I 9. From this time Jerusalem appears to have sunk I very much in political and military importance, and it is scarcely named in the history of the jMameluke sul- tans who reigned over Egypt and the greater part ot Syria in the 14th and 15th centuries. At length, with ' the rest of Syria and Egypt, it passed under the sway of the Turkish sultan Selim I in 1517, who paid a hasty visit to the holy city from Damascus after his return • from E^'-ypt. From that time Jerusalem has formed a part of the Ottoman Empire, and during this period has been subject to few vicissitudes; its history is accord- ino-ly barren of incident. The present walls of the city were erected by Suleiman the INIagnificent, the successor of SeUm, in A*.D. 1542, as is attested by an inscription over the Jaffa gate. As lately as A.D. 1808, the Church of the Holv Sepulchre was partially consumed by lire; but the damage was repaired with great labor and ex- pense by September, 1810, and the traveller now hnds in this imposing fabric no traces of that calamity.
In A D. 1832 Jerusalem became subject to Moham- med AU, the pasha of Egypt, the holy city opening its gates to him without a siege. During the great in- surrection iu the districts of Jerusalem and Nab us in 1834 the insurgents seized upon Jerusalem, and held possession of it for a time; but by the vigorous opera- tions of the government order was soon restored, and the citv reverted quietly to its allegiance on the ap- proach"of Ibrahim Pasha with his troops. In 1841 Mo- hammed Ali was deprived of all his Syrian possessions bv European interference, and Jerusalem was again sub- jected to the Turkish govemmcnt, imder which it now
'"''TnThe same year took place the establishment of a Protestant bishopric at Jerusalem by the Lnghs4i and Prussian governments, and the erection upon Mount Zioii of a church calculated to hold 500 persons, for the celebration of divine worship according to the ritual of the English Church. Sec Jt:uusALKM, S..E of (below). In 1850 a dispute about the guardianship of the holy places between the monks of the (Jreek and Latin churches, in which Nicholas, emperor of Lussia, sided with the Greeks, and Louis Napoleon, emperor of the French, with the Latins, led to a decision of the question
JERUSALEM
844
JERUSALEM
by the Porte, which was unsatisfactory to Russia, and which resulted in a war of considerable magnitude, known as "tlie Crimean War," between that country on the one side, and the allied forces of England and France on the other. This war has led to greater liberties of all classes of citizens in the enjoyment of their religious faith, and to a partial adjustment of the rival claims of the Greek and Latin monks to certain portions of the holv places ; it has also resulted in much more freedom towards Frank travellers in visiting the city, so that even ladies have been allowed to enter the mosque in- closure ; but it has caused no material alteration in the city or in its political relations.
Fca details, see Witsius, Bist. Hierosolyvice, in his Mis- cell. Sacr. ii, 187 sq. ; Spalding, Gesch. d. Christl. Kd- nirjsreichs Jerusalem (Berlin, 1803) ; Devling, .47i(E Ca- pitolince Oricjcj. tt Historia {U\)S. 17 io); Wagnitz, L'e6. d. Pkdnomane vor d. Zerstdnnvj Jer. (Halle, 1780) ; E.
Bessoie, Storia della Basilica diP. Croce in Gents. (Rome, 1750) ; C. CeEarius, De yElia Cajniolina, etc., in his Pro' rjranimata, p. 441 sq. ; Poujoulat, Bistoire de Jerusalem (Brux. 184-2) ; F.Miinter's treatise on the .Teu-ish Wat under Budrian, transl. in the Biblioth. Saa-a for 1843, p. 393 sq. ; Eaumer's Paldsfina ; Robinson's Bib. Pes. ill Palestine ; and especially Williams, Boly City, vol. i.
II. Ancient Topography. — This has been a subject of no little dispute among antiquarian geographers. We prefer here briefly to state our own independent conclu- sions, with the authority on which each point rests, and we shaU therefore but incidentally notice the controver- sies, which will be fomid discussed mider the several heads elsewhere in this Cyclopiedia.
1. Natural Features. — These, of course, are mostly the same in all ages, as the surface of the region wlicre Jerusalem is situated is generally limestone rock. Yet the wear of the elements has no doubt caused some
■^^'Hr
1 ?
Scale.
^00 ^^ }rro jsao g^^,
Map of Ancient Jerusalem.
JERUSALEM
845
JERUSALEM
minor changes, and the demolition of large buildings successively has effected very considerable differences of level by the accumulation of rubbish in the hollows, and even on some of the hills; while in some cases high spots were anciently cut away, vaUeys partially filled, and artificial platforms and terraces formed, and in oth- ers deep trenches or massive structures have left their traces to this day.
(A.) Hills. — (1.) Mount Zion, frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, onlj' once in the New (Kev. xiv, 1), called by Josephus " the Upper City" ( Wur, v, 4, 1), was divided by a valley (Tyropwon) from another hill oppo- site (Acra),than which it was "higher, and in length more direct" (ibid.). It is almost universally assigned, in modern times, as the south-western hill of the city. See Ziox.
(2.) Mount MoHah, mentioned in 2 Chron. iii, 1, as the site of the Temple, is unmistakable in all ages. Orig- inally, according to Josephus (War, v, 5, 1), the summit was small, and the platform was enlarged by Solomon, who built up a high stone terrace wall on three sides (east, south, and west), leaving a tremendous precipice at the (south-eastern) corner (Ant. xv, 11, 3 and 5). Some of the lower courses of these stones are still stand- ing. See iMoiUAii.