Jerusalem (After 1291)
(1) Political History
The Latin dominion over Jerusalem really came to an
end on 2 October, 1187, when the city opened its
gates to Saladin (Yusuf ibn Ayyub, Salah-ed-din, Emir
of Egypt, 1169-93); although fragments of the Latin
kingdom in Palestine lasted into another century.
Frederick II acquired a short possession of Jerusalem
itself by treaty later, and the title "King of Jerusalem"
added an empty splendour to the styles of various European sovereigns almost
to our own time. Nevertheless after 1187 the episode of Christian and Latin rule
over the Holy City is closed. From that time it falls back again into its former
state of a city under Moslem government, in which Christian pilgrims are at best
only tolerated.
As soon as Saladin's army entered the city they set and to destroy all traces of
the Christian rule. They tore the great gilt cross from the Dome of the Rock,
broke up the bells, plundered churches and convents, restored all the buildings
that had been mosques (notably the Dome of the Rock and the El-Aqsa
mosque), turned other churches into stables or granaries, founded Moslem
schools, hospitals, and all the pious institutions that go by the general name of
waqf. While Europe was thunderstruck at the loss of the Holy City, and was
preparing a new crusade to recapture it, letters were sent to all parts of the
Moslem world announcing the glad tidings that El-Quds was now purified and
restored to the true believers. But -- true to the promise made by Omar (see
above) -- Saladin left the Holy Sepulchre, as well as a few other churches, to the
Christians (the Orthodox). For the use of these they had to pay a heavy tribute.
The church of the Knights of St. John was turned into a hospital (at the place still
called Muristan, where the German Protestant church now stands). Saladin
further strengthened the walls of the city when the Third Crusade (with King
Richard of England) approached and threatened it (1191). In 1219 the Sultan
Malik-el-Mu'azzam (d. 1227, viceroy at Damascus for El-Mansur) ordered these
walls to be destroyed, lest they should become a protection for the Franks. In
1229 another short interlude began. Emperor Frederick II (1212-5O) came on his
(the Fifth) Crusade. He obtained by treaty with the Sultan of Egypt, El-Kamil
(1219-38), possession of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth, and the pilgrim roads
from Jaffa and 'Akka for ten years and a half. The city was not to be fortified, and
the Haram esh-sherif (the Temple area) was to remain in exclusive possession of
the Moslems. In 1239 the Emir of Kerak, En-nasir Daud, conquered Jerusalem
again and destroyed the Tower of David. But in 1243 he made over the city to the
Latins without any stipulations. This led to the final loss of the city. For Essalih
Ayyub, Caliph of Egypt (1238-49), then called on the savage Khwarizmian tribes
from Mesopotamia to recapture it. They poured over Syria plundering and
murdering, and in September, 1244, stormed Jerusalem. In the massacre that
followed 7000 Christians perished; Jerusalem was restored once more, and
finally, to the Empire of the Caliph. From this time the remaining Latin
possessions in Palestine were lost one by one in quick succession. The last
town, 'Akka (Saint-Jean d'Acre), fell in 1291.
The title "King of Jerusalem" went from Guy of Lusignan (King of Jerusalem and
Cyprus, 1186-92) to Henry of Champagne (1192-7), to whom it was already only
a title of pretence since the Moslems ruled in the city. Amaury (Amalric) of
Lusignan (brother of Guy), King of Cyprus (1194-1205), was elected king by the
crusading army at Tyre, and married Isabel, daughter of Amaury I of Jerusalem
(1162-73). He then added the title of Jerusalem to that of Cyprus (Amaury II).
From his time the Lusignan kings of Cyprus used the title of Jerusalem and
quartered its arms (argent, a cross potent between four crosslets or) with their
paternal coat (barry of ten azure and argent, a lion rampant or, crowned gules.
See the arms of "die conine von cipers" in Gelre's Wapenboeck, 1334-72). The
Lusignan "Kingdom of Jerusalem and Cyprus" came to an end in 1474, when
Catherine Cornaro, widow of the last king (James III) abdicated in favour of the
Republic of Venice. Whatever rights they may be supposed to have had to the
title of Jerusalem passed to the House of Savoy. Meanwhile, at the death of
Amaury II (1205), John of Brienne who married Mary, daughter of the same Isabel
and Conrad of Montferrat, began a rival line of titular Kings of Jerusalem. His
daughter Isabel (Iolanthe), married Emperor Frederick II, who then assumed the
title, and (as we have seen) for a short time actually reigned in Jerusalem. He
crowned himself in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on l7 March, 1229. After
him the title was borne by his descendants to Conradin (d. 1268). Then Hugh III,
prince of Antioch (1267-80) and regent of the scattered Latin possessions in
Palestine for the absent kings of this line, began another series of titular Kings of
Jerusalem. He was crowned at Tyre in 1269. His claim was maintained by his
son Henry at 'Akka. But Mary of Antioch,also descended from Isabel, set up a
claim to this visionary crown, and then sold it to her grand-nephew, Charles of
Anjou, King of Sicily (l285-l309), who had already obtained another claim by
marrying Margaret, grand-daughter of John of Brienne. While the Moslems were
gaining ground and driving back the thin remnant of the Latin kingdom every year,
the Sicilians and the party of Hugh of Antioch were fighting for the empty title.
Eventually the kings of Sicily added it to their style, and "Jerusalem and the two
Sicilies" existed as a "royal title down to the Italian revolution (1860). Lastly, the
House of Habsburg also added this shadowy royalty to its long list of titles.
Iolanthe-daughter of Rene the Good (d. 1480), titular King of Jerusalem and
Naples-married Duke Frederick of Lorraine; from her the title came to the Dukes
of Lorraine, and so, through Maria Theresa's marriage with Francis of Lorraine
(1736), to the House of Austria. The arms of Jerusalem formed one of the
fifty-eight quarterings of the Imperial Arms of Austria; and "Koenig von Jerusalem"
was one of the emperor's long string of titles, till Ferdinand I (1835-48) had the
good sense to reduce both quarterings and titles to those that had a real
meaning. The story of this title of Jerusalem forms a curious bypath in history,
and is a typical example of the pretence that medieval heralds loved. Meanwhile,
the Moslem ruled again over the Holy City. The crusading idea lingered on in the
West for centuries. Pope Pius II (1458-64) still hoped to renew the work of Urban
II; but nothing ever came of these attempts. Jerusalem was lost to Christendom
in 1187; it is lost still.
Till the sixteenth century Syria belonged to the caliphs in Egypt; but it was
constantly overrun for short periods by their various enemies. In the thirteenth
century the Mongols, who had destroyed the line of caliphs at Baghdad, poured
over Syria plundering and destroying under their chief Hulagu (capture of Aleppo,
1260). Kutuz (1259-60) sent his famous general, Beibars el-bundukdari , by
whom the Mongols were driven out. Beibars then had Kutuz murdered and
reigned as caliph in his stead (1260-77). He succeeded in driving the Crusaders
nearly back to their last stronghold, 'Akka, crushed the "Assassins"
(Hashishiye)-fanatical Isma'ilis who had been the terror of Syria for nearly two
centuries-and conquered a great part of Asia Minor. The name of Beibars (Es
sultan el-malik ez-zahir, rukn-ed-dunga wa-din, "The sultan, the manifest king,
prop of the world and the faith") may be seen on many monuments in Jerusalem.
Kala'un (1279-90) deposed Beibars' son, made himself caliph, further harassed
the Crusaders, and built splendid monuments all over Syria. In 1400 the Mongols
under Timur again devastated the land.
Meanwhile the Osmanli Turks were becoming the dominant race in Islam. In
1516 under Sultan Selim I (1512-20), after they had crushed the Persians (1514),
they turned southward towards Syria. On 14 August, 1516, Selim routed the
Egyptian army and killed the Caliph Kansuh el-Ghuri. On 22 January, 1517,
Selim entered Cairo in triumph. Mutawekkil, the last Egyptian caliph, died a
captive of the Turks in 1538, bequeathing his title to the conquering House of
Osman. It is on the strength of this (quite illegal) legacy that the Turkish sultan
still calls himself Caliph of Islam. From this time the Turk has been master of
Jerusalem. In 1799 Napoleon I invaded Syria and reached Nazareth. In 1831 the
Egyptian army under Ibrahim Pasha defeated the Turks near Homs (Emessa),
and kept possession of Syria and Jerusalem till England and Austria conquered
them back for the Turks in 1840. During the nineteenth century Syria has had her
share of various Turkish reforms. Jerusalem and the holy places especially, as
being the most interesting parts of the empire to Christians and the scene of
continual Christian pilgrimages, were the places where the Turkish government
was most anxious to show that its reforms were really meant. The great number
of Christian institutions of various sects and the large Christian population of
Jerusalem have almost taken from it the appearance of an Eastern town. The
latest development is the enormous increase of Jews who, in spite of repeated
attempts on the part of the government to keep them out, form large colonies in
and around the city. They and the European Christians are now the predominant
element. There are no cities of the Turkish Empire where (in 1913) Moslems were
so little in evidence as in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth.
(2) The Holy Sepulchre
The Crusaders found the group of buildings as they had been left by Constantine
IX's restoration (1048; see above). From 1140 to 1149 they made a complete
restoration of the whole under their architect Master Jordan. The effect of this
was a great French-Romanesque cathedral. At the east of the round building over
the Anastasis a transept, and beyond it a choir and an apse were built; an aisle
surrounded the choir and apse. At the junction with the round building they put a
triumphal arch. All the various chapels opened into the central church. From the
apse steps led down to the chapel of St. Helena. The entrance was at the south.
In this way the Holy Sepulchre became one great building. From the choir one
could see into the Anastasis and into all the chapels. This Crusaders' Church is
the one that still stands: the beautiful Romanesque doors, at the south
especially, still give it a Western appearance. Slight restorations were made in
1244, 1310, 1400 and 1719. In 1808 the round building was burnt down. The
Orthodox persuaded the Turkish government to allow them alone to restore it.
Their architect closed up the triumphal arch, thus again destroying the unity of
the whole, and replaced the old columns of the rotunda by clumsy pillars. He
also enclosed the tomb in the present marble covering. The choir of the
Crusaders' Church became the present Orthodox Katholikon. The arches
between it and its aisles were walled up; the aisles became dark passages. The
cupola they built over the rotunda threatened to fall in 1869. France and Russia
together had it restored by the iron dome that still exists. It was the dispute
between Catholics and Orthodox as to the keys of the Holy Sepulchre that
immediately caused the Crimean War (1853). All the parts of the church now
needed repairs which were not executed, because no religion would allow the
other to undertake them for fear of disturbing their various rights. The inside of the
cupola over the Anastasis especially was rotting daily. But the reparation of the
roof was the most dangerous of all, since by Turkish law the right to repair
implied possession and the possession of a roof meant possession of all it
covers. In the present building, walled up and divided into a complex mass of
dark passages and chapels laden with tawdry ornament, it is still possible to
trace the plan of the great Crusaders' Church. For the rights of the various
religions see below.
(3) The Orthodox Patriarchate
Through all the political changes, under Saracens, Egyptians, and Turks, the old
line of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem (who followed the Church of Constantinople
into schism in the eleventh century) goes on. But there is little to tell of their
history. The line was often broken, and there have been many disputed
successions. For the list of these patriarchs since Sophronius see Le Quien,
"Oriens Christianus", III, 498-516. When the Crusaders took Jerusalem (1099),
the Orthodox patriarch (Simon II) fled to Cyprus. As long as the former held the
city, it was impossible for the schismatical rival of their Latin patriarchs to live in
it. In 1142 the Orthodox continued their line by electing Arsenius II: he resided at
Constantinople. After the Moslems had recaptured the city, the Orthodox
patriarchs came back and lived in or near it. The only event of any importance in
the later history of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem is the Synod of
Jerusalem (often wrongly called the Synod of Bethlehem) in 1672. This synod
represents the climax of the Orthodox reaction against the heresies of Cyril
Lucaris (d. 1638). Cyril was Patriarch of Constantinople (Cyril I) at five separate
intervals (1620-3, 1623-30, 1630-4, 1634-5, 1637-8); he had imbibed Protestant
ideas from his friends in Germany and England. As patriarch he organized -- or
tried to organize -- a reforming party, and he wrote in 1629 a famous
"Confession" (Eastern Confession of the Christian Faith), which was full of pure
Calvinism. Eventually Lucaris was accused of treason against the sultan, and
strangled by the janizaries in 1638. He left a certain number of Protestantizing
disciples, but the enormous majority of the Orthodox abhorred his new doctrines.
In the years following his death four synods were held -- at Constantinople
(1639), Yassy in Moldavia (1643), Jerusalem (1672), and Constantinople again
(1672) in which the Orthodox faith was asserted against Protestantism in the
most uncompromising terms. Of these synods that of Jerusalem was by far the
most important. It is indeed one of the most important, as it is the last, of the
official pronouncements of the Orthodox Church, and may be compared to our
Council of Trent. Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem (1669-1707), who summoned
the synod, was certainly the most distinguished bishop of that line during this
Iater period. He was one of the most important and learned of all modern
Orthodox theologians. As patriarch he desuade the Turkish Government to expel
Latins and Armenians from the holy places, and reorganized the monasteries of
his patriarchate on a stricter basis. As a theologian he wrote works against
Catholics, and collected evidences from former writers about the various
questions that were being discussed in his time -- the eternal questions of the
papacy and the procession of the Holy Ghost, the Hesychast controversy, etc.,
and then, most of all, the new questions raised by Lucaris and his friends. His
chief works are Tomos katallages (1692), Tomos agapes (1699), Tomos charas
(1705). In the first of these he publishes the acts of a pretended Synod of
Constantinople against the Latins in 1540. No such synod was held; the acts are
a palpable forgery. Dositheus also wrote a "History of the Patriarchs of
Jerusalem", published after his death (Bukarest, 1715). This work contains more
than is promised by its title. It almost amounts to a general history of the Church
from the Orthodox side with vehement polemics against other Churches.
But Dositheus's chief work was the Synod of Jerusalem. He summoned it on the
occasion of consecrating a church at Bethlehem in 1672 (hence the common
name "Synod of Bethlehem"). It met in the same year at Jerusalem. The acts are
signed by Dositheus, his predecessor the ex-patriarch Nectarius, six
metropolitans and bishops, the Archimandrite of the Holy Sepulchre, Josaphat,
and a great number of other archimandrites, priests, monks, and theologians.
There are sixty-eight signatures in all. The Church of Russia was represented by
a monk, Timothy. The acts are dated 20 March, 1672; they bear the title: "Christ
guides. A shield of the Orthodox Faith, or the Apology composed by the Synod
of Jerusalem under the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus against the Calvinist
heretics, who falsely say that the Eastern Church thinks heretically about God
and Divine things as they do." The first part begins by quoting the text: "There is
a time to speak and a time to be silent," which text is explained and enlarged
upon at length. It tells the story of the summoning of the synod, and vehemently
denies that the Orthodox Eastern Church ever held the opinions attributed to
Lucaris. To show this the relations between the Lutherans and Jeremias II of
Constantinople are quoted as well as the acts of former synods (Constantinople
and Yassy). An elaborate attempt is then made to prove that Lucaris did not
really write the famous "Confession". To do this the "Confession" is compared
clause by clause with other statements made by him in sermons and in other
works. This denial, it should be noted, is a palpable piece of bad faith on the part
of the synod. There is no doubt at all as to the authenticity of Lucaris's
"Confession". That he used other language on other occasions, especially in
preaching, is well-known and very natural. In chapter ii the synod declares that in
any case Lucaris showed the "Confession" to no one (this is also quite false),
and tries to find further reasons for doubting his authorship. Chapter iii maintains
that, even if he had written it, it would not thereby become a confession of the
Faith of the Orthodox Church, but would remain merely the private opinion of a
heretic: here the Fathers are on safe ground. Chapter iv defends -- no longer Cyril
but -- the Orthodox Church by quoting her formularies, and contains a list of
anathemas against the heresies of the "Confessions". Chapter v again tries to
defend Cyril by quoting various deeds and sayings of his and transcribes the
whole decree of the synod of Constantinople in 1639, and then that of Yassy
(Giasion) in 1641. Chapter vi gives the decrees of this synod in the form of a
"Confession of Dositheus". It has eighteen decrees (horoi), then four "questions"
(eroteseis) with long answers. In these all the points denied by Lucaris's
"Confession" (Church and Bible, predestination, cult. of saints, sacraments, the
Real Presence, the liturgy, a real sacrifice, etc.) are maintained at great length
and in the most uncompromising way. A short epilogue closes the acts. Then
follow the date, signatures, and seals.
Because of its determined anti-Protestantism (Protestants are described as
being patently heretics and airetikon koryphaiotatoi), Protestant writers have
described this synod as a work of the Jesuits, of the French ambassador at that
time, Olivier de Nointel, and of other Catholics who were undermining the Eastern
Church. It is true that the Synod of Jerusalem represents a strongly Catholic
reaction after Lucaris's troubles (it accepts and defends the word
transubstantiation -- metousiosis -- for instance). It is all the more remarkable
that its decrees have been accepted unreservedly by the whole Orthodox Church.
They were at once approved by the other patriarchs, the Church of Russia, etc.;
they are always printed in full among the symbolic books of the Orthodox
Church, and form an official creed or declaration in the strictest sense, which
every Orthodox Christian is bound to accept.
An affair that concerned the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem was that of the
independence of the great monastery of Mount Sinai. This monastery, one of the
richest and most famous of Eastern Christendom, was undoubtedly at one time
subject to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Jerusalem. In 1782, after a great
struggle, the Abbot of Mount Sinai succeeded in asserting his independence of
any patriarch. As Archbishop of Sinai the abbot now reigns over the smallest
autocephalous Church of their communion. But he is still ordained in Jerusalem,
and the patriarchs have constantly tried to assert some kind of authority over
their independent daughter-church. The last great quarrel was in 1866, when the
archbishop (Cyril Byzantius) had a dispute with his monks. Instead of applying to
Jerusalem he wrote to Constantinople for help. Sophronius III of Constantinople
(1863-67) at once took up his cause against the monks. The Patriarch of
Jerusalem then summoned a synod (1867), in which he protested hotly against
the interference of Constantinople. Less for the sake of Jerusalem's shadowy
rights over Sinai than because of the ever-welcome chance of opposing the
arrogant interference of Constantinople, the other Orthodox Churches all
supported Jerusalem, so that Byzantius was deposed and the Patriarch of
Constantinople had to resign. But that is the last attempt made by Jerusalem to
interfere in the affairs of what is now universally recognized as the autocephalous
Church of Sinai.
During these centuries the patriarchate, never very rich, suffered from steadily
increasing poverty. Dositheus complained bitterly of this. He says that
pilgrimages are rarer, and that the pilgrims who do come bring little money; he
himself is obliged to travel constantly for the sake of collecting alms to
Constantinople, Russia, Moldavia, etc. A result of the Turkish conquest was that
since 1517 the Patriarchs of Jerusalem have been subject to their brothers of
Constantinople in civil matters, as far as the government is concerned. The Turks
made the ecumenical Patriarch civil head of all the "Roman nation" (rum millet),
that is the Orthodox Church. The other patriarchs can approach the Porte only
through him. This civil authority must not be confused with ecclesiastical
jurisdiction. In Orthodox canon law the Church of Jerusalem is autocephalous,
having no superior authority but that of Christ and the Seven Councils.
Jerusalem, like the other free branches of their communion, has always
indignantly withstood the many attempts of Constantinople to assert a kind of
papal authority, and has always upheld the axiom that that ecumenical bishop
has no ecclesiastical jurisdiction outside his patriarchate. Nevertheless, during
these centuries till quite modern times, the independence of Jerusalem was only
theoretical. The patriarchs were all Greeks. Originally, under the Egyptian rule,
they had been Arabs, taken naturally from the native clergy of Palestine. But in
1534 Germanus, a Greek of the Peloponnesus, succeeded in being elected and
from that time to this his successors have all been Greeks. Germanus further
succeeded in hellenizing all the administration of his patriarchate: the monks of
the Holy Sepulchre, the bishops, archimandrites, and officials of the patriarchal
court are all Greeks. It became a recognized principle that no native Arab should
ever be appointed to any office in the patriarchate. The result of this is that for
over three centuries the patriarchal curia of Jerusalem has been and remains a
foreign colony in the land, utterly separate from the native Arab lower clergy and
the people. But this state of things will soon come to an end. Following the
triumphant example of Antioch there is at this moment a great agitation among
the Orthodox Arabs to assert their place in their own patriarchate. And as they
are supported by Russia they will succeed. The reigning patriarch, Damianus,
though of course a Greek, is not unfriendly to the Arab agitators. On the other
hand the monks, the "Fraternity of the Holy Sepulchre", stand out as a bulwark
of Orthodoxy for the present state of things, and treat the Arabs as schismatical
revolutionaries. Everyone has heard of the scandalous riots that took place in
1908, and culminated in the pretended deposition of the patriarch. Till quite
lately, moreover, most of these Greek patriarchs did not even take the trouble to
reside in their titular city. Mere servants of the oecumenical bishop, having no
interest in their Arab flock, they were content to fritter away their lives in
Constantinople, useless ornaments of the Phanar. Since the accession of Cyril II
(1845-72), this abuse has been removed and the patriarchs live near the
Monastery of the Holy Sepulchre.
Meanwhile the sees of the patriarchate have almost entirely disappeared. In
Juvenal's time (420-58) fifty-nine bishops in the three Palestines obeyed the new
patriarch. The Moslem conquest, the Crusades, and the other troubles of the
Orthodox Church in Syria gradually reduced this number, till there are now only a
handful of titular bishops who reside at Jerusalem instead of in their dioceses,
and a few sees whose titles are registered but are always vacant. In 1913 only
one bishop (the Metropolitan of 'Akka) lived in his diocese (see the list below).
The full list of patriarchs of Jerusalem during this period will be found in Le Quien,
"Oriens Christianus", III; for the later ones see Williams, "Holy City", I, pp. 487-8.
The patriarchs in the nineteenth century are: Anthimus, 1787-1808; Polycarp,
1808-27; Athanasius V, 1827-45; Cyril II, 1845-72. The last-mentioned refused to
sign the excommunication of the Bulgars in 1872, and was deposed the same
year. Procopius was intruded while Cyril still claimed to be patriarch. Russia and
the native Arabs acknowledged Cyril, the Phanar and nearly all the rest of the
Orthodox world Procopius. Russia deposed Procopius in 1875, and Cyril died.
Russia then appointed Hierotheus, who, however, to everyone's surprise took the
side of the Phanar in the Bulgarian quarrel. So Russia fell foul of him, and took
the opportunity of confiscating the property of the Holy Sepulchre in Bessarabia.
Hierotheus died in 1882. There were then three candidates for the vacant see,
Nicodemus, Gerasimus and Photius. Photius (always a determined enemy of
Russia) was elected canonically. But the Russians made the sultan refuse him
the berat, and give it to Nicodemus instead. Gerasimus became Patriarch of
Antioch in 1885. Photius went back to his monastery at Sinai. Nicodemus
reigned from 1883 to 1890. In 1890 the Phanar persuaded the sultan to depose
Nicodemus, and give the berat to Photius. Nicodemus retired to Halki. But the
Russians absolutely refused to allow Photius to become patriarch. So the third
original candidate, Gerasimus, was persuaded to leave Antioch and come to
Jerusalem. He reigned from 1891 to 1897. Photius became Metropolitan of
Nazareth, and in 1899 Patriarch of Alexandria. Gerasimus died in 1897 and the
Russians tried to have their candidate Euthymius, Archimandrite of the Holy
Sepulehre, appointed. But the candidate of the Phanar, Damianus, Metropolitan
of Philadelphia, was appointed in 1897. For further information about the
Orthodox patriarchate see below.
(4) The Catholic Church in Jerusalem
The organization of the Catholics in Palestine dates from the time of the
Crusades. As soon as Godfrey of Bouillon became King of Jerusalem in 1099, a
Latin patriarchate was set up. Arnulf, chaplain of the Normans, was made
administrator of this patriarchate by the synod held in Jerusalem at Christmas,
1099. But he was soon set aside because of his immoral life, and Dagobert,
Archbishop of Pisa, elected patriarch. The line of Latin patriarchs is: Dagobert of
Pisa, 1099-1107 (Ehremar, anti-patriarch set up by Baldwin I while Dagobert was
travelling to Rome to answer the king's complaints); Ghibellin of Arles, 1107-11;
Arnulf (the original administrator), 1111-8; Guarimund, 1118-28; Stephen,
1128-30; William, 1130-45; Fulcher, 1146-57; Amalric, 1157-80; Heraclius,
1180-91. -- During the episcopate of Heraclius the Saracens took Jerusalem
(1187), and the Orthodox patriarch returned. From this time the Latin patriarchs
resided at the court of the Latin kings; when that court was at 'Akka (during the
last period of the kingdom) the patriarchate was united to the bishopric of that
town (Ptolemais in Latin). -- Michael; Bl. Albert of Parma (d. 1214); Gerald or
Girold, 1214-27; Robert, 1227-54; James Pantaleon (afterwards Pope Urban IV),
1254-61; William, 1261-; Thomas; John, 1270-8; Nicholas, 1278-94.
Since 'Akka fell in 1291, the Latin line was continued by merely titular patriarchs,
living at Rome and using the basilica of St. Laurence without the Walls as their
patriarchal church, till Pius III restored the real patriarchate at Jerusalem in 1847.
The patriarchs of the crusading time were in most cases not very edifying
persons. Much of the history of the Latin Kingdom is taken up with their quarrels
with the kings, intrigues, and generally scandalous adventures. An amusing, if
hostile account of these intrigues will be found in Besant and Palmer's
"Jerusalem" (throughout the book). The patriarchate extended to the limits of the
Crusaders' territory; as they conquered new cities, so were new Latin sees
established. There were four provinces: Palaestina I (metropolis, Caesarea; two
suffragan sees, Sebaste and Saba), Palaestina II (Nazareth with one suffragan,
Tiberias), Palaestina III (metropolis Petra, suffragan Sinai), Phoenicia (metropolis
Tyre; suffragans, St. Jean d'Acre, Sidon, Beirut, Paneas). Bethlehem and
Ascalon (joined), Hebron and Lydda (Diospolis) were immediately subject to the
patriarch. But the number of sees fluctuated with the fortunes of the crusaders;
there are various lists given by contemporary authors representing different
circumstances. There were many abbeys besides the priory of the Holy
Sepulchre (following the Augustinian rule); for these see Le Quien, III, 1279 sqq.,
and the "Gesta Dei per Francos" (Hanover, 1611), 1077.
From the thirteenth century, when this hierarchy disappeared, down to our own
time, the Catholic cause was upheld almost solely by the Franciscan Order. The
friars were first sent to Palestine by St. Francis himself in 1219. The order has a
special province, the "Custodia Terræ Sanctæ", which includes Lower Egypt,
Cyprus, and Armenia. The head of this province, and till 1847 the supreme
authority for Catholics in Palestine, is the Franciscan provincial who bears the
title "Custos Terrae Sanctae". He had episcopal jurisdiction (but not orders), and
the Turkish government granted him many privileges as civil head of the "Latin
nation" in Palestine. This province (commonly called by the Italian form "Terra
Santa", which has passed into Arabic and Turkish) is recruited from all the other
Franciscan provinces. Its official language is Italian. During the long centuries
since the fall of the Latin kingdom the heroic friars have guarded the interests of
the Catholic Church around the Holy Places. Always exposed to the jealousy of
the Orthodox and other sects, continually persecuted by the Turks, they have
kept their place till today, and with it our rights in the Holy Land, constantly at
the price of their blood. It was in their hospices (the case nuove, which they have
built all over Palestine) that the Catholic pilgrim found shelter. They have kept the
Latin altars in repair, and have never ceased offering the Latin Mass on them for
six centuries when no one else cared for them. The "Reverendissimus Custos
Terrae Sanctae" now fills a much less important place in the Catholic Church of
Palestine; but no changes can ever make one forget what we owe to the friars for
defending our cause during those dark years.
In the nineteenth century it was felt that a state of things of which the result was
practically Franciscan monopoly in Palestine had become an anomaly. The
Turkish government had become tolerant, the number of Catholic pilgrims
increased enormously, many other religious orders had built houses at
Jerusalem and other cities, there were Arab Catholics who wished to become
priests and to serve their own people, but who had not necessarily a vocation for
the Franciscan Order. So the old conditions that reserved practically all cure of
souls to Franciscans and submitted every one to the jurisdiction of the custos --
natural enough when there had been no one else to undertake the work -- were
no longer reasonable now. There was no reason why the Catholics of Palestine
should not be governed by an episcopal hierarchy in the normal way. Moved by
these considerations Pius IX decided to change the titular Latin patriarchate at
Rome into a real see again at Jerusalem. The titular patriarch, Augustus Foscolo
(1830-47), was requested to resign. In his place Joseph Valerga was made
patriarch in 1847, and ordered to take up his residence in the Holy City (Brief of
23 July 1847). He was consecrated by the pope himself on 10 October, 1847,
and arrived in his patriarchate in January, 1848. He found 4200 Latin Catholics
there; at his death in 1872 he had doubled the number. The succession of these
restored Latin patriarchs is: Joseph Valerga, 1847-72; Vincent Bracco, 1873-89;
Louis Piavi, 1889-1905. Mgr. Piavi died on 24 January, 1905. After some delay,
the present patriarch, Mgr. Philip Camassei, formerly Latin Bishop of Syra, was
promoted in November, 1906, and entered Jerusalem just before Easter, 1907.
(5) Present Condition of the City
Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif
directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the
mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal
government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is
estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman
subjects, gives these figures: Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox
Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250;
Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the
nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for
the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly half the present
population.
The Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem has jurisdiction over all Latins of Palestine,
extending to Egypt on the south, the Latin Delegacy of Syria (seat at Beirut) on
the north, and including Cyprus. He is appointed by the Roman Curia (libera
collatio S. Pont.), and is personally exempt from Turkish authority (still nominally
under the protectorate of France). He is represented in the majlis. The
patriarchate has no suffragan sees. The Custos Terræ Sanctæ retains the use of
episcopal insignia and certain rights of admission to the holy places; otherwise,
he must now be counted only as the Provincial of the Franciscans. Appointments
to the "Order of the Holy Sepulchre" (a military order of knighthood which began
with the crusades and continues as a small dignity given to deserving Catholics),
formerly made by the custos, are now in the hands of the patriarch. The
patriarchal church in theory is the Holy Sepulchre. But since Catholics have only
alternative rights there with the Orthodox and Armenians, Foscolo built a
pro-cathedral near the Jaffa Gate (to the north): the patriarch's house and a
seminary adjoin this church. But the patriarch celebrates the functions of Holy
Week and others at the Holy Sepulchre according to the rights conceded to
Catholics, which are carefully drawn up and enforced by the Government. The
Franciscan custos lives at the Convent of St. Saviour to the north of the Muristan.
This convent is the Franciscan head-quarters at Jerusalem. It was originally a
Georgian monastery, and was acquired by the friars in 1551. Next to it is the
large parish church of St. Saviour, finished in 1885 at the expense of the Austrian
Emperor Francis Joseph I; the Casa Nuova (hospice for pilgrims) is close at
hand. Then there are an orphanage, a school, a library, printing press, etc., all in
charge of the friars, clustered around the convent. The Franciscans have also the
little convent of the Holy Sepulchre with the "Chapel of the Apparition," that forms
the northern part of the group of buildings at the Anastasis. This has been
Franciscan property since the thirteenth century (P. Barnabe Meistermann's
"Nouveau Guide" contains an excellent plan of the Anastasis, coloured according
to the possessions of the various religions). Six or seven priests and as many
lay-brothers are sent from the convent of St. Saviour to reside here for periods of
three months in turn. These are the "Fathers of the Holy Sepulchre" who are
always on guard to celebrate the Latin Offices, receive pilgrims, and maintain our
traditional rights. They have a hard time while they are on duty. There is no way
out of the convent except by the door to the whole complex on the south. This
door is locked by the Turkish guardians at night, so the friars are locked in. Their
food is brought to them from St. Saviour, and passed through a wicket in the
great door every day. Formerly the residence in the narrow damp convent shut in
among the other buildings, which they do not leave during their time of office, was
very injurious to their health. But in 1869 Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria,
when he made his pilgrimage to Jerusalem, obtained from the Turkish
government some improvement in the ventilation of the convent and leave to build
a terrace and a belfry behind it. In 1875 the friars rang their bells to summon
Catholics to their services for the first time at this place since centuries (the
Orthodox do not use bells but clappers -- symantra; bells are an abomination to
Moslems). The third Franciscan convent in Jerusalem is by the Chapel of the
Scourging in the Tariq Bab Sitti Miriam, opposite the Antonia castle. This
property belonged to them from the time of the Crusades till 1618. It was then
taken away by the Pasha and turned into a stable. It was given back in 1838,
and restored at the expense of King Maximilian of Bavaria.
Other Latin properties in Jerusalem are the College of St. Ann for Melkite clergy
governed (since 1878) by Cardinal Lavigerie's Pres blancs near the Bab Sitti
Miriam (Gate of the Lady Mary), the Dominican convent and Ecole biblique at St.
Stephen outside the Damascus Gate (1884), the great French Hospice "Notre
Dame de France", directed by the Augustinians of the Assumption outside the
walls to the northwest near the Bab 'Abdu-I'hamid (1887), the Benedictine
monastery with a seminary for Syrian Catholics on the Mount of Olives (1899),
the new German Benedictine monastery at the "Dormitio B.M.V." on Mount Sion,
given by the German Emperor in 1906, the German and Austrian hospices, the
French Passionists and Lazarists, the Italian Salesians, and French Peres de
Sion and Christian Brothers. There are convents of the French Carmelite nuns
(on the Mount of Olives, since 1873), Poor Clares, Franciscan nuns, "Dames de
Sion", Sisters of St. Vincent de Paul, Benedictine nuns, Sisters of the Rosary of
St. Joseph and of Marie-Reparatrice". Of all these Latin institutions the older
colonies (e.g. the Franciscans) have on the whole an Italian character, by far the
greatest number are French, but the Germans (especially since the troubles
about the protectorate) are now getting considerable influence. As throughout the
Turkish Empire early in the twentieth century, French was the European
language most spoken at Jerusalem.
Most of the Eastern Catholic Churches have establishments in the Holy City. The
Melkite Patriarch of Antioch also bears the titles of Alexandria and Jerusalem.
He has a church (St. Veronica) in the Khan-ez-zeit just behind St. Saviour where
the Melkite patriarchal vicar (who generally resides at Jaffa) and the patriarch
himself (when present) officiate; near it is a hospice for Melkites. There is also a
Melkite monastery near the New Bazaar (Es-suk el-jedid). The Maronites have a
parish church served by their patriarchal vicar; that of the Catholic Armenians
(Notre Dame du Spasme) is in the Via Dolorosa opposite the Austrian hospice.
The Armenians had an Archbishop of Jerusalem (Michael Alessandrius) from
1855 to 1867. No successor has been appointed to him. The Syrian Catholics
have also a small church where their patriarchal vicar officiates. The Syrian
Catholic Patriarch of Antioch is considered as administrator of an Archdiocese of
Jerusalem; but he does not use the title. A hardship felt by all these Eastern
Catholics is that they cannot celebrate their Offices at the Holy Sepulchre.
Among Catholics the Turk recognizes only the rights of Latins there.
The Orthodox Church naturally also fills a large place among the Christian
communities of Jerusalem. The patriarch bears the title "the most blessed and
holy Patriarch of the holy city Jerusalem and all Palestine, of Syria, Arabia
beyond the Jordan, Cana of Galilee and Holy Sion". It should be noticed that of
all the persons who bear the title "Patriarch of Jerusalem", this one alone
represents historic continuity from the original line. His patriarchate extends to
the Lebanon on the north and the Red Sea on the south (except the
autocephalous convent on Sinai). East and west it is bounded by the Syrian
desert and the sea. The patriarch resides by the "Great Laura" in the Haret
deir-er-rum not far from the Anastasis; he has also properties in the country at
Katamon near Jerusalem (where they say St. Simeon lived) and near Deir Aban
(between Jerusalem and Jaffa). The sees of the Patriarchate are Cæsarea,
Scythopolis (Beisan), Petra, Ptolemais ('Akka), Nazareth, Bethlehem, Lydda,
Gaza, Nablus, Sebaste, Tabor, the Jordan, Tiberias, Philadelphia, Pella, Kerak,
Diocaesarea (Sepphoris), Madaba. The only resident bishop is the Metropolitan
of 'Akka; those of Lydda, Gaza, Nablus, Sebaste, the Jordan, Philadelphia,
Kerak and Madaba live at Jerusalem and form the Patriarch's Court. The other
sees are left vacant. In the administration of his Church the patriarch is assisted
by a synod consisting of ten bishops and ten archimandrites. Near the
patriarchate is the large Orthodox monastery (St. Constantine) with a printing
press and hospice for pilgrims. In the Holy Sepulchre the Orthodox possess the
central part (the "Katholikon") and various chapels. They have a monastery built
against it (to the west). The actual Anastasis under its cupola is too precious to
be given to any one religion; so it is common property, used in turn by all. There
are sixteen other Orthodox monasteries in and around the city and various
hospices, hospitals and schools. For the education of their clergy they have the
"Monastery of the Holy Cross" (Deir el-musallebe) about one and a half miles
west of the city. This monastery (said to be at the place where the tree grew from
which the cross was made) was originally Georgian. Inscriptions in that language
may be seen in the church. It was sold to the Greeks, opened as a theological
college in 1855, since then several times closed and re-opened. Many students
do not belong to the patriarchate, but come from Asia Minor, Cyprus, Greece,
etc., to study here. There are hardly any Arabs. The only language used in the
college is Greek. The Greek element has hitherto had exclusive possession of
the older Orthodox establishments in Jerusalem.
We have alluded to the troubles now raging through the attempt of the Arabs to
break this monopoly. It is considerably broken, though not in favour of the Arabs,
by the Russian establishments. The autocephalous Russian Church is
represented in Palestine by a great number of large colonies and institutions
altogether separate from those of the Patriarchate. The first Russian
archimandrite arrived in 1844; the consulate dates from 1858. The Russian
Palestine Society builds churches, in which the liturgy is celebrated in Slavonic,
and hospices for Russian pilgrims all over the country to the great annoyance of
the Greek patriarchal element. It is because Russia has taken up the cause of
the native Arabs that they can no longer be ignored as obscure revolutionaries of
the lower classes. On the contrary, the Greek influence is already doomed; when
Lord Damianus dies or is successfully deposed, we may expect to hear of an
Arab patriarch as his successor. It remains to be it made at Antioch by
excommunicating him. The chief Russian establishments at Jerusalem are the
enormous group of buildings outside the city on the Jaffa road. These contain a
large and very handsome church where the Russian archimandrite officiates,
huge hospices for pilgrims, a hospital and other buildings, all close to the
Russian consulate. Then they have a gorgeous church in Gethsemane, and
another one with a high tower, a convent of nuns, and other buildings on the top
of the Mount of Olives (the place of the Ascension in their tradition). There are
also another Russian hospice in the Muristan, a lunatic asylum, and schools.
But the Russians have no rights at the Holy Sepulchre. Each time they want to
have a service there they must ask leave of the patriarch. About 8000 Russian
pilgrims visit the Holy Places every year.
The Gregorian Armenians have a Patriarchate of Jerusalem as one of their two
minor patriarchates. In the seventeenth century the Katholikos of Echmiadzin
gave the Armenian Bishop of Jerusalem the right to consecrate chrism;
thereupon the bishop assumed the title patriarch and began ordaining bishops.
The title is now acknowledged by the Armenian Church. The jurisdiction of the
Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem extends throughout the Pashaliks of
Damascus, 'Akka, Tarabulus (Tripoli), and Cyprus. Under him are seven
archbishops and bishops who live with him and form his synod, and fourteen
suffragans. The patriarchate is at the great Armenian monastery of St. James to
the southwest of the city, near the Bab Nebi Daud. This was formerly a Georgian
monastery; the Armenians possess it since the thirteenth century. Besides the
patriarch and bishops about a hundred vartabeds live here. There are also a
seminary and schools and a hospice for pilgrims adjoining the great church. They
also have a monastery just outside the same gate (the reputed house of
Caiphas), a convent of nuns (Deir-ez-zeituni) near the patriarchate, and land
outside the city opposite the great Russian colony. The whole southwest of
Jerusalem around their patriarchate is the "Armenian quarter". At the Holy
Sepulchre they possess the Chapels of St. Helena, of St. John, of the "Division
of Garments", of St. James (behind the Anastasis), and the "Stone of the Holy
Women" (cf. Meistermann's plan). The Armenians have further rights of walking in
procession about the Anastasis, and take their turn to celebrate their offices at it.
The Jacobite Syrians have a little church (claimed as the house of John Mark) in
the Haret-en-nebi Daud, with a monastery where the vicar of their maphrian (who
now unites with this dignity that of Metropolitan of Jerusalem) resides, and the
central chapel behind the Anastasis. The Copts have a large monastery
(Deir-es-sultan) close to the Holy Sepulchre to the north, at the ninth Station of
the Cross, with a hospice. Another Coptic church is at their Khan north of the
Birket Hammam-el-batrak (Pool of Hezekiah), and they have several chapels in
the Holy Sepulchre itself. The Copts have had a Bishop of Jerusalem since the
eleventh century. He now resides at Cairo with the title Bishop of the East
(Sharkiye), or of the Anastasis (Kayame), or Jerusalem (El Quds), and ranks
immediately after the Abuna of Abyssinia. The Abyssinians possess a large
round church outside the city to the northwest (beyond the Russian buildings)
and a monastery touching the Holy Sepulchre and the Coptic monastery. They
have no special place in the great church itself; but share with the Copts (with
whom, of course, they are in communion). The Nestorians had a Metropolitan of
Jerusalem from the ninth to the thirteenth century. Since 1282 the title seems to
have disappeared (Le Quien, II, 1299).
Lastly, English, German and American Protestants of all sects have a great
number of establishments, churches, hospitals, and hospices in Jerusalem. The
most important of these are the German Evangelical Erl serkirche in the Muristan
(built in 1898 on land given by the German Emperor) with a school, the
Johanniterhospiz, Hospital of the Kaiserwerth Deaconesses, the Leper-house
kept by the Moravians, and the Syrian Protestant orphanage. In 1841, by
arrangement between the Prussian and English governments, an Anglo-Lutheran
"Bishopric of St. James" at Jerusalem was founded. The bishops were to be
appointed alternately by the two governments and to have jurisdiction over all
Anglicans and Lutherans in Syria, Chaldea, Egypt and Abyssinia. This is the
famous "Jerusalem bishopric" that gave so great scandal to the leaders of the
Oxford Movement. The bishops were: Michael Samuel Alexander (appointed by
England), 1842-5; Samuel Gobat von Cremines (by Prussia), 1845-79; Joseph
Barclay (by England), 1879-81. Already during Gobat's time the two elements
had drifted apart; when Barclay died, the arrangement fell through.
The Anglicans have now a bishopric "in" Jerusalem of quite a different type (since
1887). Bishop Blyth and his archdeacons are conciliatory to all the Eastern
Churches and on excellent terms with the Orthodox patriarch. The Anglican
Collegiate Church of St. George (with a college) is the seat of the bishop in
Jerusalem. It is situated outside the city to the north, beyond the Dominican
convent. St. Paul's Church belongs to the Church Missionary Society (outside,
northwest); there is a large Anglican school (founded by Bishop Gobat) at the
southwest corner of the walls. The London Jews' Society has a church, two
hospitals and several schools.
The following persons use the title of Jerusalem in some form:
Catholics: the Latin Patriarch, residing in the city; the Melkite Patriarch of
Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and all the East, residing at Alexandria or
Damascus; the Melkite Patriarchal Vicar of Jerusalem residing at Jaffa;
the Maronite Patriarchal Vicar of Jerusalem residing in the city;
Non-Catholics: the Orthodox Patriarch residing in the city; the Armenian
Patriarch residing in the city; the Jacobite Maphrian (Metropolitan of
Jerusalem) residing with his Patriarch (of Antioch) in the Zapharan
monastery near Mardin; the Jacobite Vicar of Jerusalem (for the Maphrian)
residing in the city; the Coptic Bishop of Jerusalem (or the East or the
Anastasis) residing at Cairo; the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem.
ADRIAN FORTESCUE
Transcribed by Donald J. Boon
Dedicated to the Coming Glory of our Lord Jesus Christ
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII
Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
The Catholic Encyclopedia: NewAdvent.org