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
who mentions, but does not describe it; and says that the tomb did not
contain the corpse of the Virgin Mary, but was dedicated to her burial.
He states distinctly that it was in the valley of Jehoshaphat. Bernard
the Wise[560], A.D. 870, saw the rotunda, and the tomb within it, and
says,--"Besides, in that very village (Gethsemane) is the round Church
of S. Mary, where is her sepulchre; which, though unprotected by a roof,
is never wetted by the rain." The account shews that it was then in a
very ruinous condition. From this time until the arrival of the
Crusaders we have no further mention of this monument; and the first to
notice it again is Sæwulf, A.D. 1103. At that time service was performed
by monks wearing a black habit, of the order of Cluny[561]. "These,"
according to M. de Vogüé[562], "gave to the church in the valley of
Jehoshaphat the form which it has retained up to the present day." But,
I ask, did the church of Sæwulf contain the same rotundas as that which
Arculf visited, and Bernard saw in ruins? The want of evidence makes the
question a difficult one, because in such an interval of time they might
have fallen to the ground, or have been altered during the persecutions
of Hakem, A.D. 1010. We may then suppose that it might have been
repaired, or entirely rebuilt, and its plan changed at that time. If the
Khalif had found it standing, he would probably have respected it, on
account of the reverence felt for it by the Mohammedan women; which
protected it in the days of Saladin, and continues to do so at the
present day. Again, Sæwulf relates that, during the siege, A.D.
1099[563], all the churches without the city were completely destroyed.
How then did he find it standing in 1103? Were the monks of Cluny
installed there at once and enriched by Godfrey[564], so that they were
able to rebuild it in four years? Had this been the case, surely Sæwulf
would have mentioned it. "The anonymous author of the _Gesta Francorum
expugnantium Hierusalem_, who wrote in 1106," M. de Vogüé goes on to
say[565], "also states that in his time the church built over the
Virgin's tomb by the early Christians was quite in ruins." Now if we are
to believe this author, we cannot accept the statement of Sæwulf as
exact, that all the churches were destroyed. Consequently, I hold that
the monks of Cluny rebuilt it after, not before this time.
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