Jerusalem Explored, Volume 1—Text: Being a Description of the Ancient and Modern City, with Numerous Illustrations Consisting of Views, Ground Plans and SectionsPierotti, Ermete
History
Jerusalem Explored, Volume 1—Text: Being a Description of the Ancient and Modern City, with Numerous Illustrations Consisting of Views, Ground Plans and Sections
Pierotti, Ermete
Jerusalem -- Antiquities; Jerusalem -- Description and travel
M. de Vogüé[493] writes as follows: "Towards the middle of the twelfth
century, John of Würtzburg expresses wonder at the number of the nuns
(who followed the rule of S. Benedict), and at their devotion; and
mentions the church; meaning, I think, on this occasion, the church now
remaining." I cannot agree with this opinion, for the reason that, had
the church been rebuilt, the author would not have omitted to mention
it, since it would have been one of the first buildings erected under
the Latin kingdom. If the plates be examined[494], I need not enter into
details, as they will be found sufficiently clear; but will only call
attention to the shape of the church (a trapezium)[495]; a plan which I
think prevents us from attributing it to the time of the Crusaders. I am
therefore induced to consider it as originally a Byzantine building,
which was restored by them. From Plate LXIII. we see that the Church of
S. Cross has the pointed arch like that of S. Ann, and is still
plainer[496]. Now the former was standing when the Persians under
Chosroes II. invaded the country; as is stated by Georgian manuscripts
in the Greek convent of S. Constantine at Jerusalem. Hence the presence
of pointed arches does not forbid us to suppose that S. Ann's Church was
also built before the Crusades. M. de Vogüé[497] says "that the last two
western piers (inside the church) are much more massive than the rest,
and were intended to sustain bell-towers." With this I do not agree,
because the difference in size is imperceptible; indeed, perhaps they
are even smaller than the rest: and further, I do not find the walls at
the north-west and south-west corners sufficiently strong to support
towers; on the contrary, through their weakness they have fallen greatly
to ruin; and lastly, I find no traces of them on the roof. Until then
stronger arguments are brought forward than have hitherto been, I retain
the opinion expressed above; which is, I believe, sustained by history
and the place itself.
In the church we must not omit to notice the dome as belonging to a date
posterior to the original building, but a little prior to the minaret at
the south-west corner, a large part of which is still standing.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account