armies of the First Crusade (see CRUSADES: A. D.
1096-1099)—the surviving remnant of them—reached Jerusalem
in June, A. D. 1099. They numbered, it is believed, but 20,000
fighting men, and an equal number of camp followers,—women,
children, non-militant priests, and the like. "Immediately
before the arrival of the Crusaders, the Mohammedans
deliberated whether they should slaughter all the Christians
in cold blood, or only fine them and expel them from the city.
It was decided to adopt the latter plan; and the Crusaders
were greeted on their arrival not only by the flying squadrons
of the enemy's cavalry, but also by exiled Christians telling
their piteous tales. Their houses had been pillaged, their
wives kept as hostages; immense sums were required for their
ransom; the churches were desecrated; and, even worse still,
the Infidels were contemplating the entire destruction of the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre. This last charge, at least, was
not true. But it added fuel to a fire which was already beyond
any control, and the chiefs gave a ready permission to their
men to carry the town, if they could, by assault." They were
repulsed with heavy loss, and driven to the operations of a
regular siege, for which their resources were limited in the
extreme. But overcoming all difficulties, and enduring much
suffering from lack of water, at the end of little more than a
month they drove the Moslems from the walls and entered the
city—on Friday, the 15th of July, A. D. 1099. "The city was
taken, and the massacre of its defenders began. The Christians
ran through the streets slaughtering as they went. At first
they spared none, neither man, woman, nor child, putting all
alike to the sword; but when resistance had ceased, and rage
was partly appeased, they began to bethink them of pillage,
and tortured those who remained alive to make them discover
their gold. As for the Jews within the city, they had fled to
their synagogue, which the Christians set on fire, and so
burned them all. The chroniclers relate, with savage joy, how
the streets were encumbered with heads and mangled bodies, and
how in the Haram Area, the sacred enclosure of the Temple, the
knights rode in blood up to the knees of their horses. Here
upwards of ten thousand were slaughtered, while the whole
number of killed amounted, according to various estimates, to
forty, seventy, and even a hundred thousand. …
{1883}
Evening fell, and the clamour ceased, for there were no more
enemies to kill, save a few whose lives had been promised by
Tancred. Then from their hiding-places in the city came out
the Christians who still remained in it. They had but one
thought, to seek out and welcome Peter the Hermit, whom they
proclaimed as their liberator. At the sight of these
Christians, a sudden revulsion of feeling seized the soldiers.
They remembered that the city they had taken was the city of
the Lord, and this impulsive soldiery, sheathing swords
reeking with blood, followed Godfrey to the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre, where they passed the night in tears and prayers
and services. In the morning the carnage began again. Those
who had escaped the first fury were the women and children. It
was now resolved to spare none. Even the three hundred to whom
Tancred had promised life were slaughtered in spite of him.
Raymond alone managed to save the lives of those who
capitulated to him from the tower of David. It took a week to
kill the Saracens, and to take away their dead bodies. Every
Crusader had a right to the first house he took possession of,
and the city found itself absolutely cleared of its old
inhabitants, and in the hands of a new population. The true
Cross, which had been hidden by the Christians during the
siege, was brought forth again, and carried in joyful
procession round the city, and for ten days the soldiers gave
themselves up to murder, plunder—and prayers! And the first
Crusade was finished."
W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
Jerusalem,
chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
C. Mills,
History of the Crusades,
volume 1, chapter 6.
J. F. Michaud,
History of the Crusades,
book 4.
JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.
The Founding of the Latin kingdom.
Eight days after their bloody conquest of the Holy City had
been achieved, "the Latin chiefs proceeded to the election of
a king, to guard and govern their conquests in Palestine. Hugh
the Great [count of Vermandois] and Stephen of Chartres had
retired with some loss of reputation, which they strove to
regain by a second crusade and an honourable death. Baldwin
was established at Edessa, and Bohemond at Antioch; and two
Roberts—the Duke of Normandy and the Count of Flanders—
preferred their fair inheritance in the West to a doubtful
competition or a barren sceptre. The jealousy and ambition of
Raymond [of Toulouse] were condemned by his own followers; and
the free, the just, the unanimous voice of the army proclaimed
Godfrey of Bouillon the first and most worthy of the champions
of Christendom. His magnanimity accepted a trust as full of
danger as of glory; but in the city where his Saviour had been
crowned with thorns the devout pilgrim rejected the name and
ensigns of royalty, and the founder of the kingdom of
Jerusalem contented himself with the modest title of Defender
and Baron of the Holy Sepulchre. His government of a single
year, too short for the public happiness, was interrupted in
the first fortnight by a summons to the field by the approach
of the vizir or sultan of Egypt, who had been too slow to
prevent, but who was impatient to avenge, the loss of
Jerusalem. His total overthrow in the battle of Ascalon sealed
the establishment of the Latins in Syria, and signalized the
valour of the French princes, who in this action bade a long
farewell to the holy wars. … After suspending before the
Holy sepulchre the sword and standard of the sultan, the new
king (he deserves the title) embraced his departing
companions, and could retain only, with the gallant Tancred,
300 knights and 2,000 foot soldiers, for the defence of
Palestine."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 58.
Godfrey lived not quite a year after his election, and was
succeeded on the throne of Jerusalem by his brother Baldwin,
the prince of Edessa, who resigned that Mesopotamian lordship
to his cousin, Baldwin du Bourg, and made haste to secure the
more tempting sovereignty. Godfrey, during his short reign,
had permitted himself to be made almost a vassal and
subordinate of the patriarch of Jerusalem—one Daimbert, a
domineering prelate from Italy. But Baldwin matched the priest
in his own grasping qualities and soon established the
kingship on a more substantial footing. He reigned eighteen
years, and when he died, in 1118, the fortunate cousin,
Baldwin du Bourg, received his crown, surrendering the
principality of Edessa to another. This Baldwin II. died in
1131, and was succeeded by Fulk or Foulque, count of Anjou,
who had lately arrived in Palestine and married Baldwin's
daughter. "The Latin dominions in the East attained their
greatest extent in the reign of King Baldwin II. … The
entire sea-coast from Tarsus in Cilicia to El-Arish on the
confines of Egypt was, with the exception of Ascalon and Gaza,
in the possession of the Franks. In the north their dominions
extended inland to Edessa beyond the Euphrates; the mountains
of Lebanon and their kindred ranges bounded them on the east
as they ran southwards; and then the Jordan and the desert
formed their eastern limits. They were divided into four
states, namely, the kingdom of Jerusalem, the county of
Tripolis, the principality of Antioch, and the county of
Edessa; the rulers of the three last held as vassals under the
king." King Fulk died in 1143 or 1144, and was succeeded by
his son, Baldwin III. Edessa was lost in the following year.
T. Keightley,
The Crusaders
chapter 2.
See, also,
CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.
JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1291.
The constitution of the kingdom.
"Godfrey was an elected king; and we have seen that his two
immediate successors owed their crowns rather to personal
merit and intrigue than to principles of hereditary
succession. But after the death of Baldwin du Bourg, the
foundation of the constitution appears to have been settled;
and the Latin state of Jerusalem may be regarded as a feudal
hereditary monarchy. There were two chief lords of the
kingdom, namely, the patriarch and the king, whose cognizance
extended over spiritual and temporal affairs. … The great
officers of the crown were the seneschal, the constable, the
marshal, and the chamberlain. … There were four chief
baronies of the kingdom, and many other lordships which had
the privileges of administering justice, coining money, and,
in short, most of those powers and prerogatives which the
great and independent nobility of Europe possessed. The first
great barony comprised the counties of Jaffa and Ascalon, and
the lordships of Ramula, Mirabel, and Ibelin. The second was
the principality of Galilee. The third included the lordships
of Sajetta, Cesarea, and Nazareth; and the fourth was the
county of Tripoli. …
{1884}
But the dignity of these four great barons is shewn by the
number of knights which they were obliged to furnish, compared
with the contributions of other nobles. Each of the three
first barons was compelled to aid the king with five hundred
knights. The service of Tripoli was performed by two hundred
knights; that of the other baronies by one hundred and
eighty-three Knights. Six hundred and sixty-six knights was
the total number furnished by the cities of Jerusalem,
Naplousa, Acre, and Tyre. The churches and the commercial
communities of every part of the kingdom provided five
thousand and seventy-five serjeants or serving men."
C. Mills,
History of the Crusades,
volume 1, chapter 8.
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 58.
See, also, ASSIZE OF JERUSALEM.
JERUSALEM: A. D. 1147-1149.
The note of alarm and the Second Crusade.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.
JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.
Decline and fall of the kingdom.
The Rise of Saladin and his conquest of the Holy City.
King Fulk was succeeded in 1144 by his son, a boy of thirteen,
who took the title of Baldwin III. and with whom his mother
associated herself on the throne. It was early in this reign
of the boy-king that Edessa was taken by Zenghi, sultan of
Aleppo, and an appeal made to Europe which called out the
miserably abortive Second Crusade. The crusade "did nothing
towards the maintenance of the waning ascendency of the
Latins. Even victories brought with them no solid result, and
in not a few instances victory was misused with a folly
closely allied to madness. … The interminable series of
wars, or rather of forays and reprisals, went on; and amidst
such contests the life of Baldwin closed [A. D. 1162] in early
manhood. … He died childless, and although some opposition
was made to his choice, his brother Almeric [or Amaury] was
elected to fill his place. Almost at the beginning of his
reign the affairs of the Latin kingdom became complicated with
those of Egypt; and the Christians are seen fighting by the
side of one Mahomedan race, tribe, or faction against
another." The Fatimite caliphs of Egypt had become mere
puppets in the hands of their viziers, and when one grand
vizier, Shawer, deposed by a rival, Dargham, appealed to the
sultan of Aleppo (Noureddin, son of Zenghi), the latter
embraced eagerly the opportunity to stretch his strong hand
towards the Fatimite throne. Among his generals was Shiracouh,
a valiant Koord, and he sent Shiracouh to Egypt to restore
Shawer to power. With Shiracouh went a young nephew of the
Koordish soldier, named Salah-ud-deen—better known in history
as Saladin. Shawer, restored to authority, quickly quarrelled
with his protectors, and endeavored to get rid of them—which
proved not easy. He sought and obtained help from the Latin
king of Jerusalem, in whose mind, too, there was the ambition
to pluck this rotten-ripe plum on the Nile. After a war of
five years duration, in which king Almeric was encouraged and
but slightly helped by the Byzantine emperor, while Noureddin
was approved and supported by the caliph of Bagdad,
Noureddin's Koord general, Shiracouh, secured the prize. Grand
vizier Shawer was put to death, and the wretched Fatimite
caliph made young Saladin his vizier, fancying he had chosen a
young man too fond of pleasure to be dangerously ambitious. He
was speedily undeceived. Saladin needed only three years to
make himself master of Egypt, and the caliph, then dying, was
stripped of his title and his sovereignty. The bold Koord took
the throne in the name of the Abbasside Caliph, at Bagdad,
summarily ending the Fatimite schism. He was still nominally
the servant of the sultan of Aleppo; but when Noureddin died,
A. D. 1178, leaving his dominions to a young son, Saladin was
able, with little resistance, to displace the latter and to
become undisputed sovereign of Mahometan Syria, Egypt, and a
large part of Mesopotamia. He now resolved to expel the Latins
from Palestine and to restore the authority of the prophet
once more in the holy places of Jerusalem. King Almeric had
died in 1173, leaving his crown to a son, Baldwin IV., who was
an unfortunate leper. The leper prince died in 1185, and the
only makeshift for a king that Jerusalem found in this time of
serious peril was one Guy of Lusignan, a vile and despised
creature, who had married the last Baldwin's sister. The Holy
Land, the Holy City and the Holy Sepulchre had this pitiful
kinglet for their defender when the potent Saladin led his
Moslems against them. The decisive battle was fought in July,
A. D. 1187, near the city of Tiberias, and is known generally
in Christian history as the Battle of Tiberias, but was called
by Mahometan annalists the Battle of Hittin. The Christians
were defeated with great slaughter; the miserable King Guy was
taken prisoner—but soon released, to make trouble; the "true
cross," most precious of all Christian relics, fell into
Saladin's irreverent hands. Tiberias, Acre, Cæsarea, Jaffa,
Berytos, Ascalon, submitted to the victor. Jerusalem was at
his mercy; but he offered its defenders and inhabitants
permission to depart peacefully from the place, having no
wish, he said, to defile its hallowed soil with blood. When
his offer was rejected, he made a vow to enter the city with
his sword and to do as the Christians had done when they waded
to their knees in blood through its streets. But when, after a
short siege of fourteen days, Jerusalem was surrendered to
him, he forgot his angry oath, and forgot the vengeance which
might not have seemed strange in that age and that place. The
sword of the victor was sheathed. The inhabitants were
ransomed at a stipulated rate, and those for whom no ransom
was paid were held as slaves. The sick and the helpless were
permitted to remain in the city for a year, with the Knights
of the Hospital—conspicuous among the enemies of Saladin and
his faith—to attend upon them. The Crescent shone
Christian-like as it rose over Jerusalem again. The Cross—the
Crusaders' Cross—was shamed. The Latin kingdom of Jerusalem
was now nearly extinct; Tyre alone held out against Saladin
and constituted the most of the kingdom of King Guy of
Lusignan.
G. W. Cox,
The Crusades,
chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
Jerusalem,
chapters 12-16.
J. F. Michaud,
History of the Crusades,
book 7.
Mrs. W. Busk,
Mediæval Popes, Emperors, Kings and Crusaders,
book 2, chapters 10-11 (volume 2).
See, also,
SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.
JERUSALEM: A. D. 1188-1192.
Attempted recovery.
The Third Crusade.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.
{1885}
JERUSALEM: A. D. 1192-1229.
The succession of nominal kings.
Guy de Lusignan, the poor creature whom Sybille, daughter of
King Amaury, married and made king of Jerusalem, lost his
kingdom fairly enough on the battle-field of Tiberias. To win
his freedom from Saladin, moreover, he renounced his claims by
a solemn oath and pledged himself to quit the soil of
Palestine forever. But oaths were of small account with the
Christian Crusaders, and with the priests who kept their
consciences. Guy got easy absolution for the trifling perjury,
and was a king once more,—waiting for the Crusaders to
recover his kingdom. But when, in 1190, his queen Sybille and
her two children died, King Guy's royal title wore a faded
look to most people and was wholly denied by many. Presently,
Conrad of Montferrat, who held possession of Tyre—the best
part of what remained in the actual kingdom of
Jerusalem—married Sybille's sister, Isabella, and claimed the
kingship in her name. King Richard of England supported Guy,
and King Philip Augustus of France, in sheer contrariness,
took his side with Conrad. After long quarreling it was
decided that Guy should wear the crown while he lived, and
that it should pass when he died to Conrad and Conrad's
children. It was Richard's wilfulness that forced this
settlement; but, after all, on quitting Palestine, in 1192,
the English king did not dare to leave affairs behind him in
such worthless hands. He bought, therefore, the abdication of
Guy de Lusignan, by making him king of Cyprus, and he gave the
crown of Jerusalem to the strong and capable Conrad. But
Conrad was murdered in a little time by emissaries of the Old
Man of the Mountain (see ASSASSINS), who accused Richard of
the instigation of the deed, and Count Henry of Champagne,
Richard's nephew, accepted his widow and his crown. Henry
enjoyed his titular royalty and his little hand-breadth of
dominion on the Syrian coast for four years, only. Then he was
killed, while defending Jaffa, and his oft-widowed widow,
Isabella, brought the Lusignans back into Palestinian history
again by marrying, for her fourth husband, Amaury de Lusignan,
who had succeeded his brother Guy, now deceased, as king of
Cyprus. Amaury possessed the two crowns, of Cyprus and
Jerusalem, until his death, when the latter devolved on the
daughter of Isabella, by her second husband, Conrad. The young
queen accepted a husband recommended by the king of France,
and approved by her barons, thus bringing a worthy king to the
worthless throne. This was John de Brienne, a good French
knight, who came to Palestine (A. D. 1210) with a little
following of three hundred knights and strove valiantly to
reconquer a kingdom for his royally entitled bride. But he
strove in vain, and fragment after fragment of his crumbling
remnant of dominion fell away until he held almost nothing
except Acre. In 1217 the king of Hungary, the duke of Austria
and a large army of crusaders came, professedly, to his help,
but gave him none. The king of Hungary got possession of the
head of St. Peter, the right hand of St. Thomas and one of the
wine vessels of the marriage feast at Cana, and hastened home
with his precious relics. The other crusaders went away to
attack Egypt and brought their enterprise to a miserable end.
Then King John de Brienne married his daughter Yolante, or
Iolanta, to the German emperor, or King of the Romans,
Frederick II., and surrendered to that prince his rights and
claims to the kingship of Jerusalem. Frederick, at war with
the Pope, and under the ban of the Church, went to Palestine,
with 600 knights, and contrived by clever diplomacy and
skilful pressure to secure a treaty with the sultan of Egypt
(A. D. 1229), which placed Jerusalem, under some conditions,
in his hands, and added other territory to the kingdom which
he claimed by right of his wife. He entered Jerusalem and
there set the crown on his own head; for the patriarch, the
priests, and the monk-knights, of the Hospital and the Temple,
shunned him and refused recognition to his work. But Frederick
was the only "King of Jerusalem" after Guy de Lusignan, who
wore a crown in the Holy City, and exercised in reality the
sovereignty to which he pretended. Frederick returned to Italy
in 1229 and his kingdom in the East was soon as shadowy and
unreal as that of his predecessors had been.
W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
Jerusalem,
chapters 15 and 18.
ALSO IN:
J. F. Michaud,
History of the Crusades,
books 8-12.
See, also,
CRUSADES: 1188-1192, and 1216-1229;
and CYPRUS: A. D. 1192-1489.
JERUSALEM: A. D. 1242.
Sack and massacre by the Carismians.
After the overthrow of the Khuarezmian (Korasmian or
Carismian) empire by the Mongols, its last prince, Gelaleddin,
or Jalalu-d-Din, implacably pursued by those savage
conquerors, fought them valiantly until he perished, at last,
in Kurdistan. His army, made up of many mercenary bands,
Turkish and other, then scattered, and two, at least, among
its wandering divisions played important parts in subsequent
history. Out of one of those Khuarezmian squadrons rose the
powerful nation of the Ottoman Turks. The other invaded Syria.
"The Mussulman powers of Syria several times united in a
league against the Carismians, and drove them back to the
other side of the Euphrates. But the spirit of rivalry which
at all times divided the princes of the family of Saladin,
soon recalled an enemy always redoubtable notwithstanding
defeats. At the period of which we are speaking, the princes
of Damascus, Carac, and Emessa had just formed an alliance
with the Christians of Palestine; they not only restored
Jerusalem, Tiberias, and the principality of Galilee to them,
but they promised to join them in the conquest of Egypt, a
conquest for which the whole of Syria was making preparations.
The sultan of Cairo, to avenge himself upon the Christians who
had broken the treaties concluded with him, to punish their
new allies, and protect himself from their invasion,
determined to apply for succour to the hordes of Carismia; and
sent deputies to the leaders of these barbarians, promising to
abandon Palestine to them, if they subdued it. This
proposition was accepted with joy, and 20,000 horsemen,
animated by a thirst for booty and slaughter, hastened from
the further parts of Mesopotamia, disposed to be subservient
to the vengeance or anger of the Egyptian monarch. On their
march they ravaged the territory of Tripoli and the
principality of Galilee, and the flames which everywhere
accompanied their steps announced their arrival to the
inhabitants of Jerusalem. Fortifications scarcely commenced,
and the small number of warriors in the holy city, left not
the least hope of being able to repel the unexpected attacks
of such a formidable enemy.
{1886}
The whole population of Jerusalem resolved to fly, under the
guidance of the knights of the Hospital and the Temple. There
only remained in the city the sick and a few inhabitants who
could not make their minds up to abandon their homes and their
infirm kindred. The Carismians soon arrived, and having
destroyed a few intrenchments that had been made in their
route, they entered Jerusalem sword in hand, massacred all
they met, and … had recourse to a most odious stratagem to
lure back the inhabitants who had taken flight. They raised
the standards of the cross upon every tower, and set all the
bells ringing." The retreating Christians were deceived. They
persuaded themselves that a miracle had been wrought; "that
God had taken pity on his people, and would not permit the
city of Christ to be defiled by the presence of a sacrilegious
horde. Seven thousand fugitives, deceived by this hope,
returned to Jerusalem and gave themselves up to the fury of
the Carismians, who put them all to the sword. Torrents of
blood flowed through the streets and along the roads. A troop
of nuns, children, and aged people, who had sought refuge in
the church of the Holy Sepulchre, were massacred at the foot
of the altars. The Carismians finding nothing among the living
to satisfy their fury, burst open the sepulchres, and gave the
coffins and remains of the dead up to the flames; the tomb of
Christ, that of Godfrey of Bouillon, the sacred relics of the
martyrs and heroes of the faith,—nothing was respected, and
Jerusalem then witnessed within its walls such cruelties and
profanations as had never taken place in the most barbarous
wars, or in days marked by the anger of God." Subsequently the
Christians of Palestine rallied, united their forces with
those of the Moslem princes of Damascus and Emessa, and gave
battle to the Carismians on the plains of Gaza; but they
suffered a terrible defeat, leaving 30,000 dead on the field.
Nearly all Palestine was then at the mercy of the savages, and
Damascus was speedily subjugated. But the sultan of Cairo,
beginning to fear the allies he had employed, turned his arms
sharply against them, defeated them in two successive battles,
and history tells nothing more of the career of these last
adventurers of the Carismian or Khuarezmian name.
J. F. Michaud,
History of the Crusades,
book 13.
ALSO IN:
C. G. Addison,
The Knights Templars,
chapter 6.
JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291.
The end of the Christian kingdom.
The surviving title of "King of Jerusalem."
"Since the death of the Emperor Frederic II. [A. D. 1250], the
baseless throne of Jerusalem had found a claimant in Hugh de
Lusignan, King of Cyprus, who, as lineally descended from
Alice, daughter of Queen Isabella, was, in fact, the next
heir, after failure of issue by the marriage of Frederic and
Iolanta de Brienne. His claims were opposed by the partisans
of Charles of Anjou, King of the Sicilies,—that wholesale
speculator in diadems. … He rested his claim upon the double
pretensions of a papal title to all the forfeited dignities of
the imperial house of Hohenstauffen, and of a bargain with
Mary of Antioch; whose rights, although she was descended only
from a younger sister of Alice, he had eagerly purchased. But
the prior title of the house of Cyprus was more generally
recognised in Palestine; the coronation of Hugh had been
celebrated at Tyre; and the last idle pageant of regal state
in Palestine was exhibited by the race of Lusignan. At length
the final storm of Mussulman war broke upon the phantom king
and his subjects. It was twice provoked by the aggressions of
the Latins themselves, in plundering the peaceable Moslem
traders, who resorted, on the faith of treaties, to the
Christian marts on the Syrian coast. After a vain attempt to
obtain redress for the first of these violations of
international law, Keladun, the reigning sultan of Egypt and
Syria, revenged the infraction of the existing ten years'
truce by a renewal of hostilities with overwhelming force;
yearly repeated his ravages of the Christian territory; and at
length, tearing the city and county of Tripoli—the last
surviving great fief of the Latin kingdom—from its
dilapidated crown, dictated the terms of peace to its
powerless sovereign (A. D. 1289)." Two years later, a
repetition of lawless outrages on Moslem merchants at Acre
provoked a last wrathful and implacable invasion. "At the head
of an immense army of 200,000 men, the Mameluke prince entered
Palestine, swept the weaker Christian garrisons before him,
and encamped under the towers of Acre (A. D. 1291). That city,
which, since the fall of Jerusalem, had been for a century the
capital of the Latin kingdom, was now become the last refuge
of the Christian population of Palestine. Its defences were
strong, its inhabitants numerous; but any state of society
more vicious, disorderly, and helpless than its condition, can
scarcely be imagined. Within its walls were crowded a
promiscuous multitude, of every European nation, all equally
disclaiming obedience to a general government, and enjoying
impunity for every crime under the nominal jurisdiction of
independent tribunals. Of these there were no less than
seventeen; in which the papal legate, the king of Jerusalem,
the despoiled great feudatories of his realm, the three
military orders, the colonies of the maritime Italian
republics, and the representatives of the princes of the West,
all arrogated sovereign rights, and all abused them by the
venal protection of offenders. … All the wretched
inhabitants who could find such opportunities of escape,
thronged on board the numerous vessels in the harbour, which
set sail for Europe; and the last defence of Acre was
abandoned to about 12,000 men, for the most part the soldiery
of the three military orders. From that gallant chivalry, the
Moslems encountered a resistance worthy of its ancient renown
and of the extremity of the cause for which its triple
fraternity had sworn to die. But the whole force of the
Mameluke empire, in its yet youthful vigour, had been
collected for their destruction." After a fierce siege of
thirty-three days, one of the principal defensive works,
described in contemporary accounts as "the Cursed Tower," was
shattered, and the besiegers entered the city. The cowardly
Lusignan had escaped by a stolen flight the night before. The
Teutonic Knights, the Templars and the Hospitallers stood
their ground with hopeless valor. Of the latter only seven
escaped. "Bursting through the city, the savage victors
pursued to the strand the unarmed and fleeing population, who
had wildly sought a means of escape, which was denied not less
by the fury of the elements than by the want of sufficient
shipping.
{1887}
By the relentless cruelty of their pursuers, the sands and the
waves were dyed with the blood of the fugitives; all who
survived the first horrid massacre were doomed to a hopeless
slavery; and the last catastrophe of the Crusades cost life or
liberty to 60,000 Christians. … The Christian population of
the few maritime towns which had yet been retained fled to
Cyprus, or submitted their necks, without a struggle, to the
Moslem yoke; and, after a bloody contest of two hundred years,
the possession of the Holy Land was finally abandoned to the
enemies of the Cross. The fall of Acre closes the annals of
the Crusades."
Colonel G. Procter,
History of the Crusades,
chapter 5, section 5.
J. F. Michaud,
History of the Crusades,
book 15 (volume 3).
Actual royalty in the legitimate line of the Lusignan family
ends with a queen Charlotte, who was driven from Cyprus in
1464 by her bastard brother James. She made over to the house
of Savoy (one of the members of which she had married) her
rights and the three crowns she wore,—the crown of Armenia
having been added to those of Jerusalem and Cyprus in the
family. "The Dukes of Savoy called themselves Kings of Cyprus
and Jerusalem from the date of Queen Charlotte's settlement;
the Kings of Naples had called themselves Kings of Jerusalem
since the transfer of the rights of Mary of Antioch [see
above], in 1277, to Charles of Anjou; and the title has run on
to the present day in the houses of Spain and Austria, the
Dukes of Lorraine, and the successive dynasties of Naples. …
The Kings of Sardinia continued to strike money as Kings of
Cyprus and Jerusalem, until they became Kings of Italy. There
is no recognized King of Cyprus now; but there are two or
three Kings of Jerusalem; and the Cypriot title is claimed, I
believe, by some obscure branch of the house of Lusignan,
under the will of King James II."
W. Stubbs,
Seventeen Lectures on the
Study of Medieval and Modern History,
lecture 8.
ALSO IN:
C. G. Addison,
The Knights Templars,
chapter 6.
JERUSALEM: A. D. 1299.
The Templars once more in the city.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1299.
JERUSALEM: A. D. 1516.
Embraced in the Ottoman conquests of Sultan Selim.
See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
JERUSALEM: A. D. 1831.
Taken by Mehemed Ali, Pasha of Egypt.
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
----------JERUSALEM: End----------
JERUSALEM TALMUD, The.
See TALMUD.
JESUATES, The.
"The Jesuates, so called from their custom of incessantly
crying through the streets, 'Praised be Jesus Christ,' were
founded by John Colombino, … a native of Siena. … The
congregation was suppressed … by Clement IX., because some
of the houses of the wealthy 'Padri dell' acqua vite,' as they
were called, engaged in the business of distilling liquors and
practising pharmacy (1668)."
J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
volume 3, page 149.
----------JESUITS: Start--------
JESUITS: A. D. 1540-1556.
Founding of the Society of Jesus.
System of its organization.
Its principles and aims.
"Experience had shown that the old monastic orders were no
longer sufficient. … About 1540, therefore, an idea began to
be entertained at Rome that a new order was needed; the plan
was not to abolish the old ones, but to found new ones which
should better answer the required ends. The most important of
them was the Society of Jesus. But in this case the moving
cause did not proceed from Rome. Among the wars of Charles V.
we must recur to the first contest at Navarra, in 1521. It was
on this occasion, in defending Pamplona against the French,
that Loyola received the wound which was to cause the monkish
tendency to prevail over the chivalrous element in his nature.
A kind of Catholicism still prevailed in Spain which no longer
existed anywhere else. Its vigour may be traced to the fact
that during the whole of the Middle Ages it was always in
hostile contact with Islam, with the Mohammedan infidels. The
crusades here had never come to an end. … As yet untainted
by heresy, and suffering from no decline, in Spain,
Catholicism was as eager for conquest as it had been in all
the West in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. It was from
the nation possessing this temperament that the founder of the
order of the Jesuits sprang. Ignatius Loyola (born 1491) was a
Spanish knight, possessing the two-fold tendencies which
distinguish the knighthood of the Middle Ages. He was a
gallant swordsman, delighting in martial feats and romantic
love adventures; but he was at the same time animated by a
glowing enthusiasm for the Church and her supremacy, even
during the early period of his life. These two tendencies were
striving together in his character, until the event took place
which threw him upon a bed of suffering. No sooner was he
compelled to renounce his worldly knighthood, than he was sure
that he was called upon to found a new order of spiritual
knighthood, like that of which he had read in the chivalrous
romance, 'Amadis.' Entirely unaffected by the Reformation,
what he understood by this was a spiritual brotherhood in the
true mediæval sense, which should convert the heathen in the
newly-discovered countries of the world. With all the zeal of
a Spaniard he decided to live to the Catholic Church alone; he
chastised his body with penances and all kinds of privations,
made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and, in order to complete his
defective education, he visited the university of Paris; it
was among his comrades there that he formed the first
associations out of which the order was afterwards formed.
Among these was Jacob Lainez; he was Loyola's
fellow-countryman, the organizing head who was to stamp his
impress upon the order. … Then came the spread of the new
doctrines, the mighty progress of Protestantism. No one who
was heartily attached to the old Church could doubt that there
was work for such an association, for the object now in hand
was not to make Christians of the aboriginal inhabitants of
Central America, but to reconquer the apostate members of the
Romish Church. About 1539 Loyola came with his fraternity to
Rome. He did not find favour in all circles; the old orders
regarded the new one with jealousy and mistrust; but Pope Paul
III. (1534-49) did not allow himself to be misled, and in 1540
gave the fraternity his confirmation, thus constituting
Loyola's followers an order, which, on its part, engaged 'to
obey in all things the reigning Pope—to go into any country,
to Turks, heathen, or heretics, or to whomsoever he might send
them, at once, unconditionally, without question or reward.'
It is from this time that the special history of the order
begins.
{1888}
During the next year Loyola was chosen the first general of
the order, an office which he held until his death (1541-56).
He was succeeded by Lainez. He was less enthusiastic than his
predecessor, had a cooler head, and was more reasonable; he
was the man for diplomatic projects and complete and
systematic organization. The new order differed in several
respects from any previously existing one, but it entirely
corresponded to the new era which had begun for the Romish
Church. … The construction of the new order was based and
carried out on a monarchical-military system. The territories
of the Church were divided into provinces; at the head of each
of these was a provincial; over the provincials, and chosen by
them, the general, who commanded the soldiers of Christ, and
was entrusted with dictatorial power, limited only by the
opinions of three judges, assistants or admonitors. The
general has no superior but the Pope, with whom he
communicates directly; he appoints and dismisses all
officials, issues orders as to the administration of the
order, and rules with undisputed sway. The absolute monarchy
which was assigned to the Pope by the Council of Trent, was
conferred by him on the general of the Jesuits. Among the four
vows of poverty, chastity, obedience, and subjection to the
Pope, obedience was the soul of all. To learn and practise
this physically and mentally, up to the point where, according
to the Jesuit expression, a man becomes 'tanquam lignum et
cadaver,' was the ruling principle of the institution. …
Entire renunciation of the will and judgment in relation to
everything commanded by the superior, blind obedience,
unconditional subjection, constitute their ideal. There was
but one exception, but even in this there was a reservation.
It was expressly stated that there can be no obligation 'ad
peccatum mortale vel veniale,' to sinful acts of greater or
less importance, 'except when enjoined by the superior, in the
name of Jesus Christ,' 'vel in virtute obedientiæ,'—an
elastic doctrine which may well be summed up in the dictum
that 'the end justifies the means.' Of course, all the members
of this order had to renounce all ties of family, home, and
country, and it was expressly enjoined. … Of the vow of
poverty it is said, in the 'Summarium' of the constitution of
the order, that it must be maintained as a 'murus religionis.
No one shall have any property; everyone must be content with
the meanest furniture and fare, and, if necessity or command
require it, he must be ready to beg his bread from door to
door ('ostiatim mendicare'). The external aspect of members of
the order, their speech and silence, gestures, gait, garb, and
bearing shall indicate the prescribed purity of soul. … On
all these and many other points, the new order only laid
greater stress on the precepts which were to be found among
the rules of other orders, though in the universal
demoralisation of the monastic life they had fallen into
disuse. But it decidedly differed from all the others in the
manner in which it aimed at obtaining sway in every sphere and