CAIRO
CHAPTER I
Cairo before
the Fatimides
IF modern Egypt is a doubly dependent country,
tributary
to one empire, and protected by another, a
few
centuries ago it claimed to be not only independent
but
imperial. Its capital,
Cairo, was founded when the power of
Baghdad was already declining, and for
two centuries it
maintained a Caliph who contested with his
Eastern rival
the possession of
Syria, Palestine and Arabia. And when
in the thirteenth century the Mongol storm wrecked the
great
metropolis of Islam on the Tigris, it was at
Cairo that
sovereigns arose capable of rebuilding
an Islamic empire,
and repelling the Mongols beyond the
Euphrates. For two-and-a-half
centuries
Cairo remained the capital of western
Islam, and the seat of the most powerful Mohammedan
state,
sending out governors to many provinces, and recognized
as
suzerain even where it did not appoint the ruler:
being itself
the laboratory of a political experiment perhaps
never tried
elsewhere. Its monarchs bore the title Slaves
(
Mamluke), not in mock humility like the
Servus servorum
Dei, but
in the plain and literal sense of the term. The occupant of the throne was
ordinarily
a Turk, Circassian or Greek, who had been
purchased in the market, and then
climbed step by step, or at
times by leaps and bounds, a
ladder of honours at the top of
which was the Sultan's
throne. A slave with slaves for
ministers constituted the
court, and men of the
same origin officered the army. The
talents which had raised
the first sovereign to the first
place were rarely, if ever,
handed on to his offspring; the
natural heir to the throne
could seldom maintain himself on
it for more than a few months
or years. To have passed
through the slave-dealer's hands
seemed to be a necessary
qualification for royalty.
In the country which gave them their title these rulers
housed as strangers. To its religion they indeed
conformed,
but with its language they were usually
unfamiliar. The life
of the nation was affected by their
justice or injustice, and
the wisdom or unwisdom of their
policy internal and external;
but in the nation they took no
root. Hence one battle
displaced them for the Ottomans, just
as one battle in our
day put the country under the power of
Great Britain.
Cairo then eclipsed
Baghdad, to be eclipsed after
two-and-a-half
centuries by Constantinople; but to the
dynasty
under which it reached the zenith of its fame and
power it
did not owe its foundation. That took place in the
tenth
century A.D., when an army was sent to invade Egypt
by
the descendant of a successful adventurer, who,
claiming
to be of the Prophet Mohammed's line, had founded
a dynasty
in North Africa. The place where this army had
encamped,
after capturing the older metropolis, was chosen
to be the
site of the new one. And it was called Victoria
(Káhirah) in
commemoration of the conquest already achieved,
and as an
augury of others to be won.
Those who found cities to inaugurate new dynasties ordinarily
keep near the beaten track.
Cairo is but two miles to
the north of Fostat,
which had been the capital of the country
from the time of the
Mohammedan conquest. Its name
is the Latin word
Fossalum “an entrenchment”—and it was
the camp of the conquering army which, under Amr son of
al-As, had wrested Egypt from the Byzantine empire, and
THE SENTINEL OF THE NILE.
which was made the
seat of government because the Caliph
of the time would have
no water between his capital,
Medinah, and any Islamic city.
This is why the capital of
Greek and Roman times,
Alexandria, lost its pre-eminence.
Fostat itself was not far from the remains of the ancient
Memphis, and a city called Babylon,
supposed to date from
Persian times.
For some time the new city kept growing by the side of
the old city without the latter losing much of its
importance
or its populousness, of which fabulous accounts
are given by
persons professing to be eyewitnesses. At one
time it was
supposed to contain 36,000 mosques and 1,270
public baths.
A description of the fourteenth century, when it
had long
been on the decline, still gives it 480 small and 14
large
mosques, 70 public baths and 30 Christian churches
or monasteries.
Fostat was celebrated not only for its size,
its
populousness and the wealth of its stores, but also
for the
foulness of its air—for the mountains screened it from
the
fresh breezes of the desert—and the carelessness of
its inhabitants
with regard to the most elementary precautions
of
cleanliness. Dead animals were flung into the streets
and
left there; the gutters discharged into the same Nile
whence
water for drinking was raised in myriads of
buckets. The
cause, however, of the eventual desolation of
Fostat was not
its unhealthiness, but the act of ruler of
Egypt. Shawar,
nominally vizier but really sovereign, in the
year 1163 having
to defend the country at once against the
Franks and
against a rival from
Syria, despaired of saving the double
city; so he committed the older capital to the flames. Twenty
thousand bottles of naphtha and ten thousand lighted torches
were distributed by his orders in Fostat, whence all the
population had been cleared, to be harboured in the mosques,
baths and wherever else there was space in
Cairo.
For fifty days the ancient city blazed;
when at last the flames
were extinguished, all
that remained of the capital of the
first Moslem conqueror of
Egypt was a pile of ashes.
The history of
Cairo falls
into five main periods: the Fatimide,
the Ayyubid, the
Mamluke, the Turkish, and the
Khedivial. The Fatimides, though
the first independent
Moslem dynasty both in fact and in name
that governed
Egypt, had been preceded by some rulers only
nominally
dependent on
Baghdad. The first of these was Ahmad Ibn
Tulun,
whose mosque still remains. The example of governing
Egypt for
its own good with the aid of a foreign garrison
was set by
this predecessor of Mohammed Ali, and
has been repeatedly
followed.
The materials for his biography are fairly copious, and the
figure which emerges is like those of many Oriental
statesmen—a
combination of piety, benevolence, shrewdness
and
unscrupulousness. His father, Tulun, was a Turk, who
had
been sent by the governor of Bokhara in the tribute
to
Baghdad, to the Caliph Mamun, son of the
famous Harun al-
Rashid,
early in the ninth century; for at that time part of
the
tribute of those Eastern dependencies was paid in slaves.
Ere
long he was manumitted, and rose to a post of some
importance
at the Caliph's court, which was beginning to
depend on
Turkish praetorians. His son, Ahmad, the future
ruler of
Egypt, was born September 20, 835. At the age of
twenty-two,
after his father's death, he obtained leave to
migrate to
Tarsus, a frontier city, exposed to attacks from
the
Byzantines, on the chance of seeing active service and
obtaining regular pay. But his taste for theology was no
less
keen than that for the profession of arms, and at Tarsus
he
found opportunities for the profoundest study. At
last,
however, an earnest summons from his mother decided
him to
return, and he started for Samarra, where at the
time the
Eastern Caliph had fixed his residence. On this
journey he got
the first chance of displaying his military
capacity. The caravan,
five hundred strong, to which he had
attached himself was
conveying a great collection of contraband
treasures from
Constantinople to Samarra. After
passing Edessa, and having
reached what was supposed to
be safe ground, it was attacked
by Arab banditti, whom
Ahmad succeeded in defeating, thereby
rescuing the Caliph's
treasure from their hands. This act
placed him high
in his sovereign's favour. Ere long a palace
revolution led
to this sovereign's deposition, and Ahmad Ibn
Tulun accompanied
him to exile at
Wasit, in the capacity of guardian,
in
which he conducted himself with modesty and
gentleness. A
command from Samarra to dispatch his prisoner
was disobeyed by
him; but he made no difficulty about
handing his former
sovereign over to another executioner.
In the year 868 Ahmad's stepfather was appointed governor
of Egypt, and sent his stepson thither to represent him.
On September 15 he entered Fostat, the then capital of the
country, at the head of an army. His authority did not
stretch over the whole land, and the financial department,
chiefly connected with the collection of the tribute to be
sent to
Baghdad, was
under another official, independent of
the governor and
inclined to thwart him. This finance
minister, like many of
his successors, had rendered himself
unpopular by a variety of
ingenious extortions, and in order
to protect his life had
surrounded himself with a bodyguard
of a hundred armed pages.
Ahmad excited this man's suspicion
by refusing a handsome
present of money, and demanding
of him instead his bodyguard,
which he was compelled
to hand over. In spite of the finance
minister's consequent
endeavours to blacken Ahmad's character
at court,
fortune continued to favour the deputy governor
persistently.
In 869 his stepfather was executed, but the
government of
Egypt was conferred upon his father-in-law, who
not only
retained Ahmad in office, but placed under him those
Egyptian
districts which had
previously been independent of
him. By the suppression of
various risings he won such a
reputation for ability and
loyalty that when in 872 the
governor of
Syria rebelled against the Caliph and appropriated
the Egyptian tribute, Ahmad was summoned to
Syria and authorized to gather forces
sufficient to quell the
rebellion. These forces were not
actually employed for this
purpose, but they were not
disbanded, and Ahmad on his
return to Egypt ordered a new
suburb north of Fostat to be
built for their accommodation.
This suburb, which covered
a site previously occupied by
Jewish and Christian burial
grounds, was called Kata'i “the
fiefs,” and was divided into
streets assigned to the different
classes of which the army
was formed; its area was about a
square mile. It has been
remarked that each epoch in the
development of the Moslem
capital of Egypt was marked by the
fresh location of a permanent
camp; and the origin of Fostat
and Kata'i will be
reproduced in the cases of
Cairo and its citadel.
The next years were spent by Ahmad in consolidating
his power, and by various devices, not unscrupulous for an
Oriental, getting free from his enemies. Agents were maintained
by him in
Baghdad to intercept
communications from
Egypt directed against himself, and
summary punishment
meted out to those from whom the
communications emanated.
By bribes wisely administered at
court he contrived that all
to whom the governorship of Egypt
was offered should
decline it; and by lending money through
agents on easy
terms he gained a hold on many a potential
enemy. The
finance minister who had stood in his way was after
a time
induced to resign his post, and Ahmad, who took it
over,
released his subjects from the onerous imposts to
which they
had been subjected; an act of piety for which he is
supposed
to have been rewarded by luck in the discovery of
treasures;
but whether these discoveries actually took
place or were
fictions of Ahmad
himself or his biographers is unknown.
In 876, owing to
exorbitant demands made by the Caliph's
brother then occupied
in fighting with a pretender who had
raised the standard of
revolt in the marshes of the Euphrates,
Ahmad definitely threw
off his allegiance; an army was
equipped against him, but
owing to mutiny it never came
near the Egyptian frontier. In
the following year Ahmad
seized
Syria, and advanced as far as Tarsus, whence he
withdrew after establishing peaceful relations with the
Byzantine emperor.
To Ahmad Ibn Tulun three buildings were ascribed, of
which only one remains intact. In 873 he founded the first
hospital of Moslem Egypt: its site, in a quarter called Askar,
south west of the new quarter Kata'i, is accurately described
by the great mediaeval topographer of
Cairo, by
whose time it was already ruined. According
to custom, the
rents of a number of buildings were given it by
way of endowment.
Patients, during their stay in it, were to
be fed
and clothed at the expense of the hospital; when by
eating
a chicken and a roll one of them had given evidence
of being
restored to health, his garments and any money that
he had
brought were returned to him, and he was dismissed.
Ahmad
Ibn Tulun was a diligent visitor at his hospital
until a practical
joke played by a lunatic under treatment
there gave
the founder a distaste for further visits.
Another work ascribed to the same ruler is an aqueduct,
by which water raised at a well on a spur of Mount
Mokattam
was brought northwards. The aqueduct, at its
commencement
not more than six metres high, gradually
becomes
level with the ground. The ruins of this
engineering
work were identified by Corbet-Bey (to whose
article in the
Journal of the Asiatic Society for 1891 we
shall be indebted
for part of the description of Ahmad's
Mosque), with an
aqueduct known as Migret al-Imam, commencing
opposite
the village of
Basatin. According to this writer the structure
of the
aqueduct confirms the legend which makes it the work
of the
same architect who afterwards built the Mosque, and
who, for
having allowed some fresh mortar to remain on
which one day
Ahmad's horse stumbled, was rewarded for
his services with
five hundred blows and imprisonment. The
immediate purpose of
the aqueduct was to furnish water to
a mosque called the
Mosque of the Feet, which, though
renewed after Ahmad's time,
seems to have disappeared. It
served, however, for a much
larger community than the
keepers of the mosque, and like the
rest of this ruler's institutions
was well endowed. The
excellence of the construction
of the aqueduct caused it to be
imitated afterwards, it
is said, without success. In 1894 a
small sum was devoted
by the Committee for the Preservation of
the Monuments of
Arab Art to its repair.
More permanent than either of these works has been the
Mosque of Ahmad Ibn Tulun, built during the years 877-879.
Only two mosques for public worship preceded it in
Egypt, if we may believe the chroniclers—one, the old
Mosque of Amr, the conqueror of Egypt, of which the
original
has quite disappeared, though a building is
still
called by its name: another, long forgotten, in the
quarter
called Askar, the creation of which came between
that of
Fostat and Kata'i. The people of Fostat are said to
have
complained that the Mosque of Amr was not large
enough
to hold all Ahmad's black soldiers at Friday
service; yet
since Mohammedan potentates have ordinarily
endeavoured
to perpetuate their names by the erection of
religious edifices,
this motive is not required to explain the
undertaking.
Mr Lane Poole has observed that the older
form of mosque
consisted of an area enclosed by cloisters,
which gave way
to a form less wasteful of space, when ground
became valuable.
This was the design adopted by Ahmad Ibn
Tulun,
TOOLON MOSQUE, CAIRO.
but a building of the
size contemplated required a vast
number of columns, such as
could only be obtained by demolishing
existing churches or
oratories, since the supply to
be had from ancient and disused
edifices had run short; and
it was only so that the Moslem
builders supplied themselves
with columns. The Coptic
architect—if the legend may be
believed—hearing in his prison
of the ruler's difficulty, sent
word to the effect that he
could build the desired edifice
without columns, or at least
with only two. He could build
with piers, and employ brick, a
material better able to resist
fire than marble. His offer was
accepted, he was released
and set to work.
The Mosque has been frequently represented and described,
perhaps best by Corbet-Bey in the article to which
reference has already been made. The hard red bricks of
which it is constructed are eighteen centimetres long by
eight wide, and about four thick, laid flat, and bound by
layers of mortar from one-and-a-half to two centimetres
thick, all covered with several layers of fine white
plaster.
The foundations are for the most part on the
solid rock; the
site being called the Hill of Yashkur, named
after an Arab
tribe who were settled there at the time of the
conquest of
Egypt, and employed before Ahmad's date as a trial
ground
for artillery. Owing to the nature of the
foundation and the
solidity of the building the whole Mosque,
with slight exceptions,
has resisted the effects of time, only
one row of
piers—the front row of the sanctuary—having fallen,
in
consequence of an earthquake on Sunday, June 8, 1814.
The
founder's desire that the edifice should survive fire
and flood
has therefore been fulfilled.
Besides the use of piers instead of columns, the building
is noteworthy as exhibiting the first employment on a
large
scale in Moslem architecture of the pointed arch,
which is
said to be specially characteristic of Coptic
architecture,
and indeed to be found
in all Coptic churches and monasteries;
the builder of the
Mosque had already employed them
in the Aqueduct. The arches
(according to Corbet's measurements)
spring from a height of
4.64 metres from the ground,
rising at the apex to a
perpendicular height of 3.70 metres
from the spring; their
span is 4.56 metres, and there is a
slight return. Above the
piers the space between the arches
is pierced by a small
pointed arch, rising to the same height
as the main arches,
and indicating that the architect was
aware of the mechanical
properties of the pointed arch.
Four cloisters then—three consisting of double rows
and one of a fivefold row of piers—surround a square court,
of
which the sides measure ninety and ninety-two metres,
while
the whole Mosque covers an area of 143 by 119. On three
sides
the whole is enclosed by a surrounding wall at a distance
of
about fifteen metres from the cloisters. Various
geometrical
ornaments in low relief are worked in the stucco
both round
and above the arches, as they appear in the
painting, which,
however, represents not such arches as
have been described,
but windows in the wall of the same
type as those which
support the roof of the colonnades, but
springing from engaged
dwarf columns. A line of stucco
ornament of a similar type
runs above the small arches over
the colonnades; the space
between this and the roof of sycamore
beams is filled with
wooden planks, containing verses
of the Koran in Cufic letters
cut in wood and attached to
the planking. Exaggerated accounts
make this frieze contain
the whole of the Koran; but
Corbet-Bey's calculations
show that they could never have
contained more than a
seventeenth part of the Moslem sacred
book.
Two features of interest are the dome in the centre of the
court and the minaret on the north side. The central space
was originally occupied by a fountain, for ornament not
for
ablution, a ceremony for which the founder had
already
made provision
elsewhere. The fountain was in a marble
basin, covered by a
dome resting on ten marble columns
and surmounted by another
resting on sixteen. There were
thus above the fountain two
chambers, from each of which
the Muezzin could utter the call
to prayer; while the roof
had a parapet of teak wood, and had
on it something resembling
a sundial. The whole of this marble
erection was
destroyed by fire on Thursday, September 7, 892,
nine years
after the founder's death, and more than a hundred
years
elapsed before it was replaced.
The original minaret begins as a square tower, above
which there is a round tower, each of which has an external
staircase, broad enough for two loaded camels to mount; to
these, in later times, two octagonal towers with internal
staircases, after the style of the ordinary minaret, have
been
added. In explanation of this remarkable shape the
Moslems
tell a story how Ahmad Ibn Tulun, who considered
it beneath
his dignity to trifle in council, once by accident
played with
a roll of paper, and to conceal his momentary
lapse asserted
that he was making the model after which
theminaret of his
mosque should be built. Other writers, however,
state that
both the Mosque and its minaret were copied
from the great
Mosque of Samarra, which in Ahmad Ibn
Tulun's time had been
the metropolis of the Caliphate; and
though Samarra quickly
went to ruins when the supremacy
of
Baghdad had been restored, we hear something of a
wonderful minaret there, whence a view of the surrounding
country could be obtained. Corbet-Bey imagines the form
of the minaret to resemble that of Zoroastrian
fire-towers;
and this suggestion seems to account for the
occurrence of
the type at Samarra, which it was natural for a
provincial
governor to copy. The tower was at one time
surmounted
by a boat, standing by which, after the
completion of his
work, the Christian architect is said to
have demanded his
reward, which this
time was amply accorded. The same
ornament continued till May,
1694, when it was blown off in
a gale, but it was afterwards
for a time replaced.
The total cost of the building is given unanimously by
our authorities as a sum which works out at about $60,000;
and when Ahmad's subjects doubted whether this money
had been lawfully obtained, and therefore whether the
Mosque could safely be used for worship, the founder is
said to have silenced their scruples by assuring them that
it had all been built out of treasure trove—money almost
miraculously supplied by heaven's favour. Tales are told
of
the magnificence of the decoration and furniture
provided
for the inaugural ceremony; how it was even
intended to
encircle the Mosque with a line of ambergris, that
the worshippers
might always have a fragrant odour to
delight
their sense. The dedicatory inscription was
engraved on
more than one marble stele, and parts of one of
these have
recently been rediscovered and fixed to one of the
pillars of
the sanctuary, opposite the mihrab, or niche,
marking the
direction of prayer. It runs as follows:
“In the name of, etc. The Emir Abu'l-Abbas Ahmad Ibn
Tulun, client of the Commander of the Faithful, whose
might, honour and perfect favour God prolong in this
world and
the next, commanded that this holy, happy
Mosque be built for
the Moslem community, out of legitimate
and well-gotten wealth
granted him by God. Desiring
thereby the favour of God and the
future world, and seeking
that which will conduce to the glory
of religion and the
unity of the believers, and aspiring to
build a house for
God and to pay His due and to read His Book,
and to
make perpetual mention of Him; since God Almighty
says,
In houses which God has permitted to be raised,
wherein
His name is mentioned, and wherein praise is
rendered
unto Him morning and evening by men that are
distracted
IN A CAIRENE STREET.
neither by merchandise
nor by selling from making mention
of God, reciting prayer and
giving alms, fearing a
day wherein the hearts and eyes shall
be troubled, that God
may reward them for the good that they
have wrought, and
may give them yet more out of His bounty.
And God bestows
on whom He will without reckoning. In the
month
Ramadan of the year 265. Exalt thy Lord, the Lord
of
might, over that which they ascribe to Him. And peace
be
on the messengers and praise unto God the Lord of
the
worlds. O God, be gracious unto Mohammed, and
Mohammed's
family, and bless Mohammed and his family
even
according to the best of Thy favour and grace and
blessing
upon Abraham and his family. Verily Thou art
glorious
and to be praised.”
Of the history of the Mosque after Ahmad's time some
notices are preserved. His suburb Kata'i, which contained
not only his Mosque but also his vast palace and parade ground,
was burned in 905; and as the surrounding locality
became
more and more deserted, the Mosque itself suffered
from
neglect. The second of the Fatimide Caliphs is said to
have
replaced the fountain, which, as we have seen,
was burned soon
after its erection; but the desolation of the
region reached
its climax during the long reign of the
Fatimide Mustansir,
and the Mosque came to be used as a
resting-place for Moorish
caravans on their way to Mecca,
who stabled their camels in
the cloisters. Its use as a hostel
was countenanced by the
Egyptian rulers of the twelfth
century, who even provided food
for those who made it their
resting-place; such persons were
also declared free from the
ordinary tribunals, and told to
appoint a judge of their own
to settle any quarrels that might
arise.
Systematic restoration was effected by the Mamluke Sultan
Lajin, who, after murdering his master in the year 1294,
took refuge in the then desolate Mosque, and there vowed
that, if he escaped
his pursuers and eventually came to power,
he would restore
it. Two years later, being raised to the
throne of Egypt, he
was in a position to fulfil his promise;
to which pious object
he devoted a sum of about ten thousand
pounds. He rebuilt the
fountain in the centre of the
court, turning it into a
lavatory for the ceremonial ablution,
and his building still
remains; he provided a handsome
mimbar or pulpit, of which
some panels have found their way
way into the South Kensington
Museum; but the inscription
which records his munificence is
still there. He repaved
the colonnades and restored the
plastering of the walls. He
also provided the Mosque with
endowments sufficient to
support a variety of officials,
including professors of the
chief Moslem sciences, and a
school for children. Shortly
after his time, early in the
fourteenth century, the two
minarets on the south side were
built; and in 1370 the
northern colonnade was rebuilt, and
perhaps the arches
which connect the minaret which has been
described with
the Mosque were constructed.
Under the dominion of the Turks the Mosque was again
allowed to fall into neglect, and became a factory for the
production of woollen goods; while in the nineteenth century
it became a poorhouse for the aged and infirm, the arcades
being built up and turned into a series of cells, and the interior
profaned and desecrated in every possible way. The
poorhouse was closed in 1877, and in 1890 the Committee
for the Preservation of the Monuments of Arab Art
succeeded
in removing some traces of the injuries which
the
edifice had sustained, and it has ever since remained
under
their care.
The period between the death of Ahmad Ibn Tulun in 884
to the foundation of
Cairo in 969 was in the highest degree
eventful, but
the events which it contained were of little consequence
for
the subject of this book. The last days of Ahmad
were embittered by the
rebellion of one of his sons, who,being
caught and imprisoned,
was put to death shortly after the
accession of another son,
Khumaruyah, who reigned for
thirteen years. He showed great
competence both as a diplomatist
and as a soldier; he restored
friendly relations between
the courts of Egypt and
Baghdad, and received in fief from
the Caliph for the period of thirty years a vast empire
stretching
from Barca to the Tigris. He was, however, more
famous
for his magnificence than for his statesmanship or
his military
skill. Wonderful tales are told of his palaces,
his gardens
and his menageries; of walls frescoed at his order
with
pictures of the ladies in his harem, with crowns on
their
heads; of trees set in silver, and exotics brought
to Egypt
from all parts; of a pond of mercury whereon was
placed a
bed of air-cushions, secured with silk and silver,
that its perpetual
rocking might give him the sleep which his
physicians
could not procure for him save by distasteful
remedies;
of the tame lion that guarded him sleeping; and
of the wealth
of Egypt expended on the dowry of his daughter,
sent to
Baghdad to wed the Caliph. The pond of
mercury is apparently
no fiction, since it is recorded that
after his day men
found the liquid metal all about the site
where it had stood.
In 896 Khumaruyah was assassinated, it is said, in consequence
of some indulgence; and his sons and other successors
of his family were quite incapable of managing great
affairs. Nine years after his death Egypt was conquered by
a force sent from
Baghdad, and the surviving members of
the line of
Ahmad Ibn Tulun were carried captive to the
metropolis on the
Tigris. Such parts of Kata'i as remained
after the fire had
only the status of an annex to Fostat. Once
more the country
was governed by a viceroy sent from
Baghdad with a finance minister equal to him in
authority.
The weakness of the Caliphate prevented this arrangement
from working as it had worked in earlier times. Another
Turk
from Farghanah,
similar in a variety of ways to Ahmad Ibn
Tulun, utilized the
favour of a vizier with whom he had contracted
an alliance to
obtain by fraud an appointment to the
governorship of Egypt.
In August 935 this person entered
Egypt as governor, having
defeated other aspirants to the
office; and shortly afterwards
he obtained permission from
headquarters to assume the title
Ikhshid, which in his native
country stood for “king”;
somewhat as in the nineteenth century
the Egyptian viceroy got
from his Turkish suzerain the
right to style himself Khedive.
An enterprising chieftain deprived
the Ikhshid of the
provinces of
Syria and Palestine by
force of arms; and his being confirmed in their possession
by
the Caliph provoked such resentment in the mind of the
Ikhshid
that he bethought him of abandoning the
Prophet's
successor on the Tigris, and bestowing his
homage on the
pretender who was founding an empire in Western
Islam.
The Ikhshidi dynastywas of even shorter duration than that
of Ahmad Ibn Tulun, and left in Egypt even less to
perpetuate
its name. Its founder was charged by his
contemporaries with
avarice and cowardice, neither of them a
quality which helps
to secure immortality.
The system of slave rule, which, as has been seen, gave
Egypt its best days, was anticipated in the interval
between
the death of the Ikhshid and the accession of the
Fatimides.
Of two negroes brought from the Sudan to the
Egyptian
market one aspired to employment in a cook shop,
that he
might never want food, the other aspired to become
ruler
of the country, and each obtained his wish.
Purchased for
a small sum, and passing through the lowest
stages of
misery and degradation, the latter rose finally by
force of
character to be the Ikhshid's first minister and
general of
his forces; and on his master's death he contrived
to keep
the heirs in a state of tutelage to himself, and
afterwards to
seat himself on their throne; displaying
throughout capacity
for the management of
great affairs. Kafur, “Camphor,”
whose name of itself
indicated the servile condition of its
owner, was not only
master of Egypt,
Syria and Arabia,
but in one respect was the most fortunate of all Oriental
sovereigns. He obtained as his encomiast the most famous
of Arabic poets, known as al-Mutanabbi “the Prophetaster,”
at a time when the poet's powers were at their ripest;
and although in consequence of a dispute these brilliant
panegyrics were speedily followed by no less brilliant and
scathing satires, the portrait of Kafur that results is
more
complete and more familiar than that provided by the
paid
eulogizer of any other Sultan.
It might be difficult to point out in
Cairo any relic of the
Ikhshidi period, though the
idea of expanding Fostat towards
the north appears to have
found support while it
lasted. Kafur laid out a vast park on
the eastern bank of
the Great Canal, containing a palace which
formed his
favourite residence. Afterwards, when
Cairo was built, this
park formed the garden of the Lesser Palace, constructed
by
the second of the Fatimide Sultans. And the Tibri Zawiyah,
restored by Shafak Nur, mother of the late Khedive
Tewfik, is on the site of a small mosque
built by one of
Kafur's ministers.
[Back to top]
CHAPTER II
The Fatimide Period
THE rights of members of the Prophet's house
appeal
to all Moslems, and there have always been
multitudes
among them holding that the succession
should have fallen to the sons of his daughter rather than
to the descendants of his uncle. At the time when the
representatives
of the latter in
Baghdad had become puppets
of foreign
commanders, and the hold of
Baghdad on
Egypt
as well as other provinces had become so lax as
almost to
be non-existent, a pretender to the succession
through the
Prophet's daughter had founded a kingdom in North
Africa,
which by conquest was steadily approaching the
Egyptian
frontier. To the Moslem population of Egypt
allegiance to
such a monarch seemed far less humiliating than
to such
foreigners and slaves as had ruled over them since the
fall
of the Tulunids. During the disorders that broke out
after
the death of Kafur, a Jew who had been employed in
some
government office, and received rough treatment from
one
of Kafur's ephemeral successors, betook him to the
capital
of the North African dynasty, a place called
Mahdiyyah (or
city of the Mahdi), and informed the professed
descendant
of Ali and Fatimah there reigning that the time
was ripe
for the occupation of Egypt. On Feb. 6, 969, an army
was
despatched under one Jauhar, said to be a Greek by
origin,
who by July 9 of the same year had crushed all
resistance,
and taken possession of the old capital
Fostat. A formal
procession of the troops was made on that day
through
the city, and they were quartered for the night on
the plain
to the north, where on the following night the lines
of the
new city were drawn.
The troops, for whom the new city
was to provide a residence,
numbered a hundred thousand
mounted men.
The lines of the new city were determined by the canal,
called the Canal of the Commander of the Faithful, which
ran from Fostat towards the south-east, discharging at the
port of Kulzum or
Klysma. That is the dry canal (now the
route of a
tram-line) which bisects
Cairo from south
to north,
the city having afterwards expanded on its western
side, in
the direction of the Nile, whose bed has since
receded considerably
in the same direction. For many centuries
the
view over this canal was the favourite sight in
Cairo, and
wealthy
persons used to build their houses where they could
enjoy it.
The eastern boundary was also a canal, called the
canal of the
Red Mountain; it must have silted up at no
great length of
time after the building of
Cairo, and
no
trace of it exists. The southern boundary of the new
city
was Mount Mokattam, with the two ruined suburbs of
Fostat
called al-Askar and al-Kata'i. There was also a
canal
on this side, supposed to have been dug by the first
Moslem
conqueror of Egypt. To the north there was no limit
quite
so definite, but the line was drawn well to the
south of Ain
Shams, and a canal was afterwards dug on this
side also,
so that the new city had moats on all four sides.
The lines drawn by Jauhar for the walls of the new city
were found next morning to contain certain obliquities,
but
his belief in the auspiciousness of the moment chosen
for
their drawing prevented his afterwards rectifying
them.
These obliquities were in any case very slight; the
walls
when built enclosed a city that was practically
foursquare,
and nearly true to the cardinal points. We
shall try under
the guidance of Casanova to trace the remains
of the ancient
walls and gates.
The southern wall that looked towards Fostat was pierced
by the double gate
called Zuwailah about the middle, and at
the S.W. angle by the
gate called Faraj (deliverance). On
the West side there was a
gate called Sa'adat, after one of
the Fatimide generals who
had entered the city thereby.
Two other gates were afterwards
cut in this wall: one called
Khukhah (the wicket) near the
bridge by which the Mouski
passes over the canal, and another
the Gate of the Bridge
by which the canal was crossed at an
earlier time. On the
north side there were two gates, known as
Bab al-Nasr and
Bab al-Futuh (both meaning Gates of Victory).
On the east
side there were also two, called Barkiyyah and
Mahruk
respectively: the second of these names belongs to
a later
time.
Rather more than a hundred years later—in 1087 A.D.—it
wasfound necessary to rebuild the walls, this time with
burned
bricks, the original walls having probably been of
mud. This
was done by the order of the Fatimide Caliph
Mustansir, and
under the direction of his minister
Badr al-Jamali, commonly
called Emir al-Juyush (Prince of the Armies). The lines of Jauhar's
wall were closely followed, except that the northern wall
was extended so as to include the Mosque of Hakim, which
had been built outside the old wall. This involved the
displacing
of the Nasr and Futuh Gates. The southern wall
was
also displaced, so that the Zuwailah Gate was given
its present
position. These three gates were, it is said,
built by three
brothers from Edessa, probably Syrian
Christians. An inscription
which at one time stood on the Bab
Zuwailah stated
that it had been erected in the year
corresponding to 1091,
whereas the Bab al-Nasr had been
completed four years
earlier. The former of these two gates
was regarded as a
masterpiece, unrivalled in the world for the
size of its doors
and the massiveness of the towers which
defended it. A legend
made the leaves revolve on pivots stuck
in disks of
glass. When the Muayyad Mosque was built in 1416,
these
towers were employed
as the foundation of the minarets, and
much of the original
construction on the side of the Mosque
was reduced. The
increase of traffic with the older town led
to the wall at the
side being demolished. The Committee has
done much work upon
the remains of the Gate, and in 1900
brought to light part of
a Cufic inscription, which is, however,
purely religious in
character and contains neither the name
of the founder nor the
date.
Under the vault of the arch there used to be two chambers,
of which that to the west is still in existence and
communicates
with the Muayyad Mosque. These chambers were
used by
the Egyptian sovereigns to watch various spectacles of
which
this part of the city formed the theatre, especially
the starting
and return of the Sacred Carpet (mahmil). Owing to the
populousness of
the region the gate was used for a variety
of purposes which
demanded publicity, notably the execution
of criminals.
Processions regularly had their route
between the Futuh and
Zuwailah Gates.
Eighty years later the great Saladdin finding the wall of
Jauhar in ruins resolved to repair it. His idea was to
build
a single wall, which, starting from the Nile, should
enclose
both Fostat and
Cairo and return to the Nile. The commencement
of
the wall, as planned by the great Sultan,
was from Maks or
Maksim (a name derived probably from
a Roman named Maximus),
the port of
Cairo on the Nile,
where Hakim built a Mosque, called afterwards the Mosque
of the Gate of the Nile, or of the Sons of Anan. From this
point the new wall went directly to the Great Canal. West
of the Canal it was pierced by the Bab Sha'riyyah, still
marked on the plans, named, it is said, after a Berber
tribe
encamped in the neighbourhood. Traces of the wall
of
Saladdin have been discovered by Casanova at various
other points. From the north-east corner of the old wall
the
northern wall was continued for some hundreds of
metres,
as far as a point
called Burj
Zafar (Tower of Victory),
a
name apparently chosen to accord with those of the
gates
already piercing the north wall; the extended line
after a
space went back to resume the line of the older wall,
slightly
north of the Bab al-Barkiyyah. That gate was,
however,
shifted to the east, as was also the case with
the gate called
Bab Mahruk, while two new gates were
constructed called
the New Gate and the Vizier's Gate. The
southern wall,
running from the Citadel to the Nile, so as to
enclose the
Mosque of Amr, had four gates, called respectively
after the
Cemetery, Safa,
Old
Cairo and the Bridge.
Of the gates that have been mentioned three, Zuwailah,
(now usually called Mutwalli), Futuh and Nasr are fairly
well preserved; the remainder no longer exist, but their
names are preserved in the plans, and streets or spaces
are
called after them. The gate which has been
mentioned
above with the name Mahruk (the Burned) is said
to have
been previously called the Forage-dealers’ and to
have
changed its name owing to the following circumstance:
On
Thursday, September 27, 1254, the Emir Aktai, who
had
been planning to usurp the throne of the reigning
Mamluke
Aibek, was treacherously seized by the latter
and
assassinated within the Citadel. His followers, some
seven
hundred in number, determined the following night to
leave
Cairo and start in the direction of
Syria. Finding the Foragedealers’
Gate locked, as usual at night, they set fire to it;
when the gate was afterwards replaced, it was known as
the Burned Gate.
A relic of Jauhar's work is left in the name Bain al-Kasrain
“Between the two Palaces,” sometimes given to the
Nahhasin Street. One of the general's first tasks was to
build a palace for his master, and the site selected was
on
the eastern side of the great avenue which bisected the
new
city. Opposite, on the other side of the avenue, were
the
gardens of Kafur, also
containing the palace which that
former sovereign of Egypt had
occupied. The Great Eastern
Palace, as this was called, to
distinguish it from the Western
Palace built by the second
Fatimide Caliph, was commenced
the same night as that on which
the lines of the walls were
drawn. The vast building, or
series of buildings, was a city
in itself, capable of
containing 30,000 persons. A high wall,
pierced with a number
of gates, whose names are still preserved
in some local
appellations, screened it from the gaze
of the population; and
from a distance it seemed comparable
to a mountain.
Dissatisfied with this great palace, the
second of the
Fatimide Caliphs built himself a smaller one
opposite. It was
an open rectangle, embracing a recreation
ground, which
fronted the avenue “Between the two Palaces.”
These palaces, of which M. Ravaisse has endeavoured to
reconstruct the general plan, were occupied by the
Fatimide
Caliphs till the fall of the dynasty. When
Saladdin resolved
to put an end to it, he found, it is said,
in the Great Eastern
Palace 12,000 persons, all of them women,
with the sole exception
of the Caliph and his sons, and other
males of the imperial
family. It was assigned by Saladdin to
his ministers
to dwell in; and it speedily went to rack and
ruin. This
was due to the building of the Citadel, which not
only became
the residence of the ruler, but of necessity that
of the
chief ministers as well.
The troops brought by Jauhar were assigned different
quarters in the new city, where they proceeded to build. On
the western side of the great avenue there were four quarters
or Harahs—called respectively after Burjuwan, the Emirs,
Jaudar and Zuwailah. Four other quarters lay to the west
of
these, and between them and the canal; these were called
Farahiyyah, Murtahiyyah, Akrad (Kurds) and Mahmudiyyah.
These
names are mainly taken from either detachments
of the army of
Jauhar or from their captains. East of the
Avenue there were the
upper and lower quarter of the
Greeks, to the north and south
respectively; east of the
grand palace the quarter of the
chief general; south of it
the quarters of the Dailemites and
Turks; north-east of it
the quarter called after Utuf, a black
captain; west of it the
Barkiyyah quarter. Other quarters were
built by less fortunate
troops outside the walls.
According to the calculations of Ali Pasha Mubarak, the
length of each side of Jauhar's city was about 1,200
metres,
and the area 340 feddans,
* of which
70 feddans were occupied
by the great palace, thirty-five by
the garden of Kafur,
thirty-five by the two parade grounds,
and the remaining 200
by the soldiers’ quarters. Between the
western wall and the
canal there was a distance of thirty
metres. The new walls
built by Emir al-Juyush gave the city a
further extension of
sixty feddans. The addition to
Cairo of the space west of
the canal towards the Nile and to the south towards the city
of Ahmad Ibn Tulun took place during the period of the
Mamlukes. Meanwhile the bed of the Nile has moved to a
distance of something like a mile and a half west of its ancient
course. The recovered land has gradually been built
over,
and by these repeated extensions the area of
Cairo has
reached something like six times that of
the original city.
The early years of the Fatimide Caliphs were disturbed
by the attacks of the Carmathians, against whom, as we
have seen, Jauhar found it necessary to fortify
Cairo with a
series of
trenches in addition to his wall. In origin the
Carmathians
and the Fatimides appear to have been the
same, but the sects
had become divided in the course of
the century during which
the former had been thriving in
the West, while the original
community had been devastating
Arabia and the Eastern
provinces of the Caliphate. Both
followed a system of
mysticism, one part of which was to
MIDAN EL-ADAOUI.
assign rights, more or
less approximating to the divine, to
the family of Ali, the
Prophet's cousin and son-in-law; but
whereas the practice of
statesmanship had reduced the
fanaticism of the Fatimides,
their Eastern brethren were
iconoclasts and persecutors of as
vehement a sort as ever
arose in Islam. At the period of the
Fatimide conquest of
Egypt the leader of the Carmathians,
al-A'sam, had his
headquarters in al-Ahsa on the Persian Gulf,
but was in
relations with the Caliph of
Baghdad, and even employed
forces
nominally subject to the Caliph in wresting from
Egyptian rule
Damascus and other Syrian cities. The disturbed
state of the
region formerly held by the Ikhshidis
enabled the Carmathian
leader to gain a series of victories,
till in October, 971,
his army was encamped at Ain Shams
in the immediate
neighbourhood of
Cairo. The skill of
the
Fatimide general was now put to a greater test than it
had
to undergo when he was sent to conquer Egypt, but
it
proved equal to the occasion. Sorties were organized
by
him on November 19 and 20, in the second of which a
severe
defeat was inflicted on the Carmathian leader, who
was
compelled to retreat to al-Ahsa, finding that in
consequence
of his failure he was deserted by various Arab
tribes who
had gladly joined his plundering expeditions. The
land
victory was followed by one over the Carmathian fleet
at
Tinnis, and in
Syria, too, attempts were made to shake off
the Carmathian yoke. Al-A'sam, however, had no intention
of giving way without another struggle, and the Fatimide
Caliph, whose arrival was hastened by the representations
made to him by his general concerning the Carmathian
trouble, found himself a year after his enthronement
besieged
in his capital, while various Carmathian corps
ravaged
lower Egypt.
Al-A'sam was again compelled to
raise the siege, chiefly
through the timely administration
by the enemy of bribes to
some of his shifty allies.
Egypt was thus delivered from the Carmathians; but the
possession of
Syria
was not yet secured for the Egyptian
sovereigns. When the
first Caliph Muizz died at the end of
975, his son and
successor Aziz found himself threatened in
Syria by an enemy who had succeeded to
the inheritance of
the Carmathians. This was a Turk, Aftakin,
who, as commander
of a force of mercenaries which had been in
the
employ of the Eastern Sultan and had mutinied, had
in
the spring of 975 become master of Damascus, where
by
justice and capacity he had made himself popular,
and
presently found himself strong enough, with the aid of
disaffected
Carmathians, to endeavour to extend his rule
over
all
Syria. In
July, 976, Jauhar was sent by the advice of
Jacob, son of
Killis (the Jew who had originally summoned
the Fatimides to
invade Egypt), to deal with this new
enemy, and he besieged
Damascus for two months. Aftakin
was finally persuaded by the
Damascenes to invoke the aid
of the Carmathians, who were now
under another chief.
The result of this alliance was that
Jauhar had presently to
raise the siege of Damascus, and was
soon himself shut up
in Askalon where his army suffered great
privations. Jauhar
in these circumstances in some way got the
ear of Aftakin,
who, against the judgement of his Carmathian
colleague,
was persuaded to allow Jauhar's army to
depart
without apparently having made any conditions of
peace.
They were met on their return by a new army
equipped by
the Caliph Aziz, who advanced with them to
Ramlah,
where in the summer
of 977 a fierce engagement took place,
ending in the defeat of
Aftakin and the Carmathians, who
are said to have lost 20,000
men. In spite of this success, the
Egyptian Caliph was content
to stave off further attacks by
the offer of a yearly tribute.
Aftakin, who through treachery
was taken captive by the
Caliph, was treated honourably
and even admitted to the circle
of the Caliph's advisers: a
fact which is said to
have so roused the jealousy of the
Vizier Jacob, son of
Killis, that he caused this possible rival
to be poisoned
about four years after his capture. We should
gladly try to
exonerate this capable proselyte from so grave
a charge, but
his career makes it improbable that he was
troubled with more
scruples than Marlowe's Jew of Venice.
Still he seems to have
served his Caliph faithfully, who
found him indispensable,
being obliged to restore him to
office whenever he tried to
cashier him, and who, on his
death in 990, fasted for three
days and gave him the most
honourable interment.
The accounts that are handed down of this person's possessions
give a vivid idea of the amount which it was possible
for a minister of state to accumulate. He left jewels,
coined
wealth, goods of various kinds and estates valued
at about
two million pounds; his harem, containing 800 wives,
came
near rivalling Solomon's; and there was a dowry of
about
100,000 pounds left for his daughter. Besides this
he had
followed the plan adopted by yet earlier ministers,
and
destined to influence the destinies of Egypt in the
future,
of forming a bodyguard, which in his case had
risen to the
number of 4,000 Mamlukes; they were housed in
barracks
which formed a street called Vizier Street, and
even after
Jacob's death were not disbanded.
The other founder of the Fatimide Empire in Egypt,
Jauhar, survived him rather more than a year, dying at the
beginning of 992. His relations with his master continued
friendly to the end, but his ill-success in the Syrian expedition
appears to have definitely tarnished his laurels.
For several years Aziz was occupied with the conquest
of
Syria, where the Hamdanide Saad
al-daulah, whose
capital was at Aleppo, managed to maintain
himself, and
on his death in 991 was succeeded by his son,
Abu'l-Fada'il.
This sovereign endeavoured to obtain the
help of the Greek
emperor against the
Egyptian invaders, and such help was
readily given, since the
maintenance of Antioch in Christian
hands depended on the
possibility of playing off one
Moslem power against the other.
Aleppo after a siege of
thirteen months by Aziz's general was
set free by the timely
aid of the Emperor
Basil. The plans, however, of this Caliph
were interrupted by his death in the year 996, when his
son
Mansur, known as Hakim, was placed on the throne,
being
eight years of age.
The practice of proclaiming minors was destined to be
followed many times, chiefly during the Mamluke dynasties,
when it usually led to the throne being seized after a few
days or months by an ambitious minister. Such a coup d'état
was suggested on this occasion to the minister Burjuwan
the
Slav, who had been appointed regent by the last Caliph's
dying
dispositions; but he did not consent to carry it out.
He was,
however, soon involved in a struggle with his colleague,
the
Commander of the Forces, which again were
divided into two
camps of Moors and Syrians, including
Turks. Burjuwan
succeeded in getting the upper hand, and
displacing his
colleague, who was presently assassinated
by the Turks.
Burjuwan maintained his regency for about four years,
and managed affairs successfully. He recovered
Syria, pacified
Damascus, and after
defeating the Greeks made a
truce with their emperor for ten
years. But his
protégé Hakim
developed the qualities of an eastern tyrant at an early
age, and finding the restraint of Burjuwan intolerable,
intrigued
with two other ministers, who assassinated
him.
Hakim was at this time twelve years of age. Though
compelled
to tolerate another regent, as usual the
assassin of
the last, he required that all petitions should be
addressed
to himself, and that the new regent should make
no pretentions
to independence. Ere his thirteenth year was at
an
end, he began the
series of extravagant ordinances and regulations
which were
continued through the whole of his
reign and have won him the
title Caligula of the East. His
delight in bloodshed was
utilized by his ministers for the
purpose of getting rid of
rivals, but those who gratified
their resentments in this way
quickly fell victims in their
turn. Thus Burjuwan's assassin
survived him little more
than three years.
As this Caliph began to assert his independence, the
people of Egypt became subjected to as much cruelty and
purposeless annoyance as can ever have fallen to the lot of
any nation; though the instability of the tyrant's purpose
and
the perpetual veering of his inclinations may have done
something to relieve them. At times he amused himself
with
oppressing Jews and Christians, at times they were
the objects
of his favour. At times he ordered that day
should be turned
into night, and vice versa; at times no
one
was to be allowed about after dark. Dumb animals,
and
even plants, were often the object of his resentment.
One whim of Hakim's cost the Christians many churches,
for at one period he demanded that all those in Egypt
should be demolished, and he extended his iconoclasm to
the ancient and much venerated Church of the Resurrection
in Jerusalem. Jews and Christians were compelled to adopt
Islam under penalty of having to carry heavy weights
in the form of a calf or a cross. An amusement of this
monster
was the hacking of young children to pieces; a
remonstrance
against this cruelty cost a general who had
saved
Hakim's throne his life. Viziers and other officers
were
honoured, tortured or executed according to the
Caliph's
caprice.
In spite of the character of Hakim's rule few serious
attempts seem to have been made to rid Egypt of him.
Apparently the hatred between the Moorish and Syrian
elements in his army
was so great that he could always
rely on one or other of them
in the event of disaffection
spreading. Nor does it appear
that any opponent of tyranny
could build on the ordinary
resentment inspired by the
Caliph's acts; anyone who opposed
him on the ground of
nearer descent from the prophet could
perhaps get together
some allies. Two attempts to substitute a
new dynasty for
that of Hakim on this principle were made by
pretenders
from Barcah and Meccah respectively; the former
of these
came near succeeding, but Hakim found a general
capable
of defeating him. The latter was rendered
innocuous by administering
bribes. The persons who joined in
these revolts
were, moreover, not the sufferers from the
Caliph's tyranny
but hordes of free Arabs, whose fickleness
ruined any cause
that they temporarily took up. Nor can we
find that Hakim's
cruelties inspired much, if any, horror in
his contemporaries,
since various princes voluntarily put
themselves
under his suzerainty.
Towards the end of his reign he was possessed of the
same ambition as had formerly seized Caligula—the desire
to
be regarded as a god. Missionaries sprang up in
Cairo who taught the new doctrine of the divinity
of Hakim, and
demanded that it should be recognized. This
claim seemed
at last to rouse the submissive people of
Cairo to indignation,
and
several of the missionaries and their adherents
were murdered.
Hakim avenged himself by again taking
the Jews and Christians
into favour, allowing the forced
converts to return to their
former religions, and rebuild
their churches and synagogues;
and, in addition, permitting
his Sudanese troops to indulge in
all sorts of excesses
with the Moslem population. At times the
other troops took
the side of the populace against the
Sudanese, and in the
course of the skirmishes which ensued
much destruction
was wrought.
The deliverance of the people of Egypt came by the hand
of an assassin in the year 1021. All that is known is that
Hakim rode out one evening to the Karafah, or cemetery, on
an ass with a small escort, and never returned. The ass
was
afterwards found in a mutilated condition, and the
tracking
of footsteps led to the discovery of Hakim's
clothes. The
assassination is ascribed to a sister of Hakim's,
who was
indignant at his resolve to appoint a distant relation
as his
successor to the exclusion of his own son. She is
credited
with having organized the assault, and afterwards
got rid
of the persons who carried it out. As she further had
a
number of innocent persons murdered, because they
refused
to acknowledge to having had a share in the
assassination,
she appears to have been a worthy sister to
the tyrant. The
rumour that Hakim still lived and would return
at some
time was even more persistent than a similar fancy
about
Nero. There are sects that still believe in Hakim's
existence
and destined return. It is marvellous that they
should desire
it.
His successor, who took the name al-Zahir, was rather
more than fourteen years of age, and was put on the throne
by his aunt who, like so many Egyptian princesses, from
immemorial times, took an active part in politics. She
managed
to maintain herself in the regency for four years,
during
which she showed more skill in organizing executions
than in
securing Egyptian rule over the provinces;
still neither she
nor her nephew exercised whimsical tyranny
after the style of
Hakim, except on rare occasions. Zahir
reigned in all fifteen
years and eight months, and before his
death recovered nearly
all
Syria, which in the early years
of his reign had been the prey of a variety of usurpers.
The fourth Fatimide Caliph died of the plague in 1036;
his successor Mustansir was aged seven years at the
time of his accession, so that the real power fell to his
mother, who was a
black slave, and her former master, a
Jewish curiosity dealer,
named Abraham. For a time this
person, through the Caliph's
mother, appointed the viziers,
among them a former
co-religionist who had adopted Islam;
this person, however,
found the means of getting rid of his
benefactor, and
presently himself fell a victim to the resentment
of the
Caliph's mother. The reign of Mustansir was
distinguished by
the commencement of a bodyguard of black
freedmen, got
together by the Caliph, it is supposed because,
being of the
same race as his mother, their fidelity
could be trusted.
Mustansir was particularly favoured by having his cause
taken up by various adventurers in different parts of the
Moslem Empire, of whom one incorporated Yemen in the
Egyptian realm, while another even took
Baghdad, and for
a time obtained
recognition of the Fatimide Caliph in the
metropolis of his
rival. This event, which had been caused
by dissensions in the
family of the Seljukes, who at that time
were supreme in the
Eastern Caliphate, was of short duration,
partly because the
adventurer who had taken
Baghdad excited the envy of Mustansir's vizier, who refused
further
supplies to his rival, partly because the military
talents of
the Seljuek prince were equal to the emergency.
Meanwhile Egypt was troubled by the rivalries between
the Turkish and negro elements of the Caliph's bodyguard,
which broke out into open war. The result was long doubtful,
but finally was in favour of the Turks, commanded by
Nasir
al-daulah. The claims of the Turkish praetorians became,
in
consequence of their victory, excessive, and a
dispute arose
between their commander Nasir al-daulah and
the Caliph, which
ended in the latter falling completely
under the former's
control, who even threatened to restore
Egypt to the
suzerainty of
Baghdad. This person's
rule,
which ended with his assassination in 1073, was
accompanied
by great misery; the
palace of the Caliph was
repeatedly plundered, and its vast
library partly burned and
partly handed over to pillagers; and
the Caliph himself was
reduced to absolute poverty, so that
his wife and daughters
had finally to flee to
Baghdad to avoid starvation. It is
uncertain
whether Nasir al-daulah's ambition was to
become
governor of Egypt for the Abbasids, or whether he
aimed at
founding a dynasty of his own. After his
assassination the
condition of the Caliph did not at first
better itself; in despair
he put himself into the hands of
Badr al-Jamali, an
Armenian freedman who had served as Governor of Damascus
and
Acre, and who had provided himself with an
Armenian bodyguard;
this person accepted the Caliph's
invitation to settle the
affairs of Egypt, which he began in
old Arab style by
summoning all the existing officials to a
feast and murdering
them. With his unscrupulousness, however,
he combined both
military and administrative ability
of a high order, and by
quelling rebellion everywhere and
seeing to the proper
administration of justice he brought
back a fair degree of
prosperity.
During the rule of
Badr
al-Jamali the walls of
Cairo were,
as we have seen, rebuilt; but though Egypt prospered, the
Fatimides lost
Syria,
which was first conquered by an adventurer
named Atsiz, who
went so far as to invade Egypt,
where
Badr defeated him; his Syrian conquests then fell
into the power of the Seljuke Tutush, from whom
Badr was
able to recover
a few towns. But Damascus remained in
Seljuke hands.
Mustansir died in 1094, having reigned over sixty years,
longer than any other Oriental Caliph or Sultan. Like
Khumaruyah
he appears to have displayed some ingenuity
in
devising new forms of pleasure, but otherwise he
exhibited
no competence. Before order was restored by the
Armenian
troops, the country was devastated by the
Berbers, negroes,
Turks and Syrians who
formed the different corps of the
Caliph's army; Egyptian
troops nowhere figure in the list.
The death of Mustansir was followed by a struggle for
the succession, in which, however, the youngest son of the
late Caliph, being supported by
Badr's
son and successor,
al-Afdal, was victorious; he was proclaimed
with the title
Musta'li. Al-Afdal put himself into
communication with the
Crusaders, and undertook to aid them in
defeating the Seljukes;
and, indeed, he succeeded in retaking
Jerusalem and
some other places in
Syria. This was before he was aware of
the intentions of the Crusaders with regard to Jerusalem;
when
that place, in 1099, fell into their hands, and the
whole
population of Moslems was massacred, al-Afdal found
his
dominions threatened by the Franks, and had to retire
to
Egypt, leaving
Syria to the invaders. By
1101 the bulk
of the towns which had had Egyptian garrisons
had fallen
into their hands. The same year Musta'li died, and
was
succeeded by his son al-Amir, then an infant five
years old.
Al-Afdal acted as regent, and governed Egypt well
for
twenty years. His attempts, however, to withstand the
Franks
in
Syria and
in Palestine were unsuccessful, and towns
which had remained
in Egyptian hands, such as Ptolemais
and Tripoli, were
compelled to surrender.
In 1117 the Crusaders for the first time invaded Egypt
itself, but had to quit it the next year, having effected
little.
In 1121 the Caliph, who was now of age, feeling
tired of the
regent, found means to have him assassinated; his
possessions
were then confiscated, and it was found that
he had
enriched himself even beyond the by no means
contemptible
performances of previous viziers. He was
succeeded in
his office by the man who had been employed to
organize
the murder, Ibn Fatik al-Bata'ihi, who had risen
from the
the ranks. In 1125, he too was got rid of by the
Caliph,
though only imprisoned, and the latter proceeded
to govern
personally without the
aid of a vizier. His rule was exceedingly
arbitrary and
vexatious, and he involved himself in
much bloodshed; his end
was, however, brought on, not by
the resentment of his
subjects, but by fanatics of a sect who
held that his father's
elder brother Nizar had been wrongly
displaced. By one of
these he was assassinated in 1130.
He was succeeded by a cousin who took the title Hafiz,
and was compelled to employ as his vizier Ahmad the son of
the murdered al-Afdal and grandson of
Badr al-Jamali. This
vizier enjoyed
his honours for a little more than a year,
during which he had
made himself detested by insolence
towards the Caliph, and an
endeavour to modify the current
form of religion; like his
father he was got out of the way by
assassination. According
to custom an Armenian freedman
Yanis, who had organized the
attack on the former vizier,
was installed in his victim's
place. A year's time brought
him into conflict with the
Caliph, who resorted to a subtle
form of poison to relieve
himself of the vizier. Hafiz shortly
after had to deal with an
Absalom in the shape of his son
Hasan, who fought pitched
battles with his younger brother
and then with troops summoned
to defend his father; he was
victorious and forced his father
to name him successor, and
to hand over to him the reins of
authority, but his conduct
quickly gave offence. He was
compelled to take refuge with
his father within the palace,
and a Jewish and a Christian
physician were summoned to
administer poison to him; the
Jew refused, but the Christian
provided what was required.
In consequence the Christian was
presently executed by the
Caliph's order, and his property
given to the Jew who became
sole court physician. The army,
which by this time
claimed the right to make all appointments
of a political
nature, gave the post of vizier to an Armenian
Christian,
named Bahram, and he filled most of the
subordinate posts
with Armenians, who, in spite of their
religion, have frequently
formed the cabinets of
Moslem rulers. His power
lasted from 1135 to 1137. An
adventurer named Ridwan
then gathered an army and displaced
him; his power also
lasted two years only, after which he was
compelled by
Hafiz to flee from
Cairo to
Syria,
where he collected an
army in the hope of recovering Egypt;
after a variety of
adventures, combining successes and
failures, he was assassinated
in 1148. The Caliph himself died
in 1149.
He was followed by his youngest son Ismail, called Zafir,
who was seventeen years old at the time. In character he
was no stronger than his predecessors, and the vizierate
was
seized by an ambitious governor of
Alexandria, named Ibn
Sallar, who
presently was murdered by his stepson, who in
his turn was
installed in the dangerous office. This episode
cost the
Fatimides Askalon, their last possession in Palestine,
which
owing to the disputes between the rival parties
was taken by
the Crusaders.
Zafir was, after a reign of four years, murdered by his favourite
Nasr, the son of the Vizier Abbas, who then proceeded
to make away with the brothers of the Caliph, and to place
on the throne his infant son, Isa, called Fa'iz. He
attempted
to govern independently, but gave
dissatisfaction and was
shortly compelled to flee before a
South Egyptian governor,
Tala'i Ibn Ruzzik, who came with an army
to
Cairo and
usurped
the office of vizier. The youthful Caliph, who suffered
from
epileptic fits, occasioned by the violence which accompanied
his accession, died at the age of eleven in the
year 1160.
The vizier, after the ordinary custom, appointed to the
vacant Caliphate a child, cousin of the deceased, who was
nine years of age, and was given the title Adid; with him
the Fatimide Caliphate was destined to terminate.
According
to the ordinary custom also the Caliph soon grew
tired
of the regency of the vizier, and hired persons to
assassinate
STREET SCENE, BAB-EL-SHARIA, CAIRO.
him, and as the vizier
lived after the attempt on his life
long enough to avenge
himself, the Caliph had the baseness
to lay the blame on his
aunt and hand her over to execution.
The vizierate was seized
by the son of the murdered man,
who, however, was speedily
displaced by the governor of
Upper Egypt, Shawar, a man who had
already figured as a
person of importance in previous reigns;
who ere long had
to give way to another usurper, Dirgham, head
of a corps
formed by
Tala'i, whose conduct soon made his followers
wish
Shawar back. The disturbed state of Egypt gave the
Crusaders
an opportunity to effect a landing, do much
damage, and only
retire on promise of tribute. Meanwhile
Shawar had found an
ally in the Prince of Damascus, and
in 1164 returned to Egypt
with an army commanded by a
general of the latter named
Shirguh; after a month's resistance
Dirgham found himself
deserted, and both he and his
brothers met their deaths. After
the joint enterprise of Shawar
and Shirguh had been crowned
with success, the two fell
out, and since Shawar did not
shrink from applying for the
help of the Crusaders, Shirguh
was compelled to return to
Syria. Early in 1167 he returned with an
army of 2,000
picked men, with whose aid he won a decisive
victory over
the united forces of Shawar and the Franks at
Ushmunain
in the same year. It is in this battle that we
first hear of
Saladdin, sent by Nur al-din, the Prince of
Damascus, accompanying
and aiding his uncle Shirguh. After the
battle
Saladdin was appointed by his uncle governor of
Alexandria,
where
he was presently besieged by the united forces
of Shawar and
his Frankish allies. The news that Shirguh
had commenced the
siege of
Cairo induced the parties to
make peace, and by the end of the year Shirguh had
withdrawn
to Damascus. Meanwhile a Frankish garrison
was
admitted into
Cairo to make sure of the tribute which had
been
promised the Crusaders as the price of their assistance,
and treated the
inhabitants with great harshness. The ill-content
of the
inhabitants led to the summoning of Nur al-din
from
Syria by the Caliph, while on the other
hand a
Frankish army came from the north of Egypt and began
to lay siege to
Cairo.
On this occasion occurred the burning
of Fostat, which was
described above. The Franks were
bribed by Shawar to retire;
but Shirguh's forces were received
with joy by the people of
Cairo, and in a short time
after their arrival Shawar was, at Saladdin's instance,
attacked and put to death. Shirguh, who got his place,
occupied it only two months, since in March, 1168, he fell
a
victim to gluttony. After some claims being put forward
by
other candidates, Saladdin was chosen to succeed him
as
vizier and governor of the Egyptian Empire. Saladdin
was
an earnest follower of the Sunni doctrines, on
opposition to
which the Fatimide throne was based; he
therefore appointed
persons of his own persuasion to the chief
posts in Egypt,
and constantly reduced the sphere of activity
of the Caliph.
As usual he was threatened by an insurrection,
but was able
to suppress it; and with the aid of his chief,
Nur al-din,
raised the siege of
Damietta, which had been besieged by
the Franks with a powerful force. His further exploits in
dealing with the Crusaders are well known. At the beginning
of
1171 Saladdin finally consented to a step which
Nur al-din had
been long urging on him, that of substituting
in the Friday
prayer the name of the
Baghdad Caliph
for that of the Fatimide Adid; and Adid, who was ill at
the
time, fortunately died a few days after, and never
heard of
his dethronement and the loss of the imperial title
to his
family. Meanwhile steps had been taken to substitute
orthodox
for Shi'ite judges, and also to found schools and
colleges
where the younger generation should be brought
up
in Sunnite principles. Though Adid was but
twenty-one
years old at his death, he left several
children, two of whom
found some partisans;
but their attempts to regain the
throne were unsuccessful and
disastrous to their followers.
The history of the Fatimides bears a close resemblance to
that of the
Baghdad
Caliphs, except that the Abbasid family
appears to have
produced far more able men, and the mayors
of the palace in
the latter case succeeded in founding dynasties
of some
duration, unlike the ephemeral vizierates of the
Fatimide
Empire. The plan of appointing infants to the
throne in order
to permit the ministers a free hand will
meet us repeatedly.
The results were ordinarily disastrous
to both minister and
sovereign.
[Back to top]
CHAPTER IV
The Ayyubid Period and its
Buildings
EACH dynasty that got control over Egypt founded a
new capital, ordinarily within easy distance of the
last; the
dynasty established by Saladdin and destined
to control the
nearer East for something less than a
hundred years did not
abandon this precedent. From
Cairo itself the seat of government was to shift to the
south-east,
the high ground between the city and Mount
Mokattam,
where a site was found for a Citadel. The idea
of such a
structure is said to have been suggested by the
Crusaders’
procedure. The soldiers of the Cross, when they
had conquered
a hostile country, shut themselves up in
fortresses
such as their chiefs possessed in Europe, where
safe from
attack they could retain and enjoy their mastery.
Saladdin,
chiefly remembered in history for his successful
resistance
to the Crusaders, learned from his enemies, and
built himself
a fortress similar to theirs.
The selection by Saladdin or his minister Karakush of a
point dominated as the Cairene Citadel is by a mountain
has been criticized by European writers as a strategic
blunder;
and defended on the ground that a fortress
actually on
the top of Mount Mokattam would have been too far
removed
from the city to be of much use for either
protecting
the inhabitants of
Cairo or keeping them in order, and
would, besides, have involved the fortification of the eminence
on which the Citadel was built, to prevent the mountain
being isolated by some enterprising enemy who chose to
occupy that
intervening height. And this defence seems unanswerable.
The site of the Citadel is supposed to have originally had
the name “Cupola of the Air,” and to have directly
overlooked
a parade ground established by Ahmad Ibn
Tulun;
the whole place was after his time turned into a
cemetery
(karafah), in which numerous mosques were
erected. Here
Saladdin ordered Karakush to build a fortress,
which he was
never destined to inhabit himself. His residence,
when Sultan,
was the old Palace of the Viziers, and the first
Sultan
who inhabited the Citadel itself was al-Kamil, who
came to
the throne many years after Saladdin's death.
The Citadel in all the plans is divided into two distinct
portions: the Northern, rectangular in shape (at least on
three sides), and the South-Eastern, separated from the
former
by a thick wall. Casanova suggests that the former
was
what was intended in Saladdin's original plan. After
the
work had made some progress, he bethought him of
building
himself a palace under the shelter of the
Citadel.
Access to the northern enclosure was given by a gate
called by various names, among them the Step Gate, owing
to
the nature of the approach—a part of this ancient flight
of
stairs was discovered and identified by Casanova. The
material
for the Citadel was supplied by some pyramids near
Memphis, which Karakush had no hesitation
in demolishing,
while thousands of Frankish prisoners were
employed
in forced labour.
To Saladdin is ascribed the excavation of the Well of
Joseph, called, according to some authorities, after Saladdin's
own name, while others fancy it to be named after the
Patriarch, a favourite with the Moslems of Egypt. The well
was regarded as one of the wonders of engineering
architecture,
and was frequently described by Arab
writers. Three
hundred steps (where there is now an inclined
plane) were
THE CITADEL OF CAIRO.
supposed to lead to
the bottom; the well itself was in two divisions,
with a
reservoir in the middle; the water was
raised by oxen in the
ordinary manner, first from the well to
the reservoir, then
from the reservoir to the level of the
Citadel.
The minister who built both the Citadel and the new walls
of
Cairo is a figure
of some interest. His name is Turkish,
and means “Black Bird”;
he was the slave, and afterwards
the freed man of either
Saladdin or Shirguh. When the
former obtained control of
Cairo, Karakush was given command
of the guards of the palace where the Fatimide Caliph
still retained some shadowy authority. On the death of
al-Adid
in 1171 he was still in control of the palace,
and
adopted some severe measures towards the surviving
Fatimides.
In 1175 he was entrusted by his master with
the
double task of refortifying
Cairo and building the Citadel,
while
uniting all three parts of the city, Fostat,
Cairo and
the Citadel by a wall. This scheme in
its entirety was never
accomplished. In 1188 he was summoned
by Saladdin to
Acre to settle the question whether it should
be destroyed
or not; he decided for the latter alternative,
was made
governor of the place, and rebuilt the walls. The
next year
he had to stand a siege, and two years later, when
Acre was
retaken, he was made captive to be ransomed by
Saladdin.
After the death of the great Sultan he inherited
the confidence
of his successor, and in 1194 was even
appointed regent
during the Sultan's absence from Egypt, and
on the
same Sultan's death became regent during the minority
of
his son. For a post of this importance he does not
appear to
have possessed the necessary qualifications, and was
unable
either to maintain himself in power, or to prevent
his charge
being displaced by his great-uncle, Saladdin's
brother. Besides
various buildings and engineering works
designed by
him, his name was perpetuated by a quarter of
Cairo, Harat
Karakush, situated
outside the Futuh Gate. Owing to the
vehement hatred of a
scribe belonging to one of the rival
parties the memory of
Karakush was blackened by a virulent
pamphlet in which he was
made responsible for a string
of decisions ludicrous for their
folly and injustice, so that
his name has become proverbial
for the Unjust Judge. The
confidence placed in him by such a
man as Saladdin is of
itself sufficient to dispose of these
slanders, the piquancy of
which has caused them to survive in
a marvellous fashion.
English readers who wish to know their
character will find
them in a work bearing the name of A.
Hanauer, called
Tales told in Palestine.
After Saladdin's death the work on the Citadel appears
to have ceased to be resumed by al-Kamil in 1207. In this
year the Sultan definitely abandoned the old Vizier's
Palace
and moved into a new palace built in the southern
enclosure,
while the market for horses, camels and asses
was transferred
to Rumailah (sometimes called Place
Mohammed
Ali), below the city; between this place and the
Citadel were
built the royal stables which had a secret
communication
with the Palace. In the Palace itself the
Sultan constructed
a hall of justice called Iwan, a library
and a mosque. A
celestial globe belonging to al-Kamil's
library is still extant
in the Museo Borgia of Velletri,
though the process whereby
it came into Italian hands is
uncertain. None of this sovereign's
work otherwise remains.
Of the Citadel of al-Kamil nothing then is left at the
present time beyond the location of the gates, which has
never varied. Al-Malik al-Salih abandoned the Citadel of
Saladdin for a citadel on the island Raudah which he had
built. The first Mamluke Sultan Aibek returned to the
Citadel
of the Mountain, but does not appear to have built
there
afresh. On the other hand the enterprising Rukn
al-din
Baibars built in the citadel of the mountain the
“House of
Gold” with two towers,
crowned by a cupola supported by
pillars of coloured marble,
and further a great audience
room for the hearing of cases.
The tower near the Karafah
(or Eastern) gate was by this
Sultan assigned to the Caliph
as his residence; at a later
period the Caliphs were removed
from the Citadel and lodged in
the Kabsh Palace. The
Sultan Kala'un added a cupola on the
“Red Palace,”
said to be one of the wonders of the world. It
rested on ninety-four
pillars outside the peristyles. These
peristyles were
frescoed with representations of the
fortresses in the possession
of the Sultan, with all their
natural surroundings.
He also built a house for the Viceroy,
an official who acted
for the Sultan during his absence.
A greater builder than any of his predecessors was
Mohammed, son of Kala'un, known as al-Nasir; he even
added
four or five new quarters to the original environment
of the
Fatimide city, besides building a vast number of
bridges,
canals, mosques, etc. It has been observed that the
greater
number of products of Saracenic art to be found in
European
museums bear the name of this Sultan, and so
emanated from his
time. The Mamluke architecture dates
from him. Among the
monuments that bear his name we include
those that were
erected by his emirs. He so thoroughly
rebuilt the Citadel
that with the exception of the actual
lines little of the work
of his predecessors remained after
him.
The Mosque of the Sultan Nasir stands in the central
court of the Citadel, and in plan is approximately square.
An arcade runs round the whole of the interior, having four
rows of columns on the east, and two upon each of the
other
sides. In the centre of the eastern arcade and over
the Kiblah
the pillars are replaced by ten granite monoliths
of very
large size; these columns supported the magnificent
dome
described by Makrizi, which fell in 1522. The dome
columns are surmounted
by arches composed of alternate
red and white stones, and
above these is an inscription upon
a broad wooden band, which
runs round the base of the
dome. The smaller pillars of the
arcades all exist, with
the exception of five on the western
side, which with the
arches above them have completely
disappeared. The square
pillars of rubble masonry which have
taken their place are
modern work. The floor was originally
paved with marble,
and the ceilings illuminated with gold. The
Kiblah and the
minarets were formerly covered with green
faience. It was
begun in 1318 and rebuilt in 1334.
Apparently the revenues of the mosque which were originally
very large were gradually absorbed by various governors,
and the building fell into ruin about the time of the
Turkish occupation. For a considerable period it was used
as a prison, and during the middle of the nineteenth
century
was a military storehouse. High walls of rubble
masonry
were built between the pillars in order to divide
the space
into compartments suitable for prison or store
purposes.
Shortly after the British occupation it was
cleared by order
of Major C. M. Watson.
The chief work of the Sultan Nasir on the Citadel was
the Iwan, or Palace, occupying the place at present covered
by the Mosque of Mohammed Ali. It was a great hall rebuilt
by
Nasir after two of his predecessors, very high, long
and wide,
and containing the royal throne. A magnificent
cupola which
crowned it fell in 1522. Later visitors speak
of the dome as
being still supported by thirty-four columns
of marble of
prodigious width and height, being at least
forty-five feet
between base and capital.
Of a palace called the Parti-coloured Palace, a few remains
were left when the Mosque of Mohammed Ali was
built; in those ruins there are to be found black and yellow
stones, and the juxtaposition of these gave its name to the
building. It
comprised, it is said, three palaces in one. During
the
Turkish period this Parti-coloured Palace served to
give
shelter to the workmen engaged in making the carpets
to be
sent to Meccah. Powerful descriptions are given by
travellers
of the enormous eminence on which this palace
was built, and
the magnificent view of
Cairo which it
commanded.
The Karamaidan, though it existed from the time of
Ahmad Ibn Tulun, was to some extent the work of Nasir,
as he
built a wall round it, had arrangements made for a
supply of
water, and planted trees; he regularly used the
place himself
as a recreation ground. Besides this he had
constructed a vast
system of aqueducts for supplying the
Citadel with water.
After the time of al-Nasir the Sultans gradually abandoned
the Citadel itself and took up their abode in the lower
parts called the Hosh or “pens” and the mews.
The Sultans who reigned between the time of Mohammed
al-Nasir and the Ottoman occupation most of them did
something for the Citadel in the way of either restoration or
fresh building, without, however, seriously altering the
work
of that ruler. Various inscriptions have been found by
Casanova and van Berchem which refer to these restorations.
A
picture preserved in the Louvre represents the last
Mamluke
Sultan but one (Kansuh al-Ghuri) sitting in the
garden which
he had laid out and receiving the Venetian
ambassador.
In the Turkish period the Janissaries occupied the military
citadel, while the Pashas were installed in the palaces
at the foot. The grand buildings of Nasir and his
successors
were allowed to fall into ruin, and indeed,
according to a
French traveller of the seventeenth century,
the Egyptian
Pashas were expressly forbidden by their Turkish
masters
to hold their audiences in the Great Hall, lest
the magnificence
thereof should inspire
them with the desire to become
independent. Many beautiful
marbles were removed by the
Sultans from the buildings of the
Citadel and taken to Constantinople;
the Turkish conqueror of
Egypt, Selim, dismantled
some of the edifices immediately. The
Mosque of
Nasir being neglected, other mosques were built on
the
Citadel for the use of the Janissaries, and the
governors
continued to build themselves palaces thereon.
Much damage
is said to have been done to the buildings which
remained
on the Citadel at the time of the French
occupation; but the
Citadel received a new lease of life when
Mohammed Ali
built his mosque and his palace there; and though
the
ruined Mosque of al-Nasir and the much-frequented
Mosque
of Mohammed Ali are the only show buildings that
now
remain on the Citadel, its military importance is
still considerable.
We now return to a summary of the history of the Ayyu-bids,
as the dynasty inaugurated by Saladdin is called after
the father of its founder. It held the throne of Egypt for
eighty-three years, from 1169 to 1252, and consisted of
nine
sovereigns; but other branches of the family ruled
simultaneously,
and for some time after the power of the
Egyptian
Ayyubids had fallen, in various parts of
Syria and Arabia.
Perhaps
during the greater part of this time Damascus rather
than
Cairo would have been called the
chief city of the Empire;
for Saladdin during the life of Nur
al-din recognized the latter's
suzerainty, while after his
death he contrived to gain
possession of his empire and to
extend it by fresh conquests
in order to bring a united Islam
to deal with the Frankish
invaders of the East. In the Mamluke
period the governors
of the Syrian cities were the “Deputies”
of the Egyptian
Sultan; but in Ayyubid times this relation did
not yet exist.
Although the greater part of Saladdin's time was spent in
Syria, he found time to arrange for the
construction in
Cairo
of a number of
buildings religious or philanthropic in character.
One of
these was a College or School (madrasah) in
the neighbourhood
of the grave of al-Shafi'i, known as the
Imam, or founder of
an orthodox system of Law. Provision
was made in this School
for teaching that great jurist's doctrine,
it being of
importance that facilities should be provided
for bringing
Egypt back to orthodoxy after so many years
of Fatimide
government. This college was of enormous size,
equal according
to one enthusiastic visitor, to a town; the
site on which it
was built had previously been a prison. Saladdin's
successor
apparently made some additions, but in
Makrizi's time it was
in ruins, and in 1761 Abd al-Rahman
Ketkhuda, whose name has
already met us in connexion with
al-Azhar, pulled down what
was left of it, and built on the
site the present Mosque of
Shafi'i. Another prison which had
occupied part of the old
Fatimide Palace was turned by him
into a hospital; and—a yet
greater innovation—a house
called after a former owner Sa' id
al-Su' ada, west of the old
Avenue of the Two Palaces, was
turned into a hospice
(khanagah) for poor ascetics. At a
latter time, as we shall
see, the ideas of mosque, school and
hospice all became
confused; but in Saladdin's time they were
still distinct, and
the appurtenances of a mosque, a minaret,
a pulpit and a
washing place, were added to the hospice in
much later times.
It also served as a final resting-place for
many of the saints.
A visitor to
Cairo in
Saladdin's time has in his diary left
us his impressions of
the place—the Spaniard Ibn Jubair.
The Citadel and the
surrounding wall had been begun in his
time; and the
intentions of the Sultan in the matter were well
known. What
interested him most in the city or its neighbourhood
was the
great number of mausoleums containing the
remains of members
of the Prophet's house, men and women,
companions of the
prophet, jurists and saints. Over the sanctuary
which
contained the head of Husain he is ecstatic; he
confesses that no
words can give an adequate description of
its magnificence.
But he has a good deal to say too of the
arrangements of
Saladdin's School and especially his Hospital;
with its
separate establishments for men and women,
with beds provided
with coverings, all under the management
of a custodian with a
staff of assistants; while hard by is an
asylum for the
insane, who too have their comfort thoroughly
studied, but
whose windows have to be secured with iron
gratings. No detail
in his description is more striking than
the apparently speedy
recovery of Fostat from its ashes. The
traces of the great
fire were indeed apparent, but building
was proceeding
continuously.
Saladdin died in Damascus at the beginning of March 1193;
he had made Egypt once more nominally dependent on
Baghdad, but had in reality substituted a
new dynasty for
the effete Fatimide family, whose Palace he
had ruined. The
reign of his son and successor was disturbed
by family disputes,
which for a time were settled by the
division of Saladdin's
empire; one son (Aziz) retaining Egypt,
while another
(Afdal) reigned in
Syria. The former, however, had to submit
to the direction of his uncle Adil, who at the death of
Aziz
after five years’ reign, was easily able in 1199 to
supplant his
infant son.
The reign of Aziz is notable in the history of
Cairo for the
commencement of a
residential quarter on the west bank of
the Great Canal, the
site of European
Cairo of our time.
Ibn Jubair speaks with great admiration of the embankment
of the Nile by Saladdin, of course before the river had
shifted its bed towards the west. The region west of the
Bab al-Sha'riyyah and north of the present Ezbekiyyeh
quarter was at that time a plantation of date-palms; the
Sultan Aziz, in the year 1197, ordered these palms to be
cut
down, and an exercising ground to be laid out where
they
had stood. This proceeding led to the adjoining land
being
AN OLD PALACE, CAIRO.
parcelled out and
built on. The now fashionable region
further south was not
occupied till Mamluke days. Eight
months of the preceding year
are said to have been occupied
by this prince in a futile
attempt at treasure-hunting in the
pyramids of Gizeh; after a time it was
known that the cost
of undoing the ancient builders’ work was
greater than the
value of the expected treasure.
The Sultan Adil, like his brother Saladdin, spent little
of his time in Egypt, where he appointed as his deputy his
son, called al-Kamil. We have seen how this sovereign
completed
the Citadel which his uncle had begun. The
transference
thither of the seat of government led to the
south and south-east
of
Cairo becoming fashionable and populous.
The Sultan Kamil gave his name to the Kamiliyyah
School, in the Nahhasin Street, built by him in the year
1225;
it was long known as the House of Tradition (dar
al-hadith),
and was said to be the second edifice
with that
title, the first being one built in Damascus. From
its erection
perhaps we are to infer that orthodox books of
Tradition
were not yet studied in al-Azhar. Like so many
of these
pious edifices a fanciful account had to be given of
the
source of the funds employed in its elevation. The
workmen
who dug the foundations were fortunate enough to
discover a
golden image, which, molten down, served to defray
all expenses!
In Mamluke times it got crowded out by a
number
of religious and educational edifices erected in
the immediate
neighbourhood, and in Makrizi's time instruction
in
Tradition had already ceased to be given in it, and it
was
turned into an ordinary mosque.
Kamil's successor Adil II reigned only two years; he was
superseded by his brother Salih, called also Najm al-din
Ayyub, who reigned nine years (1240-1249). His reign was
notable for several events.
Like previous sovereigns he took to purchasing slaves of
various nationalities,
suitable to form a bodyguard, and at
first housed them in the
Citadel or in
Cairo itself. Like the
old Praetorians of
Baghdad, their disregard for the rights of
ordinary
citizens made them a source of annoyance to the
populace; and
just as one of the
Baghdad Caliphs had
built
a city Samarra to keep his praetorians at a distance
from
the metropolis, so the Sultan Kamil built a fortress
on the
Island of Raudah to hold his Mamlukes. These troops
thence
got the name Bahris, i.e., Mamlukes of the Nile or
Sea, as
the Arabs ordinarily call the river of Egypt. The site
of
these barracks was chosen not only with a view to the
comfort
of the Cairenes; with vessels at their disposal
the Mamlukes
were constantly ready to descend the Nile in case
of
a Frankish invasion. Our chroniclers regale us with a
story
how a party of deserters from the fortress of Raudah
came
in the desert across an abandoned city, with streets
and
houses and cisterns containing water that was sweeter
than
honey; green marble was the material chiefly used in
the
construction of the town. Coins were found in some of
the
shops, with legends in an ancient script; the
archaeologists
to whom they were shown read thereon the
name of Moses,
on whom be peace! Like the cities of the
Takla-makan
desert which have been unearthed in our day,
it had been
covered with sand; at times, however, the winds
uncover
such buried habitations of men, and this had
occurred in
the year 1244, when the Mamlukes deserted; another
wind
then covered the city as it was before, and those
that looked
for it could not find it.
The erection of the barracks on the Island of Raudah led
to the building of more houses on the western bank of the
Great Canal; and the Bab al-Khark (of which the name
survives as Bab al-Khalk) formed the head of the avenue
which led from the city to the new fortification. The
heaps
of ruins which are to the left of the traveller from
Cairo to
Old Cairo belong to a period when
several causes led to
this being a fashionable quarter.
Relics of buildings by this Sultan exist in the shape of a
mausoleum and a school, both in the old avenue between
the two palaces. Their site is where part of the ancient
Eastern Palace stood, and indeed included the famous gate
of the palace called Bab al-Zuhumah, supposed to be named
after the “odour of cooking.” On May 16, 1242, the
demolition
of the older structure commenced, and in two
years
time the school was ready. Chairs were provided in
it—for
the first time—for the four orthodox systems of
Law, and
this principle continued to be followed in the
colleges built
by Egyptian Sultans, though it appears to have
been in the
first Mamluke period that a Sultan cynically
confessed that
the public maintenance of four systems was to
give the
sovereign the better chance of getting his rulings
authorized.
The practice of having these separate systems
taught
in annexes to the four liwans or cloisters gives
such buildings
a shape approximating to the cruciform.
Architecturally, Herz Bey tells us, the College of the Sultan
Salih is of interest for the development of the façade. In
the Fatimide period the façade began to be ornamented by
a niche over the door, which served no other purpose than
that of decoration. In the Mamluke period it develops into
a series of windows. The College of Salih offers the
earliest
example of the introduction of a window, whereby
the niche
is given a definite purpose. In the façade of the
mausoleum
of the same sovereign the niches extend to the
full height
of the wall.
The building originally consisted of two schools, separated
by a long passage to which access was given by the gate
under the minaret; this was of iron, ornamented with a
marble slab, bearing the name Salihiyyah. Each of the
schools consisted of an open court, surrounded by four
cloisters. Of the
southern school nothing now remains except
the façade. Of the
northern there remains the western
cloister and part of the
wall belonging to the eastern. The
old passage has now become
a street.
This school was at times used as a court of justice. We
have a record of a scene occurring in the year 1521, in
the
early days of Turkish rule, when on the occasion of
festivities
in
Cairo, owing to the victories of the Sultan Sulaiman,
some Christians who had got drunk in honour thereof and
indulged in unseemly language were taken there to be tried.
Two of the judges decided that though they might not be
executed they ought to be scourged for drunkenness; two
other
judges raised a protest against this, and thereupon
the mob
interfered, and nearly stoned the judges. A party
of
Janissaries rushed to the rescue, seized the Christians,
and
cut two of them in pieces; a third turned Moslem, and
so with
difficulty saved his skin. The remains of the murdered
Christians were then burned by the fanatical mob,
who tore
down beams from the shops for the purpose.
The mausoleum of the Sultan Salih, which adjoins his
school, is the first of a series of mosque-tombs built for
themselves by the Egyptian Sultans, as though the air
which
had inspired the erection of the Pyramids were still
suggesting some similar ideas. It was built seven years
later
than the school, to the northern section of which it is
attached by an opening made in the wall of the western
cloister. The influence of the west is, Herz Bey tells us, exceedingly
apparent in this mausoleum.
The Sultan Salih died in
Mansurah, whither he had gone
after the seizure of
Damietta by the Crusaders under St
Louis, in order to organize a force to deal with the
invader.
He had gone thither while suffering from an
ulcer, believed
to be his punishment for the murder of his
brother and predecessor
on the throne. According to a custom
of which most
monarchies furnish illustrations, his death was
concealed
until his son
Turanshah, then at Hisn Kaifa, was safely seated
on the vacant
throne; the widowed queen meanwhile
undertook the management
of affairs: it was given out that
the Sultan was still ailing,
physicians continued to pay
their visits and report on his
progress, and despatches continued
to be issued in his name.
Turanshah's reign began
brilliantly, owing rather to the
valour and skill of the Emir
Rukn al-din Baibars with the
Mamlukes, than to his own.
The Christian fleet was destroyed,
and the retreat of the
Crusaders cut off. The French King was
himself taken
prisoner, to be released afterwards for a great
ransom.
Damietta itself
was restored to the Egyptian Sultan, and lest
it should again
harbour an invader, utterly destroyed. All
that was left of it
for the time was a group of fishermen's
huts. But Turanshah
offended the Mamlukes of his father
by preferring his own
satellites above them, and committed
the still greater error
of underrating the ability of his
father's widow Shajar
al-durr, who proved a formidable
adversary. This woman,
reviving the traditions of old Egyptian
and Ethiopian queens,
replied to the threats of her
stepson by organizing a
conspiracy among his father's servants.
An assault was made
upon him at a banquet given
at
Mansurah. From the sword he fled into a wooden refuge,
soon to be devoured by flame; and thence he flung himself
into the water, where he was ultimately dispatched. His
reign lasted forty days only, and with its end the Ayyubid
period practically closed.
The great relic of the Ayyubid period is then the Citadel;
from the time of Saladdin till the nineteenth century the
history of Egypt centres round that of the fortress which
commanded
Cairo. The
religious importance of the Ayyubid
dynasty is also very
great. By restoring Moslem orthodoxy
in Egypt, they fitted
that country to serve as the headquarters
of Islam during the
centuries which elapsed between
the fall of
Baghdad and the consolidation of the power
of the Ottomans. They
made
Cairo the University of Islam,
and that position it holds to this day. Politically they
accustomed
the people of Egypt to government by aliens
and
Turks, taking on therein a tradition which had
commenced
before the Fatimide dynasty had begun.
Historically their importance otherwise is to be found in
the fact that they bore the brunt of the Crusades; to
recover
the cities which the Frankish invader had taken
was the
problem which they had to face, and before the dynasty
was
over this problem had practically been solved. The
founder
of the line, Saladdin, towers far above the
others; the admirable
biography of him by Mr Lane Poole
enables the general
reader to estimate him aright. When he
first took part in
affairs there was a prospect of Egypt being
annexed to the
Frankish Empire, and indeed we find the Franks
in actual
occupation of
Cairo. Aided partly by circumstances, such as
the
dissensions of the Frankish chiefs, and the want of suitable
successors to the throne of Jerusalem,but chiefly through
his
own ability as a statesman and general, Saladdin was
able to
reconquer Jerusalem, and so write the death-warrant
of the
Frankish occupation of the nearest East. Al-Kamil
was, by the
invasion of Egypt in the years 1218 to 1221,
brought into
greater straits than Saladdin had been. But
the loss of
Damietta, after its long and heroic
resistance,
was compensated in the following year by the
Sultan's well-planned
and successful resistance to the
Crusaders’ expedition
against
Cairo, which ended in the Franks being
driven from
Egypt. The Sultan on the occasion of his brilliant
victory
showed that the chivalrous spirit which sheds
a halo round the
memory of Saladdin was in his nature too.
The heroism of his
successor Salih is sufficiently indicated
by the circumstances
of his end. Few, if any, of the dynasties
of Islam have in so
short a time brought to the front so
many capable rulers.
DOOR OF A MOSQUE, CAIRO.
[Back to top]
CHAPTER V
The First Mamluke Sovereigns
AFTER the murder of Turanshah the Emirs accepted
the government of the woman who had organized the
coup, and
she was enthroned in the same style as male
sovereigns, except
that a curtain separated her from the
ministers who kissed the
ground as their act of homage. To
the rule of infants the
Islamic peoples were accustomed; but
it was to them a great
rarity to hear the preachers in the
mosques name after the
Caliph “the wife of the Sultan Salih,
the Queen of the
Moslems, the Protectress of the world and
of the faith, the
screened and veiled Mother of the deceased
Khalil”—for in that
name she chose to reign, since her own
name, “Pearl-tree,” too
obviously suggested the slave-girl—both
male and female slaves
being commonly called after
gems.
In spite of her eminent qualifications for the sovereignty,
she could not long resist the popular objections to a
woman
holding such a post; and the Caliph himself sent
from
Baghdad to tell
the Egyptians that if they had not among them
a man qualified
to be Sultan, they might apply to him, and
he would send them
some one. After three months’ sovereignty
she consented to a
compromise whereby she abdicated,
only, however, to continue
to rule as the wife of Izz
al-din Aibek, whom she had employed
as chief minister.
This person had originally been a slave
purchased by the
Sultan Salih, and enrolled in the force of
Raudah Island,
presently manumitted and promoted to high
office.
The praetorians were, however, not yet accustomed to
seeing one of their number Sultan: they clamoured for a
member of the Ayyubid
family. Aibek, perhaps by the direction
of his wife, sent for
such a person, a youth of tender
years, who agreed to be joint
Sultan with Aibek, the names
of both figuring on coins and
being recited in the public
prayer; but the husband of Shajar
al-durr was resolved to
be sole master, and utilized the
treasures at his disposal for
the purchase of armed men. When
sufficiently strong, he
entrapped one of the leaders of the
opposition in the Citadel,
had him assassinated and his head
flung to his friends in
the Rumailah Place. The rest of the
opposition fled into
Syria, among them two men, afterwards
prominent as
Egyptian Sultans, Baibars and Kala'un. The
Ayyubid prince
was then imprisoned, and Aibek reigned alone.
He now considered himself strong enough to displace his
wife, Shajar al-durr, and sent to solicit the hand of a
daughter
of
Badr
al-din Lulu, prince of Mausil. This proceeding
was followed by
violent recriminations on the part of the
ex-Queen, to escape
which Aibek abandoned the Citadel
and went to reside in the
new quarter called Luk, which, in
consequence of the
innovations of al-Aziz and al-Kamil was
springing up between
the Great Canal and the Nile. Shajar
al-durr contrived,
however, by various blandishments to allure
him back to the
Citadel, where she had arranged that five
of her Byzantine
eunuchs should murder him in his bath.
The tragedy was not yet finished. Aibek had left a son,
Ali, by another wife, whom Shajar al-durr had forced him
to
put away when she raised him with herself to the
throne. This
son, having his father's praetorians at his
command, handed
his stepmother over to the tender mercies of
his mother, who
ordered her handmaids to beat the fallen Queen
to death with
their shoes. She was then stripped, dragged by
the feet, and
flung into a ditch, where she remained unburied
three days.
At the end of this time she was taken out and
interred in
the mausoleum which she had built for herself, and
which
still exists between
the Mashhads of Sayyidah Nafisah and
Sayyidah Sakinah. M. van
Berchem shows by the evidence
of an inscription—in modern
letters, but doubtless copied
from an older one—that this
mausoleum must have been
built after Shajar al-durr had become
queen, but before she
married Aibek; for among her official
titles she is there
called Mother of Khalil, but not wife of
Aibek. The present
building is modern, being a restoration
dating from the year
1873. It also contains the tomb of one of
the shadowy
Caliphs, of whom we shall hear more. Her death
took place
April 15, 1257: she had ascended the throne May 14,
1250.
Aibek is said to have destroyed the barracks built by his
predecessor on Raudah Island, and to have cleared away
many dwellings in the parts of
Cairo that stretch from Bab
Zuwailah
to the Citadel, and westward to the Bab al-Luk.
He built a
college in
Old Cairo called Mu'izziyyah,
after his
title Malik Mu'izz.
The new Sultan, who had dealt such vengeance on his
stepmother, was eleven years of age: a regent had to be appointed,
and a Mamluke of his father, named Kotuz, was
chosen. The next year
Baghdad was
taken by the Mongol
Hulagu, who now threatened to advance
westward; and just
as it had been the business of the Ayyubids
to arrest the
progress of the Crusaders, so it became that of
the Mamluke
dynasty to check this more terrible enemy. A
council was
held at which the chief jurist of the time
declared that the
occasion called for a man, and not a child,
to be at the head
of affairs; and on Nov. 4, 1259, Ali, called
al-Mansur, son
of Aibek, was deposed, and the regent installed
Sultan in
his place. Such events were destined to occur with
great
frequency during this dynasty, and the fate of the
deposed
monarch was ordinarily unenviable. In some cases,
as that
of Ali, it was lifelong imprisonment: sometimes it
was
honourable banishment, and more frequently still it
was
execution. For a man
to whom allegiance had once been
sworn could generally be
suspected of harbouring designs
against his successor.
The command of the forces was given by the new Sultan
to Baibars al-Bundukdari, an officer who was credited with
much of the merit of the great victory over Louis IX. Almost
immediately after the enthronement of Kotuz there arrived
a
missive from Hulagu couched in the style of Sennacherib
of
old; and by tremendous efforts, coupled with ruthless
extortions, an army was equipped and despatched to
Syria to meet the Tartars. On Sept. 3,
1260, a battle was
fought at Ain Jalut, in which the victory
remained with the
Egyptians. This was presently confirmed by
another victory,
and Kotuz not only repelled the Mongol
invasion, but secured
for Egypt the suzerainty over the whole
of Saladdin's old
empire. But on his triumphant return to
Egypt, he was attacked
and slain by the Emir Baibars, who
approached the
Sultan ostensibly to kiss his hand for the
present of a slave
girl. Since the officers decided that
Baibars, by way of
compensation for this act, should be made
sovereign in
his victim's stead, it is probable that the
assassination was
the outcome of a widespread conspiracy. The
contemporary
biographer of Baibars, who fills pages with
eulogies of his
master's virtues, can only say of this act
that there happened
what did happen. The date is given as Nov.
21, 1260.
Baibars reigned for seventeen years, and showed great
capacity as both a warrior and administrator, though
utterly unscrupulous in his dealings. He re-established
in
theory, as we have seen, the Caliphate of the Abbasids by
recognizing the claim of one Abu' l-Kasim Ahmad to be the
heir
of the
Baghdad potentates, and installing
him in the
Citadel as Caliph with the title Mustansir.
Mustansir then
proceeded to confer on Baibars the title
Sultan, and invest
him with all Islamic lands and any lands
that might afterwards
become Islamic by
conquest. The address in which
this shadowy Caliph instructs
Baibars in his duties is a curious
document. It appears that
Baibars at one time intended
to restore his Caliph to
Baghdad, and to equip him with a
force which might have been sufficient to enable him to
reconquer
that capital. But he was advised in time not to
make
his creature powerful enough to become his master,
and sent
with him so small a force that he was easily defeated
and
slain by the troops of the Mongol governor of
Baghdad. After
his death
a substitute was speedily found in another person
who claimed
descent from the Abbasid family: but this Caliph
remained in
Cairo, and, though one of his
successors was
actually Sultan for a few days, the greater
number of these
Egyptian Caliphs served no other purpose than
to confer
legitimacy on their Mamluke masters.
The reign of Baibars was spent largely in successful wars
against the Crusaders, from whom he took many cities,
notably
Safad, Caesarea and Antioch; the Armenians,
whose
territory he repeatedly invaded, burning their
capital Sis; and
the Seljucids of Asia Minor. All these were
to some extent
the allies of the Mongols. He further reduced
the Isma'ilians,
better known as the Assassins, whose
existence as a community
lasted on in
Syria after it had practically come to an
end in Persia. He established friendly relations with some
of
the Christian powers of Europe, e.g. the Emperor of
Constantinople,
the King of Naples, and the King of
Castile.
He made
Nubia tributary to Egypt, thereby extending Moslem
arms further south than they had been extended by any
earlier
sovereign.
He was, as has been noticed, the first sovereign who acknowledged
the equal authority of the four orthodox systems
of law, and appointed judges belonging to each of them in
Egypt and
Syria.
Two buildings in
Cairo
commemorate the reign of the Sultan
Baibars, whose title
was at first al-Kahir, and afterwards
al-Zahir. One of these
is a disused mosque at the end of
the Zahir Street, which
leads out of the Faggalah. The materials
employed for this
building were largely taken from the
Crusaders’ Castle at
Jaffa, which was seized by him on March
7, 1268, by surprise,
he being supposed to be at peace with
its governor. The
building materials, including columns and
marble slabs, were
piled on a vessel and conveyed by water
to
Cairo. The site selected for the mosque was the
exercise-ground
named after Saladdin's minister Karakush.
The cupola
over the Kiblah (or mihrab) was in imitation of the
cupola
over Shafi'i's à the doorway was copied from the
door
of his own school (madrasah) which had already been
built.
Ali Pasha has been able to produce few notices of the fate
of this great building—which Baibars does not appear to
have ever intended for his own mausoleum—before the time
of the French expedition, when the invaders turned it into
a fortress. The place was then desecrated and various
dwellings
erected within and around it. In Mohammed Ali's
time
a military bake-house was instituted inside the old
mosque:
this was removed in the time of Isma'il Pasha, but
has been
renewed since the British occupation. Three
inscriptions that
still remain have been published by M. van
Berchem, in
which the name, date and titles of the founder are
preserved.
An interesting title is that of “Copartner with
the Commander
of the Faithful,” by whom the Abbasid is meant,
whose installation
at
Cairo constituted one of Baibars's masterstrokes.
These Mamluke Sultans seem to have been quite ready to
acknowledge their original status; and one of the adjectives
employed as a title of the founder means that he was the
freedman of the Ayyubid Sultan Salih.
The same Sultan was also the founder of a school (madrasah)
called the Zahiriyyah, which used to be in the Nahhasin
Street, forming part of the ancient avenue “Between
MOSQUE OF SULTAN BIBARS, CAIRO.
the two Palaces.” This
was erected in 1263, when the Sultan
was in
Syria, on the site of part of the old Fatimide Palace
called the Golden Gate. It had four liwans, one for each
school of law, according to the system already prevailing;
it was furnished with a rich library, and beside it was
built
a school for instructing poor orphans in the Koran.
The
buildings in the space between the Zuwailah and
Faraj
Gates (outside the city) were settled on the
madrasah, which
was to be supported by their rents. In
Makrizi's time it had
been superseded by the numerous other
institutions of the
same kind which had been erected in the
neighbourhood;
till 1870 some ruins still remained; but in
1874 they were
almost entirely removed, owing to the cutting
of a new
street to the Bait al-Kadi. One of the doors in
finely wrought
bronze was discovered by M. van Berchem in the
French
Consulate-general, whither it had been taken
apparently
at the time when the ruins were cleared away.
It bears an inscription
with the name of the Sultan, and a
date in somewhat
later style.
One chronicler credits Baibars with rebuilding al-Azhar
“after it had been in ruins since the time of Hakim,” but
this must be a gross exaggeration. He also built a bridge
over the Great Canal, long famous as “The Lions’ Bridge,”
so called after some stone lions with which it was
adorned,
and which were put there because the animal
figured on the
Sultan's coat of arms. This bridge was near
Sayyidah Zai-nab,
and was of great height. The great builder
Mohammed
al-Nasir replaced it by a bridge that was lower
and wider,
not, Makrizi states, because there was anything the
matter
with it, but because this Sultan envied any
architectural or
engineering glory enjoyed by his
predecessors. Baibars also
restored the barracks on the Island
of Raudah, and compelled
his bodyguard to establish themselves
there.
The Bab al-Luk quarter also, we are told, received an
access of population
owing to the policy of the Sultan in
welcoming Tartar
colonists. Quite at the beginning of his
reign emissaries,
sent by him into
Syria to discover the
plans of Hulagu, found a detachment of Mongols who were
anxious to seek the protection of the Egyptian Sultan,
being
in number about a thousand horsemen with their
families.
On Nov. 11, 1262, these refugees were given a
public reception
by the Sultan, who had ordered houses to be
built for
their habitation in the region that has been
mentioned, and
the welcome granted to these Mongols with the
promotion
that was speedily accorded them in the Sultan's
service led
to many more of their brethren following their
example. An
exercise-ground was laid out in the same region,
and there
every Tuesday and Saturday the Sultan rode to play
ball.
The origin of the name Luk appears to be quite
obscure;
the grammarians try to show that it means land
originally
submerged, but afterwards recovered, a
description which
would suit this part of
Cairo accurately.
Another quarter that grew up in Baibars's time was in the
region between Sayyidah Zainab and the Nile, and another
in the region yet further south, adjoining the river,
called
Dair al-Tin, or Clay Monastery, where brick-kilns
had previously
occupied the ground.
The character of Baibars is one of great psychological
interest, and in some ways resembles that of Napoleon. His
victories, like Napoleon's, were won by his great rapidity
of
movement: he went from Egypt to
Syria and
Syria
to Egypt
in times that constituted records for that age. Where
his
personal ambition was concerned, he appears to have
recognized
no moral obligations. The indictment against
him
drawn up by the German historian Weil leaves a most
painful impression on the reader. Perfidy and cunning can
nowhere be better illustrated. Apparently, however, the
Moslem world of those days, owing to the terrible
catastrophes
which it had
undergone, could not easily be shocked;
and we find that the
murder of Turanshah with which his
career commenced, horrified
the imprisoned Crusaders much
more than Turanshah's subjects;
and the calmness with
which the people of Egypt permitted
Baibars to seat himself
on the throne of the meritorious
Sultan whom he had
assassinated could not easily be paralleled
either in earlier
or later times. That such a man as Baibars
should have
been a founder of religious edifices is not
surprising; what
astonishes us more is that he appears in many
ways to have
led a blameless life, and to have sincerely
interested himself
in the reformation of public morals. The
growth of
Cairo in his
time was largely due to the scrupulousness with which
he
looked after the administration of justice. His services
to
Islam in repelling the Mongols and bringing the Frankish
kingdom established by the Crusaders to the verge of extinction,
were very great; and, probably, the elaborate hierarchy
of
officials which characterizes Mamluke times was
at least in
part due to his genius for organization.
On July 1, 1277, Baibars died and was buried in Damascus.
He was succeeded by an incompetent son, Barakah
Khan, otherwise called al-Malik al-Sa'id, who soon became
involved in disputes with both his provincial governors
and
his bodyguard in Egypt. M. van Berchem identified a
mosque in the old street Khurunfush, which had been built
by the maternal uncle of the Sultan, of whom we read that
he was imprisoned for ten days for the offence of
representing
to the Sultan's sister that unless he acted
with greater
prudence he would lose his throne. This mosque
was in ruins
when the Swiss archaeologist first saw it, and
has since been
displaced by a café. Sa'id himself is said to
have built a
bath, but of this there appears to be no trace.
Sa'id found first a mentor and presently a dangerous
rival in the Emir Kala'un al-Alfi, who was in command of
the Syrian forces, and
had been promoted and highly
trusted by Baibars. The
Queen-mother endeavoured to
mediate between them, but, though
treated with respect,
she succeeded only partially, and after
some negotiations
Kala'un marched against
Cairo, and besieged the Citadel
in the
Sultan's absence. Kala'un permitted the Sultan to
join his
besieged adherents, in order thereby to get him
more easily
into his power. The Sultan found himself unable
to stand a
siege, and was soon induced to abdicate, on condition
of being
allowed possession of Kerak, a city which
played a rather
important part in Mamluke times as a refuge
for deposed
sovereigns. There shortly afterwards he
died of a fall from
his horse.
Kala'un did not at first venture to proclaim himself
sovereign, thinking it safer to make an infant brother of
Sa'id nominal Sultan. His confederates, however, represented
to him that this arrangement would lead them into
danger,
since the bodyguard of Baibars would probably
group round the
son of their former chief and eventually
oust the usurper. To
this argument he yielded, and allowed
himself to be installed
as Sultan on November 18, 1279.
An Under-secretary of State, who has left us a biography,
or rather panegyric of this Sultan, gives an account of an
interview that proceeded the proclamation. He had already
taken possession of the Palace of the Sultan Sa'id on the
Citadel, and had opened a window in the Great Hall, where
he sat to discharge his duties as regent: He commanded me,
says the Under-secretary, to write out the names of a
number
of earlier kings—doubtless with the view of
selecting a
suitable name. The Under-secretary refused to make
out
such a list in the palace of a king who was reigning,
and
could not be prevailed upon to do so until all the
ministers
were assembled: so great was his fear of being
an accomplice
in a
coup
which might after all fail. When the ministers
were all present, the
Under-secretary made out his list; and
Kala'un selected the
name Mansur as his royal title. He
had been manumitted from
slavery thirty-three years before.
His first years of sovereignty were occupied with troubles
in
Syria, where a
governor of Damascus rebelled; and
though this rebellion was
crushed in the spring of 1280, the
disaffected Syrians entered
into relations with the Mongols,
who repeatedly invaded and
ravaged the country, but were
defeated by Kala'un in a great
battle under the walls of
Homs on October 30, 1281.
During his residence in Damascus Kala'un had been
cured of the colic by remedies prepared at the hospital that
had been founded there by the Sultan Nur al-din. Kala'un
resolved to provide his Egyptian capital with a similar institution,
and the name of this still remains in the Muristan
(an abbreviation of the Persian word Bimaristan) or
hospital
in the Nahhasin Street. The name is ordinarily
made to include
three buildings, the hospital, the school and
the
mausoleum of the Sultan, which lay behind the others.
The
building which they replaced belonged originally to
the
daughter of the Fatimide Sultan Aziz, and when taken
over
by Kala'un was in the possession of an Ayyubid
princess,
to whom the Emerald Palace, part of the ancient
Fatimide
Palace, was given in exchange. The Fatimide
princess had
been served in it by 8,000 slave girls (if
Oriental figures are
to be trusted)—a statement which
indicates its size. A story
similar to that connected with the
Tulun Mosque was excogitated
to conceal the source whence
funds had been supplied
for covering the expense. The workmen
when digging the
soil fortunately discovered sealed boxes
containing jewels
and coin in sufficient quantities to defray
the whole. The
reason for this fiction was that great violence
had been used
by the contractor in employing forced labour for
the building.
All the artisans, we are told, in
Cairo and Fostat were
compelled to work at
this and nothing else, no other orders
in either city being
allowed to be attended to while it was
being erected.
Passers-by were compelled to stop, or if
mounted to descend
from their horses and carry stones, and
in order to supply
materials, buildings in the Island of
Raudah were pulled down.
Besides this it was generally
supposed that the Ayyubid
princess had been turned out of
her palace against her will;
though Makrizi observes about
this that no resentment could
justly be felt for the robbery
of the Ayyubids, who themselves
had robbed the Fatimides.
It would seem, however, that the
mode in which the transformation
of the building was carried
out gave great offence,
and means had to be devised to allay
the agitation. The
arrangements when the hospital was complete
were said to
be superior to those of any similar institution.
It was to be
open to any number of persons for any length of
time,
whether male or female, bond or free. Separate wards
were
assigned to different diseases; arrangements were
made for
the treatment of out-patients as well as in-patients;
and
medical courses were to be given for the benefit of
students
who “walked the hospital.” From the rents which
were settled
upon it, amounting to a million dirhems, a whole
staff
of officials, including bed-makers, male and female,
were to
be paid; and materials of various sorts required for
the compounding
of drugs were liberally supplied.
Arrangements
on a similar scale were made in connexion
with the school,
the orphanage and the sepulchral cupola which
was to be
the Sultan's own resting-place; fifty readers of the
Koran
were employed to recite the Sacred Volume in turns
without
ceasing day or night; and a library was, as usual,
added
to the foundation. Van Berchem shows by the evidence
of
inscriptions that the hospital took five months, the
mausoleum
four months, and the school three months to
build: a
fact which agrees with what we are told of the
violent
methods employed by
the contractor for hurrying on the
work. The date of the
completion of the whole was August,
1285.
The scene which is described as taking place after the
completion of the buildings gives us an idea of the
liberty
of speech permitted at this time in Egypt, which
we could
scarcely have gleaned from the history. The jurists
declared
prayer in such a place unlawful. The chief
ecclesiastical
authority of the time long refused to
preach an inaugural
sermon, and when at last he consented to
do so, it contained
some bitter reproaches levelled both at
the Sultan and the
minister who had been entrusted with the
work of erection.
Even the principal finally appointed to the
new institution
expressed his opinion of both quite freely
before he accepted
the post.
The hospital remained in use for many centuries, and received
benefactions from Ezbek, after whom the Ezbekiyyeh
is named, and also from some of the Turkish Sultans. It
appears to have fallen into neglect at the time of the
French
occupation, and never afterwards recovered. A
school of
Malekite law still remains. In the earthquake of
1303 a
minaret was damaged, but was immediately afterwards
restored
by that great builder, the Sultan Nasir, who
also
placed the railing round the Sultan Kala'un's tomb.
That
Kala'un should have set about building his
Mosque-mausoleum
so soon after his accession to the throne
shows how
quickly the idea of such a form of monument, which
was
originally quite alien to Islam, had taken root.
Two obelisks now in the British Museum, covered with
hieroglyphics, were found by the French in the school of
Kala'un, and sent off to France. The vessel by which they
were
conveyed was captured by an English man-of-war,
which brought
the obelisks to England.
The conversion to Islam of the Ilchan (the title by which
the Mongol ruler of
Baghdad was known) and the
consequent
troubles in the Mongol Empire led to a
cessation of hostilities
between Egypt and the Ilchanate,
through the Mongol rulers
did not cease to agitate in Europe
for a renewal of the Crusades
with little result. Kala'un did
not at first pursue any
career of active conquest, though he
did much to consolidate
his dominions, and especially to
extend Egyptian commerce,
for which purpose he started a
system of passports enabling
merchants who possessed them to
travel with safety through
Egypt and
Syria and as far as India. After the danger from the
Mongols had ceased, he directed his energies towards
capturing
the last places in
Syria that were still occupied by
the
Franks. In 1290 he planned an attack on Acre, but died
(Nov.
10) in the middle of his preparations. During the greater
part
of his reign he took one of his sons as associate
in the
government, and indeed left him to take care of
Egypt, while
himself absent in
Syria; on the death of
his son
Musa, in 1288, he associated with himself his son
Khalil who
was his successor. The Under-secretary has
preserved a very
elaborate set of instructions given by
Kala'un to his viceroy
for the conduct of affairs during his
absence. The pigeon-post,
the telegraph of the time, was to be
organized so as to convey
to headquarters early tidings of the
rising of the Nile;
and great trouble was to be taken to see
that all bridges and
embankments were in good order. The
viceroy must also see
that every patch of ground in which
cultivation was possible
should be cultivated.
The viceroy's first business, we read in one of these sets of
instructions,
when he returns to the Citadel after bidding
his father
farewell and Godspeed on one of his warlike
expeditions,
is to look carefully after the disaffected
Emirs who happen to
be imprisoned in the Citadel, to see that
they are properly fed
and clothed, and that if any of them are
ill, they should receive
proper medical attendance, and by
fair promises to endeavour
to win their loyalty.
Great care is to be taken that the
gates of the Citadel are
properly guarded, and indeed the
Eastern or Cemetery Gate is
to be kept locked the whole time
of Our absence. The municipal
authorities are to keep special
guard on such parts of both
cities as are likely to be rendezvous
to evil-doers: such
places are in particular the Nile-bank,
the Cemeteries, and
the Ponds, i.e. the Elephant's Pool, the
Abyssinian's Pool and
some others now dried up. At night both
cities should be
patrolled and the Dispensaries locked up; and
especially
certain public halls in the Husainiyyah quarter, called
Halls
of Chivalry (ka'ât al-futuwah) which were frequented
by
turbulent persons. All persons practising astrology are to
be
inhibited, and their instruments seized, while the public are
to be warned to place no confidence in their arts. The judges
appointed to settle religious questions are to sit in the liwans
of the various schools every day, Fridays not excepted, both
morning and evening, and are to avoid all mutual rivalry.
The provincial governors are to be perpetually reminded that
no one must be allowed to get more or less than his fair share
of Nile water. The viceroy is advised not to ride out much,
and when he does so to keep to the highway, only to admit
to
his neighbourhood persons in whom he has complete confidence;
and when in the course of his promenades petitions
are handed
to him, to see that justice is done to the petitioners.
Kala'un appears to have built barracks on the Citadel
for the large numbers of guards whom he purchased,
whilst
still retaining some on the Island of Raudah: the
former class
came to be entitled the Mamlukes of the Tower
(Burjis), and
when Kala'un's dynasty was overthrown that
which succeeded it
was called by that name. The native
historians praise him for
giving the Mamlukes a less
hideous uniform than they had
previously been compelled
to wear. The old uniform had
included a dull blue cap, the
hair being allowed to grow in
long tresses which were tied
up in a bag of red or
yellow silk; the tunics were fastened with
a buckle of leather
and brass, to which were attached great
bags of black leather,
containing a wooden spoon and a
long knife. Kala'un abolished
this eccentric attirc, and
adorned his officers with fur and
velvet.
He was succeeded by his son Khalil, who carried out his
father's policy of driving the Franks out of Palestine and
Syria, and proceeded with the siege of
Acre, which he took
(May 18, 1291) after a siege of
forty-three days. The capture
and destruction of this
important place was followed by the
capture of Tyre, Sidon,
Haifa, Athlith and Beyrut; and
thus the nearer East was
cleared of the Crusaders.
Acre was utterly destroyed by Khalil, and its fine buildings
came to be a quarry for building materials. Khalil's
brother Nasir, who reigned after him, got thence the
marble
doorway of his school; it had originally adorned a
church
in Acre. Others were used by Khalil himself for
edifices
which he caused to be constructed in Damascus and
elsewhere.
His own tomb, to which a school was once
attached,
in the Sayyidah Nefisah region, was built before
this event,
and while he was associated with his father, who
is named
in the epitaph with such titles as are assigned only
to living
sovereigns. Close by is the tomb of his stepmother,
the
mother of his brother Salih, who had originally been
appointed
to succeed.
The triumphal entry of Khalil into
Cairo after his return
from the holy war must have
been one of the most glorious
processions in which Moslem
Sultan ever figured. “He
entered at the Nasr Gate, and went
across the City, the
Emirs walking before him, while the
Viceroy carried the
parasol with the bird over his head, and
the caparisons were
shaken before him; and when he arrived at
the hospital,
he turned his horse, and went to visit his
father's à
after which he rode up to the Citadel, and
distributed decorations.”
The name Saladdin
which was one of his titles of
honour, while he reigned under
the name of al-Ashraf, had
not been given him in vain. Yet it
does not appear that he
shared with his illustrious namesake
the qualities which
have rendered the latter a type of
chivalry. And the glory
of having achieved what his
predecessors for two hundred
years had vainly striven to
accomplish, is said to have
turned his head.
The career of the Conqueror of the Franks was brought
to an abrupt conclusion at the beginning of the fourth year
of his reign (December 12, 1293). In the disputes between
his
favourite Ibn Sa'lus and his Viceroy Baidara, he took
the part
of the former, and the Viceroy, who appears to
have peculated
on a tremendous scale, organized a conspiracy
against his
master. Baidara and his party fell upon
the Sultan when he was
hunting without escort at Tarujah,
near
Damanhur; they killed and mutilated him, and
proceeded
to elect Baidara Sultan in his place, after the
precedent
set in the time of Baibars. But thirty years of
orderly
government had changed men's ideas on this
subject; the
ministers and guards of the murdered Sultan met
the assassins
on the left bank of the Nile, as they were
returning to
Cairo, and routed them. Baidara was
himself killed, and
the avengers of al-Ashraf regaled
themselves in primitive
and savage style on his liver. But the
corpse of the victim
remained three days in the desert, and
was gnawed by
wolves before what was left of it could be taken
up and deposited
in the mausoleum that had been built none too
soon.
[Back to top]
CHAPTER VI
Nasir and his Sons
THE younger son of Kala'un, who was now
placed
on the throne, had the singular fortune of
reigning
three times, being twice dethroned. He was
first
appointed Sultan on Dec. 14, 1293, when he was nine
years
old, and the affairs of the kingdom were undertaken
by a
Cabinet, consisting of a vizier, a viceroy, a war
minister, a
prefect of the palace and a secretary of state.
Three of these
five were destined to enjoy ephemeral
sovereignty; the first,
Sanjar al-Shuja'i, though never a
sovereign, is known to
history as the general employed by the
Sultan Khalil in his
wars against the remnant of the Franks.
According to the
historian, he aspired to be Sultan, and went
so far as to offer
a price for the head of any follower of the
Viceroy Ketbogha:
the latter got together a force, defeated
the Vizier's troops
in the Horse-market between
Cairo and the Citadel, and besieged
his rival, who had retreated into the fortress. The
Queen-mother then addressed the besiegers from the wall
of the Citadel, and asked what they wanted: the reply was
the deposition of the Vizier. To this the Queen-mother
assented,
and the Vizier's fickle followers turned against
him
and beheaded him. A man carried his head out to the
besiegers
in a silk wrapper. “What have you there?”
asked
the guardian of the gate, an adherent of the fallen
Vizier.
“Hot bread, to show them that they are not likely
to starve
us out,” was the reply. The head was then carried
round the
city; and since it was this Vizier who had organized
the forced
labour in connexion with the building of Kala'un's
Hospital,
the Cairenes paid the carriers money to let them
have
the head in their
houses to beat it with sandals. The conqueror
Ketbogha assumed
the reins, and after a short
time, was strong enough to depose
the infant Sultan, whose
first reign was eleven stormy months.
The new Sultan was
a Mongol, who had been taken prisoner by
Kala'un in one
of his battles.
This Sultan's reign was rather less than two years, and
was clouded by famine and pestilence. The occasion of his
absence was seized by his viceroy, Lajin, who, after the
murder
of Khalil, had hidden in the Mosque of Ahmad Ibn
Tulun, and afterwards been promoted by Ketbogha, to oust
his benefactor and master. During Ketbogha's time the
population of
Cairo
was increased by a fresh colony of Mongols,
who settled in the
Husainiyyah quarter, to the north
of the Futuh Gate; while in
the south, overlooking the
Elephant's Pool, some building was
occasioned by the Sultan
laying out an exercise-ground, as a
substitute for that
which Baibars had selected at the Bab
al-Luk. This exercise-ground
soon had to give way to a palace,
built by the
Sultan Nasir.
Lajin himself fell a victim to a conspiracy of the praetorians
when he had reigned two years and two months. The
murderer was almost immediately executed by a commander
who returned to
Cairo
the day after the event; and the Emirs
decided on the recall
of al-Nasir, then in exile at Kerak.
Feb. 11, 1298, was the
day on which he commenced his second
term of sovereignty.
M. van Berchem has discovered some curious vestiges of
the quick succession of rulers in the school of the Sultan
Nasir, which is to the north of the mausoleum of the
Sultan
Kala'un. An inscription contains the contradictory
statement
that it was built by the Sultan Mohammed
al-Nasir in
the year of the Hijrah 695, when, in fact,
Ketbogha and not
al-Nasir was reigning. Apparently then—and
this is asserted
by the
archaeologists—the school was begun by Ketbogha,
and had risen
as high as the gilt band on the façade, when
Ketbogha was
dethroned. Work on the school was resumed
when Mohammed was
restored and then apparently the
old date was allowed to
stand, while the name of the sovereign
was altered—perhaps in
virtue of a theory similar to that
by which the reign of
Charles II is supposed to have commenced
at the death of
Charles I. M. van Berchem accounts
for the date of completion,
703 A. D., which seems to
involve a longer time than might
reasonably have been
occupied by a moderate sized edifice
(supposing indeed that
building was continuous)—by the
supposition that it suffered
from the great earthquake of the
year 702, and had to
be rebuilt a year or two after its actual
completion. Its
doorway was regarded by Makrizi as one of the
wonders of
the world. It was of white marble, of great beauty
and extraordinary
workmanship, having come originally from
one
of the churches at Acre. Inside the gate there is a
cupola,
smaller than that built by the Sultan's father,
where his
mother and one of his sons lie buried, he himself
lying near
his father.
This earthquake commenced in August, 1303 A. D., and
shocks were felt for twenty successive days. Great damage
was done in
Alexandria, where the
returning wave, which is
a phenomenon often accompanying great
earthquakes, inundated
a considerable portion of the city. On
Thursday,
the 23rd of the month Dhu'l-Hijjah, says
Makrizi, at the
moment of morning prayer, the whole land
shook; the walls
were heard to crack, and terrible sounds
proceeded from the
roofs. Pedestrians were compelled to bend
down, men on
horseback fell off their mounts. The people
imagined that
the sky was coming down. All the inhabitants,
men and
women, rushed out into the streets. The terror and
haste
was such that the women did not wait to veil their
faces.
THE KHAN EL GAMALIYEH.
Houses tumbled down, walls split, the minarets of the mosques
and the schools were overthrown, many children were
prematurely born. Violent winds arose, the Nile
overflowed,
and tossed such boats as happened to be on the
bank to the
distance of a bowshot. Presently the water
withdrew, and
left these vessels with broken anchors high and
dry. The
inhabitants, driven by fright out of their houses,
took no
thought of what they had left inside. They were
entered by
robbers, who seized whatever they chose. The owners
passed
the nights in tents, which were set up from Boulak
to
Raudah. Only Thursday night was spent in the mosques
and chapels by crowds imploring the mercy of God.
Of edifices that were damaged by the earthquake—which
left fallen bricks or other traces of itself in the doorway of
every house—Makrizi enumerates the mosque of Amr, the
mosque al-Azhar, the mosque of Salih situated outside the
Bab Zuwailah, the school of Kala'un, which lost its
minaret,
and the mosque of al-Fakihani, which underwent
the same
disaster. Forty curtains and twenty-seven towers
belonging
to the wall of
Cairo fell.
Cairo and Fostat
were left in such
a condition that anyone who saw them might
have supposed
that they had been sacked by an enemy.
To the second reign of the Sultan Nasir belongs the
Mosque of Jauli, removed by a couple of hundred metres
from
the Mosque of Ibn Tulun. It contains two domed tombs
of the
Emirs Sanjar and Salar, both celebrities of this period.
The
inscription published by van Berchem gives the date of
construction as 703. The mosque, of which the shape is unusually
irregular, occupies 780 square metres. In one of the
many
apartments which it contains for the use of Sufis (or
ascetics) there is, says Ali Pasha Mubarak, a square blue
stone, of which the greater portion is buried in the soil, and
in which there is a hole. Piles, it was supposed, could be
cured by the sufferer placing in this hole some olive oil; he
then sat in the hole a
quarter-of-an-hour, after which he
would anoint himself with
the oil, and his cure would be
effected. When the Pasha wrote,
he could speak of three
tombs, of which, however, one was
unknown. The Emir
Salar was Viceroy when he built this
monument, and held
this post for eleven years. By domineering
overmuch over
his master, al-Nasir, he caused the Sultan, in
the year 1308,
to retire from the sovereignty for a second
time. When al-Nasir
returned for the third time, Salar
resigned his office,
and was at first treated honourably by
the Sultan, but was
presently seized and starved to death in
prison, where he
is last heard of trying to eat his shoes. As
Viceroy, he enjoyed
a revenue of 100,000 dirhems a day; and a
pretended
report of the treasures found in his house at
the time of his
arrest gives the items discovered day by day,
thus:
Sunday: Nineteen Egyptian quarts of emeralds;
Two Egyptian quarts of rubies;
Two-and-a-half quarts of jacinths;
Six boxes of gems for rings, diamonds and others:
and so on, the figures getting more and more fabulous.
The task of arresting him had been committed to the other
occupant of this mausoleum, Sanjar al-Jauli, who also
obtained
leave to bury his friend Salar after his death
from
starvation. This person, after filling other offices,
was governor
of Gaza and Southern Palestine for a number of
years;
he was then recalled and imprisoned for eight years
by al-Nasir,
after which time he was released and given office
at
the Cairene Court. During the ephemeral reigns that
followed
on the death of Nasir, he played an important
part.
In his governorship of South Palestine he
distinguished
himself by numerous works of public utility;
he rebuilt Gaza,
and founded mosques, hospitals and schools,
both there and
in other important cities of his province.
Unlike his friend,
A STREET NEAR EL GAMALIYETH.
he died in his bed in
Cairo, and was honoured with a
solemn
funeral.
When, in 1308, the Sultan Nasir abdicated and took refuge
in Kerak, his place was taken by the Emir Baibars (called
the Jashangir, which properly means the taster) who had
been one of the Cabinet which had governed for him
at his accession. His reign lasted not quite a year, in
which he rendered himself odious by punishing with
barbarous
cruelty numbers of the common people who were
guilty of singing a comic song in which he was lampooned.
A monument of this ephemeral sovereign exists in the
monastery called Rukniyyah (after his official title Rukn
al-din) or Baibarsiyyah, in the Jamaliyyah Street. The dervish
who should have no home but the Mosque was a natural
object
for the bounty of pious founders, and about 400 A.H.
the
custom arose of building places where they could carry
on
their devotional exercises undisturbed. The earliest place
of
the sort built in
Cairo was, as has been
seen, the work of
the great Saladdin, and the ascetics seem to
have done fairly
well in it at first: each man was to have
daily three pounds
of bread, three pounds of meat with broth,
sweets once a
month, a provision of soap, and forty dirhems
yearly for clothes.
In time the revenue of Saladdin's hospice
proved insufficient
for this outlay, and great troubles arose.
The hospice of Baibars
II was the second of its kind in
Cairo. Its site is where the
ancient palace of the Fatimide viziers stood. Originally
it
had three windows facing the street, of which one was
a
famous window brought from
Baghdad by that Basasari who
defeated
the Abbasid Caliph Ka'im, and for the moment rendered
the
metropolis of the East subject to the heretical
Caliphate of
the West. This part of the place was left unchanged
when it
was transferred to its religious purpose.
The windows were
afterwards removed, and shops substituted
in order to furnish
rentals for the maintenance of the institution
when, owing to the
failure of the Nile, the ordinary revenues
were cut off. It
was begun by the Emir before his brief
reign, during which it
was completed, but he was compelled
to flee before the
inaugural ceremony could take place; and
when Nasir returned
he closed the hospice, and it remained
empty for nineteen
years, when the same Sultan reopened
it. The inscription which
remains contains traces of this
chequered history, which van
Berchem with his usual skill
has succeeded in enucleating. A
story perhaps less apocryphal
than others dealing with buried
treasure is to the effect
that a friendly Emir informed
Baibars when he commenced
building that there was a store of
rich marble under part of
the ancient Fatimide palace, which,
when discovered, had
been left undisturbed and ready for use:
that Baibars made
use of this information, had the marble
unearthed, built his
hospice, mausoleum, and military asylum
with part of it, and
stored the remainder in the hospice where
Makrizi declares
that it remained till his own time. The
hospice was to hold
400 ascetics, the asylum 100 decayed
soldiers: the mausoleum
was for himself, and thither his body
was ultimately brought,
probably, after the reopening of the
establishment. According
to Makrizi the workmanship was so
sound that no repairs
were required for a century and a half.
In 1892 the Committee found that the state of decomposition
to which the walls had come must speedily lead to the
total ruin of this monument and preventive measures were
taken. The marble with which the walls were still clothed
proved that this rich ornamentation at one time rose to
the
height of more than 3.60 metres. Slabs of coloured
marble
alternated with slabs of mosaic. Many had fallen
and others
owing to the moisture of the walls were about to
follow them.
If Baibars II had permitted the exiled Sultan to remain
quietly at Kerak, he might have retained his throne: but
by sending threatening and extortionate letters he compelled
MOSQUE OF ALMASE: INTERIOR, CAIRO.
Nasir to invoke the
feeling of loyalty to his father Kala'un
that slumbered in the
breasts of his former subjects, especially
in
Syria. They invited him to resume the
sovereignty,
and Baibars had to retreat precipitately,
being followed out
of his capital by the hisses of the mob. He
was granted a
provincial governorship, but before he could
reach it, was
arrested by order of Nasir, and strangled with a
bowstring.
Nasir's third reign lasted from 1309 to 1340, and was
prosperous in most ways. The Sultan developed a great
taste
for building and similar operations, and some of the
work done
by him on the Citadel has already been noticed.
A work of
another sort was the Nasiri Canal which he had
dug: in a mode
not unlike that which was used in much
later times for the
excavation of the
Suez Canal. This
Canal started from the Nile in the Kasr al-Ain region,
and after a long course mainly northward, discharged into
the Great Canal near the Mosque of Baibars. Its purpose
was, it is said, to convey goods to the buildings erected
near the new exercise-ground laid out by the Sultan at
Siriacos; but it was also used for pleasure parties and
processions,
and many mansions were built along its banks.
Probably more buildings remain from the time of this
Sultan than from any of his predecessors. Such are the
mosques of the Emir Husain in a street leading out of the
Mohammed Ali Boulevard in the direction of the Bab al-Khalk:
of the Emir al-Malik Jaukandar in the Husainiyyah
quarter: of
the Emir Almas in the Place Hilmiyyah: of the
Emir Kausun
(most of it destroyed when the Mohammed
Ali Boulevard was
constructed); of the Emir Beshtak in
the Jamamiz Street,
entirely renewed in the year 1860 by
the brother of the
Khedive Isma'il: of the Emir al-Maridani
near the Mihmandar
Mosque, in the Tabbanah quarter,
leading from the Zuwailah
Gate to the Citadel, which also
dates from a late period of
Nasir's reign: and of the Lady
Maskah near the Mosque
of the Shaikh Salih to the south
of the Mabduli Street. The
lady who founded this last
mosque was a slave of the Sultan,
who rose to the office of
manageress of such matters as were
entrusted to the women
of the palace, such as the etiquette of
weddings, the education
of the royal children and the
organization of various
ceremonies. The foundress records in
the dedicatory inscription
that she had visited both Meccah
and Medinah. All the
Emirs mentioned in this list were persons
of mark in Nasir's
reign. The Emir Husain was also the builder
of a bridge
and a wicket called after his name, to enable
people to
come from
Cairo to his mosque. The Emir Sanjar, who was
governor
at the time, objected to a hole being made by a
private
individual in the city wall. When the Emir Husain,
nevertheless, obtained leave from the Sultan to make it,
and
boasted of his victory to Sanjar, the latter persuaded
the
despot that Husain meant treason, and Husain was
sent away to
Damascus.
The Mosque of Kausun was built by an architect from
Tabriz, who modelled the minarets on those of a Tabriz
edifice: the founder appears to have come there to
Cairo as
a trader in the escort of one
of Nasir's brides; and is said to
have sold himself—a somewhat
unusual proceeding—into
the service of the Sultan, and once
enrolled, to have advanced
rapidly. Like Joseph of old he
presently sent for his relatives,
and gave his sister to the
Sultan, who married him to his
daughter. On the Sultan's death
he was left in charge of
the royal children, and met with his
end in an attempt to
secure the power to himself by
maintaining infants on the
throne. One of the minarets fell,
carrying with it a large
part of the mosque, in the year 1800,
apparently being exploded
by the French; the other minaret was
destroyed in
1873 when the Boulevard Mohammed Ali was cut.
The Emir Beshtak was a famous builder, and among
MOSQUE IN THE SHARIA BAB-EL-WAZIR, CAIRO.
other achievements
erected himself a palace in the main
avenue of
Cairo, facing that of his rival Bisri, both
so splendid
that the avenue could once more be called Between
the
two Palaces, as it had been called in the days of
Fatimides.
The remains of the palace are on the right of
the Nahhasin
Street, the actual entry to them being in the
lane which leads
to the School of Sabik al-din. M. van Berchem
has discovered
the fragment of an inscription belonging to it,
which, however,
contains neither date nor name. His mosque was
built
in a place occupied by Franks and Copts, “who
committed
such atrocities as might be expected of them.”
When the
call to prayer resounded from the minaret, they were
overawed
and left the neighbourhood.
A bath erected by the same person is to be found at the
opening of the lane which bears his name, opposite the
southwest
corner of the ruined Mosque Mir-Zadeh. The
interior
is said to belong to a later date: but the
exterior is thought
by Herz Bey to be still as it was built by
the Emir, and it is
of importance for the history of the
development of the
façade.
This Emir died in 1341, the year after Nasir. He was one of
those ministers who under the Mamluke Sultans acquired
fabulous
wealth. A conversation is recorded between him
and anther
mosque-builder, the Emir Kausun, in which the
latter
declared himself disqualified for the Sultanate as
having once
sold leather; whereas Beshtak was disqualified as
having
sold beer. It is characteristic of Egypt that it
was considered
a degradation for a man in high office to
know
the language of the country. Beshtak, therefore,
though
knowing Arabic well, would never talk to his
servants except
through a dragoman. His object in life was to
obtain
the governorship of Damascus, and with this he
eventually
was invested, but was executed before he could
enter upon
office.
Maridani is better known by the name Altinbogha. He
was one of the Emirs who took a great part in the troublesome
times that followed on the death of Nasir, and appears
to have
played a double game with Kausun; and eventually
he was sent
into exile as a provincial governor in
Syria,
where he died. In constructing his mosque
he took material
from the Mosque of Rashidah, erected by
Hakim. Originally
it was isolated on all sides; at a period
unknown,
though not distant, a house was built contiguous
to the
north-west façade. The surface occupied by it is said
to be
2,664 square metres: originally it consisted of an
uncovered
court surrounded by four liwans. At present only
the eastern
liwan remains, containing relics of
finely-executed mosaics.
The enumeration given by the archaeologists of the public
works carried on in
Cairo under the Sultan Nasir is very
lengthy. It
includes canals, embankments, pools, palaces,
exercise-grounds, and indeed every branch of the architect's
and engineer's art. The security produced by a long and
prosperous reign led to a rise in the value of land, which
accordingly was everywhere about the city cut up into building
plots. Owing to the number of buildings erected, says
Ali
Pasha,
Cairo became continuous with
Fostat, and the
two came to be one city: from the Tabar Mosque
to the
Vizier's Garden south of the Abyssinians’ Pool, and
from
the Nile bank at
Gizeh to Mount Mokattam all was covered
with
houses.
In the year 1320, which fell near the middle of this Sultan's
reign there was a great conflagration in
Cairo, which
was attributed by the
populace to the Christians. On May
19 of that year a number of
churches in various Egyptian
cities had been destroyed by the
Moslems: their fanaticism
was constantly aroused by the
invasion of the public offices
by Christian secretaries, who
for clerical work were always
found more competent than
Moslems. The incendiarism
GATEWAY OF THE MOSQUE OF IBRAHIM AGHA, CAIRO.
which followed, and
which had for its objects buildings in
the Citadel as well as
the city, was attributed to the
resentment of the Christians,
and it is asserted that the
Coptic patriarch did not deny that
his co-religionists were
concerned in it. The Sultan, who
himself favoured the
Christians, did his utmost to prevent
violent reprisals; but
popular feeling was too much for him,
and Moslem indignation
found vent in a series of highly
oppressive enactments.
Anti-Christian feeling ran so high that
for a time
Christians who wished to appear in the streets
disguised
themselves as Jews; to show themselves in
Christian attire
was dangerous, while to be caught in Moslem
attire meant
certain death. From the fact that these
intolerant edicts had
constantly to be re-enacted, we may
reasonably infer that
after a very short time they fell into
abeyance. Whether
there was any truth in the ascription of
this incendiarism
to the Christians cannot be easily
determined. In the reign
of Baibars I a similar event had
occurred, and the Sultan
determined to make a pyre of all the
Jews and Christians
that could be found. Some pious persons
bargained with
him to redeem these victims at so much per
head, and the
Sultan made a considerable sum by the
transaction.
Nasir was succeeded by no fewer than eight of his sons.
The son
Abu Bakr, to
whom he at his death on June 7, 1341,
left the throne, was
able to maintain himself on it for a few
months only, being
compelled to abdicate on Aug. 4, 1341,
in favour of his infant
brother Kuchuk: the revolution was
brought about by Kausun.
This person's authority was soon
overthrown by a party formed
by the Syrian prefects, and
on the following Jan. 11, Ahmad,
an elder son, was installed
in his place, though he did not
actually arrive in
Cairo till Nov. 6, being unwilling to
leave Kerak, where he
had been living in retirement. After a
brief sojourn in
Cairo
he speedily returned to Kerak, thereby forfeiting his throne,
which was conferred by
the Emirs on his brother Isma'il.
This Sultan was mainly
occupied during his short reign
with besieging and taking
Kerak, whither Ahmad had
taken refuge, and himself died August
3, 1345, when another
son of Nasir, named Sha'ban, was placed
on the throne.
Sha'ban proved no more competent than his
predecessors,
being given up to open debauchery and
profligacy, an example
followed by his Emirs: fresh discontent
led to his being deposed
by the Syrian governors, when his
brother Hajji was
proclaimed Sultan in his place. Hajji was
deposed and killed
Dec. 10, 1347, and another son, Hasan, who
took his father's
title, proclaimed. Hasan's rule was slightly
less ephemeral
than that of his predecessors, for he remained
in power till
August 21, 1351, and though then deposed, he
received a
fresh lease of sovereignty three years afterwards,
which he
retained for six years and a half, when he was
finally displaced.
During this reign Egypt was visited by the Black Death,
which is said to have carried off 900,000 of the inhabitants
of
Egypt, and to have raged as far as
Assouan. The result was
to reduce
Cairo to the proportions which it had
attained before
the time of the Sultan Nasir. The plague was
followed
by a famine, due to the wholesale destruction of
the agricultural
population, and of their beasts, for these
were attacked
by a simultaneous epidemic.
Some of the Cairene monuments date before Hasan's resumption
of the sovereignty. One of these is the Mausoleum
of the Sultan Kuchuk, who was dethroned in 1342, and
strangled three years later. It forms part of the Mosque
of
Ibrahim Agha, of which the present volume contains
several
illustrations. Ibrahim Agha was not the founder of
the mosque,
but its restorer: its founder was the Emir AK
Sonkor,
of whom three inscriptions remain. The mosque is
note-worthy
for the tiles which cover the walls in parts
to a
IBRAHIM AGHA'S MOSQUE: THE INTERIOR.
height of four metres.
The Emir who built it was a celebrity
of the reign of Nasir,
during which he was governor of a
number of Syrian cities:
finally he was made viceroy in
Egypt itself. The last scene in
which he figures is one in
which he plays rather a courageous
part; when the sixth of
Nasir's successors came to the throne
and desired to have
him arrested, he drew his sword and tried
to attack the Sultan's
person: he was, however, overcome in
time and strangled
the following day. This was six weeks after
the mosque had
been inaugurated. Much of the property of the
mosque was
in Aleppo, and when after the death of the Sultan
Barkuk
the Syrian governors revolted, the revenues
accruing to the
mosque were stopped, whence many of the
institutions connected
with it fell into abeyance. Apparently,
however, they
were afterwards restored, or else the properties
in
Cairo settled upon
it rose greatly in value, since Ali Pasha gives
them at a very
high figure. The restoration was executed in
1650, during the
Turkish period, and Ibrahim Agha's tomb was
built two years
afterwards, when Abdal-Rahman was governor
of Egypt. An
inscription to the left of the Kiblah states
that on the night
of Friday, July 14, 1463, the Prophet was
seen standing and
praying on the spot.
The two tombs in the Mosque are those of the founder and
the restorer. Our artist lingered over it because it is
situated
in an old street, and the surrounding buildings
have not
lost the flavour of antiquity. Due North of it there
is a sebil
or fountain also instituted by Ibrahim Agha. A pond
roofed
over, the roof being on marble pillars, was placed
inside this
mosque in the year 1422, the materials being taken
from the
Mosque of the Ditch which was pulled down for the
purpose,
having been long disused. The person who was
responsible
for this proceeding had the name Toghan.
One or two more monuments belong to the period of the
Sultan Hasan, besides the magnificent building that bears his
name, and claims to be
one of the great mosques of the world.
Such is the Mosque of
the Emir Shaikho, with a monastery
facing it, to the west of
the Rumailah Place. This part of
the city is outside the old
square of Jauhar, and in the region
called of old Kata'i:
various houses were bought by the
founder of these two
edifices, and pulled down to make room
for it. He was one of
the temporary rulers of Egypt who rose
from honour to honour,
and at one time is said to have received
from his various
estates the sum of 200,000 dirhems
daily. He perished,
finally, at the hand of an assassin, a man
who, being denied
the promotion for which he had petitioned,
revenged himself by
a murderous assault on the
Emir. The Mosque was built in the
year 1349, and a company
of Sufis at the first maintained
there; six years afterwards
the Hospice was built on the
opposite side of the road,
and special residences provided
there for the ascetics who
were transferred thither from the
Mosque. Nevertheless, the
object and the external appearance
of the two buildings
being very similar, it has often been a
matter of doubt which
was meant to be mosque and which
hospice. The inscription
on the front entrance of the Hospice
is couched, M. van
Berchem observes, in the language of the
Sufis or ascetics,
and care is taken therein to avoid the
pompous titles which
the Emir who founded the building could
have claimed. Indeed,
the Hospice seems to have been built by
him in an
access of religious fervour, such as would be
accompanied
by self-abasement. He was buried in his
Hospice with great
pomp, the ceremony being conducted by the
Sultan Hasan
himself; and nature, to exhibit her sympathy with
the people
of
Cairo in
their bereavement, produced a slight earthquake,
and equally
strange, a shower of rain, though it was summer.
At the time
of the final downfall of the Mamluke dynasty,
when Tumanbai
was attacked by the Sultan Selim,
the former took up his
headquarters in the Hospice of
THE WASHING-PLACE, IBRAHIM AGHA'S MOSQUE.
Shaikho: fire was
accordingly set to the building by the
Ottomans, and a
considerable part of it burned down. The
preacher of the
mosque was brought before the Sultan Selim,
who at first
determined on his execution, but afterwards
thought fit to
pardon him. The mischief that had been
done was then speedily
repaired. A restoration of both
Mosque and Hospice is recorded
for the year 1816.
The great monument of this time, however, is the Mosque
of the Sultan Hasan, on the right hand of the Boulevard
Mohammed Ali, at the end which looks towards the
Citadel. It covers an area of 8,525 square metres; a
magnificent
gate situated at the north angle gives access
to a
vestibule covered by a dome, which rests on a crown of
stalactites. Turning in a south-east direction, after a
détour,
we reach the Court of the Mosque. The middle of
this is occupied
by a fountain. In front is the great Liwan,
with
the prayer-niche, are the pulpit and the dikkah: to
the left,
the right and behind, three other oratories. The
site had been
formerly occupied by the house of the Emir
Yelbogha. The
Mosque was begun in the year 1356, and took
three years to
build, 20,000 dirhems being each day devoted to
the cost of
the operations. The Sultan would have desisted
from the
undertaking when he learned to what the expense
would
amount, had it not been that he regarded it as
unworthy of
a Sultan of Egypt to desist from an enterprise
that had been
once begun. The chief court measures sixty-five
yards by
sixty-five; the great dome was thought to have no
rival in
any Islamic city, and the marble of the pulpit is of
unequalled
beauty. Originally the architect had planned
four minarets:
one, however, that had been erected over the
portal fell, in
the course of building, burying under it some
three hundred
persons: the Sultan therefore contented himself
with the
two that are still standing.
The Mosque of the Sultan Hasan plays a more important
part than any other in
the political history of
Cairo; for
owing
to its proximity to the Citadel and to its enormous
size, it
could be regularly employed as a counter-citadel, and
on the
occasion of any civil war, it was usually so used by
the force
which aimed at dislodging the inmates of the Citadel
itself.
The Sultan Barkuk destroyed the
perron in front of the
mosque as well
as the staircases which led up to the minarets,
and blocked up
the front door. A side door was opened
in one of the
law-schools, which, as usual, surround the
main court, to
enable worshippers to enter and use the
mosque; but the means
of ascending the roof and the minarets
were taken away. The
bronze door, which was regarded
as of unrivalled beauty, was
afterwards purchased for a comparatively
small sum by the
founder of the Muayyad Mosque,
which alone rivals it in
importance. In 1421, in the reign of
Barsbai, the innovations
of Barkuk were cancelled; the
perron, minaret staircases and the original
entrance were restored
and a bronze door was introduced in
place of that
which had been removed. This portal seems to
have been
again closed in the year 1639, and reopened 150
years later.
Of the two minarets erected by the founder, the
eastern fell
in the year 1659, and was rebuilt on a smaller
scale than the
original. The cupola of which Makrizi speaks so
admiringly
collapsed in the following year, and it was
replaced by the
existing dome under the government of Ibrahim
Pasha. The
account of the condition of the building given in
the report
of the Committee for 1894 is exceedingly gloomy.
Since then,
large sums have been spent in effecting a worthy
restoration.
Ali Pasha gives at length the document in which various
properties were settled on the Mosque by the Sultan and
here as in the case of al-Azhar the most trivial details
were
provided, and money lavished on each. A couple of
physicians
with a surgeon were appointed to treat such of
the
officials or students as were invalided; provision was
made
INTERIOR OF THE MOSQUE OF SHAKHOUN, CAIRO.
for a number of
orphans to be educated and fitted out when
they reached
maturity: and in the list of religious and other
officials we
find specialization carried to an extent previously
unknown.
These vast revenues have for the most part
disappeared. In Ali
Pasha's time the whole institution possessed
a hundred and
fifty pounds a year, which was devoted
to the payment of
salaries and partly to upkeep and repairs.
Twenty-two years after the completion of the Mosque,
which took place two years after the founder's death, his tomb
was erected and inscribed; it is thought that the exact
spot
where he lay may have been then unknown.
After the second dethronement and subsequent murder of
the Sultan Hasan a son of his dethroned brother Hajji was
proclaimed; but on May 29, 1363, this Sultan also was
deposed
on the ground of incompetence, and his place
given
to another grandson of Nasir, Sha'ban, who at the
time was
ten years old. His reign was rather longer than that
of his
predecessors, and it was not until March 15, 1376, that
he
was murdered by the Mamlukes, for refusing a largess
of
money which they demanded. To the right of the
street
leading to the Citadel there is to be found the
mosque of this
Sultan, the founder's inscription dating from
the year 1369.
It contains a wonderful plenitude of titles,
among which the
most remarkable is that of “master of the
Isma'ilian fortresses
and the Alexandrian frontiers.” The
conquest of the Assassins,
who played so ominous a part in
Oriental politics, was an
achievement of which the Sultan
Baibars was justly proud;
the remnant of the sect were,
however, under the protection
of the Egyptian Sultans, and
every now and then they were
required to supply persons ready
to discharge the function
which won them their former fame.
The mention of
Alexandria is due to the fact that in 1365 the King of Cyprus thought
fit to make a raid on
Alexandria which he
took and sacked;
his success was only momentary, for an
Egyptian army was
speedily sent to the
relief of the maritime capital, and the
Franks fled with their
plunder before it arrived. The Sultan,
however, decided to
garrison
Alexandria with a stronger
force
than before.
The popular name for this Mosque is “the Sultan's
Mothers”; or “Queen Barakahs,” to whom it was dedicated
by the
Sultan. The meaning of such a dedication probably
is that the
Sultan assigned to her the merit that he had
acquired by the
foundation. She was afterwards buried under
the cupola. A tomb
that by popular tradition is supposed
to contain the Queen's
remains is shown by an inscription
to belong to a princess
Zahrah, whose name the chroniclers
do not appear to know. The
Sultan himself is said to repose
in this mosque, though his
corpse went through some vicissitudes
before it reached its
final resting-place. After his
assassination it was thrown
into a well, whence it was
presently rescued to be interred
near the sanctuary of the
Sayyidah Nefisah; a slave
transferred it thence to the
mosque that bears his mother's
name.
The Mosque or School of the Emir Al-Jai contains the
grave of the minister after whom it is named, and who was
the husband of the Princess Barakah. After the death of the
Queen he disputed with the Sultan her son over the succession
to her property, fought some battles, and being compelled
to
flee from Egypt was drowned while attempting to cross
the Nile
on horseback. His body was fished up by divers
and was
interred in the mosque which he had built, north
of the Mosque
of the Sultan Hasan. As usual copious
revenues were settled
upon it, and courses instituted for
two of the orthodox
schools of law.
After the murder of this Sultan an infant son of his named
Ali was set on the throne, and eventually the highest
offices
in the state came into the hands of two
praetorians, Barakah
and Barkuk, of whom the latter ere long
succeeded in ousting
the former, and
usurping the Sultan's place. On May 19,
1381, when the Sultan
Ali died, his place was given to an
infant brother Hajji; but
on November 26, 1382, Barkuk set
this child aside, and had
himself proclaimed Sultan, thereby
ending the Bahri dynasty,
and commencing that of the
Burjis or Circassians.
[Back to top]
CHAPTER VII
The Early Circassian Mamlukes
THE reign of Barkuk, who was the first of
the
Circassians to displace the family of Kala'un, was
exceedingly troublous, since many of the Emirs
aspired to do as he had done. Indeed, after seven years
he was actually compelled to abdicate and allow his
predecessor Hajji to be restored to the throne under the
tutelage of another Emir, Kerak being, as usual, the place
of retirement for the ousted sovereign. Before this
calamity
he had taken care to perpetuate his name by a
mosque or
school in the ancient Nahhasin Street, between the
Hospital
of Kala'un and the Kamiliyyah School. It is
called the New
Zahiriyyah, to distinguish it from the
foundation of the
Sultan Baibars I, who also bore the title
Zahir; only in the
case of Barkuk it is said to have been
taken with the signification
“midday ruler,” because he
happened to be proclaimed
Sultan at midday, whereas his
predecessor had meant
nothing more definite by it than
“conqueror.” This building,
which has a right to the names
mosque, school and hospice
—since it was originally intended
to harbour a number of
Sufis—is remarkable for the long
corridors and large vestibules
which have to be traversed
before arriving at the main
court; for the arcades which, set
at an equal distance from
the north and south walls of the
court, divide it into three
portions; and for the coloured
marbles which to a height
of six metres cover the wall which
contains the Kiblah.
The tomb which adjoins the building is
thought to contain
the remains of a daughter of the Sultan who
died in infancy
in 1386, before the completion of the
building; at a later
THE TENTMAKERS' BAZAAR, CAIRO.
period the remains of
different members of his family were
brought together and
buried in the same spot. He himself,
of course, lies in the
vast mausoleum built for him in the
desert by his son Faraj.
The Minbar is the gift of the Sultan
Jakmak, who reigned from
1438 to 1453; a door plated with
bronze, which originally
belonged to some part of the institution,
was at one time in
the possession of an Armenian
dealer in the Mouski.
Owing to the ever-increasing popularity of al-Azhar, the
lectures which were originally to have been given in this
building have long ceased; but this, says Ali Pasha, is
the
case with the greater number of the schools and
colleges
founded in
Cairo. Indeed, it is clear that far more of these
buildings were erected than bore any relation to either the
spiritual or educational needs of the people. Sultans and
Emirs thought this the proper line for them to follow, and
in
founding schools and hospices merely did as others
had done.
To Egyptians Barkuk is a monarch of interest, as having
abolished the old “bank-holiday” with which the Coptic
New Year's Day was celebrated. The description which the
historians give of it resembles the English bank-holiday
in
some particulars, while it has some features which we
do
not attempt to reproduce. “On that day the rabble of
Cairo used to
gather together at the doors of the great; the Master
of the
Ceremonies used to make out receipts for large sums,
and any
magnate who refused to pay them had to endure a
volley of
abuse. A picket would be stationed at his door, and
refuse to
leave it till he had paid the sum assigned him by
the Master,
which was taken from him by violence. The lazy
crowd would
stand in the streets and besprinkle each other
with dirty
water, throw raw eggs in each other's faces and
interchange
missiles of mats and shoes. All the streets were
blocked and
traffic stopped. Houses and shops were all
locked up, and any
person found in the market, whatever
his eminence or station,
would be rudely accosted, besprinkled
with dirty water, pelted
with raw eggs and buffeted
with shoes. Neither buying nor
selling was permitted, and
the people drank wine and committed
other improprieties
in places of public recreation. The
brawling that ensued led
to the loss of many lives.” A more
pleasant feature of the
celebration was that people sent each
other presents of fruit
—pomegranates, almonds, quinces,
apples, dates, grapes,
melons, figs, peaches, pots of chicken
jelly, barrels of rosewater,
trays of Cairene sweets.
Barkuk, whose name means Apricot, and had to be banished
from the fruiterers’ vocabulary so long as he reigned,
made a sort of alliance with the Ottoman Sultan Bayazid,
and
incurred the wrath of his enemy the terrible Timur
Lenk, who
at this time was desolating the East. In order that
there might
be no truce, he proceeded to murder the envoy of
the Mongol
world-conqueror—a proceeding which at this time was
normal
in Oriental diplomacy. The great encounter with
Timur,
however, was postponed until the following reign.
A monument of the time of Barkuk is the school of the
Emir Inal al-Yusufi, south of the Bab Zuwailah. The inscription
which records the name of the founder is on the
neighbouring fountain, and is of interest, according to
van
Berchem, as being the earliest example of a poetical
distich
inscribed on a fountain, to which in later times
there were
many parallels.
The founder was a celebrity of the time, who held various
offices and enjoyed many honours. He figures on the stage
first about the time when Barkuk was aiming at the
sovereignty.
Being in command of an army corps, he seized
the
Citadel, and endeavoured to maintain it in the Sultan
Hajji's
name, but was outwitted by Barkuk, who got into
the fortress
by a secret door. He was afterwards able to
secure
Barkuk's favour, and
was appointed to the governorship
of various cities in
Syria; this mode of employment
constituting,
as indeed it still does, an honourable form
of banishment.
As governor of Aleppo he took the side of
Barkuk
against Yelbogha, who in the year 1389 raised the
standard
of revolt, but was defeated and imprisoned. Nor
was he released
till Yelbogha, who for a time had obtained the
mastery
in
Cairo,
had been expelled by another Emir Mintash,
and this Emir was
in his turn overthrown by Barkuk, who
again resumed the
sovereignty. His mosque was commenced
in 1392 and finished the
next year, after the founder's death.
His body, which had been
temporarily interred outside
Cairo, was then brought to the resting
place which he had
prepared for it.
The uncertainty which attached to the post of Sultan apparently
had at this time the rather remarkable effect of
making the rival usurpers more lenient and forgiving
towards
each other. Barkuk, when caught by his enemy
Yelbogha,
had been honourably treated, and though
condign
punishment had been threatened to anyone who
harboured
him, the person found guilty of this act was, in
fact, praised
and rewarded. When Barkuk in his turn got
Yelbogha in
his power, the restored Sultan gave him an
honourable
place in the court at which he had for a time
been virtually
supreme.
To the time of Barkuk belongs the Khan Khalili, now a
famous and familiar place of merchandise. Its site is that
part of the ancient Fatimide Palace where the Caliphs used
to
be buried. Chaharkas, master of the stable to Barkuk,
becoming
possessed of the site, had the remains of the Fatimide
Caliphs
exhumed, and carried on asses’ backs to the
Barkiyyah Gate,
where they were flung on dunghills, this
being his mode of
showing his contempt for dead heretics:
an act of fanaticism
for which, if Makrizi may be believed,
he was afterwards
punished by being allowed to remain
naked and unburied outside
the walls of Damascus.
When Barkuk died in 1398, according to the custom that
had so often proved disastrous, his son, Faraj, a lad aged
thirteen, was appointed his successor under the
guardianship
of two Emirs. In the three years that
followed the
Egyptian dominions in Asia were in consequence
swallowed
up partly by the Ottoman Sultan, and partly by
the terrible
Timur, whose demand for homage was granted in
1402 by
the Egyptian government, when the princes who had
sought
refuge from the world-conqueror in Egypt were also
delivered
up. The death of Timur in the beginning of
1405
restored Egyptian authority in
Syria, which, however, became
a
rendezvous for all who were discontented with the
rule of
Faraj and his Emirs, and two months after Timur's
death was in
open rebellion against Faraj. He succeeded
indeed in defeating
the rebels, but was compelled by insubordination
on the part
of his Circassian Mamlukes to
abdicate, when his brother was
proclaimed Sultan in his
place. This brother was, however,
deposed after two months,
and Faraj, who had been in hiding,
was recalled. Most of
his reign was occupied with revolts on
the part of Syrian
governors, which he repeatedly visited
Syria in order to
quell. Among the leaders of the rebels was Shaikh Mahmudi,
afterwards Sultan in Egypt, with the title Muayyad.
Owing to
the disturbance and misgovernment the population
of
Syria and Egypt is said to have shrunk in
the time of
Faraj to one-third of what it had been before, and
the Sultan
violated Moslem sentiment not only by debauchery,
but
even more by having his image stamped on coins.
The reign of Faraj, though politically disastrous, is perpetuated
in Egypt by several notable buildings. One of
these is the school of the Emir Jamal al-din Yusuf in the
Jamaliyyah Street. It is sometimes called the “Suspended
AN OLD HOUSE NEAR THE TENTMAKERS' BAZAAR, CAIRO.
Mosque,” a name given
to any such building to which there
is access by a flight of
stairs. The place was originally a
store. When the Emir began
to turn it into a mosque and
school, he utilized materials
purchased by him for a trifling
sum from the Sultan Hajji, who
for a time displaced Barkuk,
and which had formed the
furniture of the mosque of
the Sultan Sha'ban on the Citadel.
The sums settled on
teachers and pupils in this school seem to
have been specially
handsome—300 francs a month for each of
the former, and
thirty with rations for each of the latter.
The teachers at
al-Azhar have to be contented still with pay
on the latter scale.
This generosity had, however, been provided by gross extortion.
Moreover by a method adopted by many in Egypt
the interest on the benefactions was settled on the founder's
family in perpetuity. Before the Mosque was completed, the
Emir Yusuf was imprisoned and executed by the Sultan, who,
as
usual, confiscated the property. His first idea was to destroy
the new building; but being warned by the legal authorities
that such an act would leave a painful impression
on the
people, he preferred the alternative of appropriating
it, and
having his own name inscribed instead of Yusuf's.
This was
therefore carried out. The name of the Sultan Faraj
was placed
at the summit of the walls which bound the central
court, on
the chandeliers, carpets and ceilings. However,
the name of
Faraj no longer appears there, nor indeed
in the solitary
inscription round the court which is the only
inscription that
remains. It would appear that after the death
of Faraj the
brother of the founder succeeded in recovering
control of the
institution, with possession of the benefactions,
and he
probably had the name of Faraj removed. The document
in virtue
of which this brother had got possession of the
institution
was afterwards demonstrated to be a forgery, and
the control
was restored to the court official who by the will
of the
first founder was to have charge of it.
The great Mausoleum in the cemetery called the Tombs
of the Caliphs which is named after Barkuk is the work of
the Sultan Faraj. The popular ascription is so far right that
Barkuk is actually buried in the mosque, and that the
building
was ordered by that Sultan though achieved by his
son. The
inscriptions which it contains furnish a series of
dates from
1398 to 1483, the earliest being that on a marble
column in
front of the Sultan Barkuk's tomb in the north
Mausoleum,
which, however, merely records the time of his
death; the
latest being that of the Sultan Kayetbai, on the
marble pulpit
in the sanctuary of the monastery. Barkuk's
tomb was not
finished till nine years after his death. Other
persons buried
in the building are his son Abd al-Aziz whose
short reign
interrupted that of Faraj; a “young man,” probably
a son of
Faraj, who himself died at Damascus; and
one of his daughters,
the princess Shakra.
The so-called Tombs of the Caliphs occupy a cemetery first
used in Fatimide times, when
Badr al-Jamali, a famous personage
of that period,
erected himself a tomb north of the
hill on which the Citadel
was afterwards built. The region
became popular and
fashionable for this purpose. The fact
of various saints being
buried there was probably what suggested
to Barkuk to have his
Mausoleum in the same place. He
died without having commenced
to build it; his son set about
the filial duty at once, and it
took twelve years to complete.
Another monument of the Sultan Faraj is a school, called
by the modest name Zawiyah (literally “Cell, “) a little
to
the south of the Bab Zuwailah. It is usually known as
the
Zawiyat al-Duheshah, the latter word signifying Hall
or
Court. Over it are rooms the rental of which was
settled on
the school. The school or mosque itself has a
kiblah of
coloured marble. Close by it is a fountain with a
maktab, or
school for the young above it, also the foundation
of the same
Sultan.
TOMBS OF THE CALIPHS.
The causes of the frequent change of rulers from the time of
Barkuk to the end of the Circassian dynasty are not always
intelligible; in the case of Faraj they appear to have
been
notorious incompetence displayed at a period when
the
Moslem world was confronted in the person of Timur
with
an enemy who threatened to exterminate it. His career
was
closed by a general revolt of the Syrian Emirs, who
defeated
him at the battle of Lajun in May, 1412. A
document was
drawn up by the judges at the command of the
victors declaring
Faraj a murderer and debauchee who was unfit
to
reign; and that there might be no jealousy between the
two
Emirs who were chiefly responsible for his downfall,
they
agreed to install as Sultan the Caliph Musta'in while
the
two Emirs were to have separate spheres of influence.
More
than a century and a half, then, since the
termination of Abbasid
rule in
Baghdad, a descendant, or at least a professed
descendant of the imperial family was given something more
than a nominal position at the head of the chief Moslem state.
He did not apparently much believe in his good fortune; and
before investiture as Sultan stipulated that, if he were forced
to abdicate, he might resume his nominal dignity of Caliph.
This stipulation turned out to be very necessary, although it
was not observed; at the end of less than six months the
Emir
to whom Egypt had fallen, Shaikh Mahmudi, desired
the title as
well as the rights of Sultan, and easily obtained
a
declaration from the ecclesiastical authorities that a man
of
business was wanted at the head of affairs. The Abbasid
was
therefore deposed from his Sultanate, and soon after was
deprived of the title Caliph also. Naturally the new Sultan
had to fight the colleague whose sphere of influence was to
have been
Syria, and who refused to
recognize any overlord
but the Caliph. But Shaikh Mahmudi, now
called the Sultan
Muayyad, appears to have been a capable
general, and in the
course of several campaigns he reduced
Syria to complete
subjection, captured
his rival Nauruz, “who had been to
him more than a brother and
reposed his head on the same
pillow,” and sent his head to be
exposed on the Bab Zuwailah.
With the Bab Zuwailah this Sultan was otherwise connected,
for he had in the time of Faraj been imprisoned in
the Shama'il gaol, which adjoined it. To commemorate his
imprisonment and subsequent promotion, he determined to
erect on the site of this prison a mosque which should
bear
his name, in fulfilment of a vow that he made when
confined
therein and suffering from the vermin which
infested the
place. The mosque was commenced three years after
his
elevation; no forced labour was employed over the
construction,
all workmen being honourably remunerated;
only the
marble slabs and columns were taken from a variety of
older
buildings which had to be pulled down. In two years’
time
the eastern liwan was finished, and the Friday prayer
was
celebrated there. Before this the Sultan had endowed
the institution
with a rich library, taken from the old
library of the
Citadel, and so perhaps containing some volumes
that had
once belonged to the Fatimide collection, to which a
certain
Barizi, whose house at Boulak the Sultan was in
the habit
of visiting, added 500 volumes to the value, we are
told, of
10,000 dinars, securing to himself and his
descendants by
this gift the office of librarian. In order to
find place for the
lavatory some dwellings were purchased and
demolished
by the vizier, whose own foundation will next
be mentioned.
The minarets of the new mosque were built on the
flanking
towers of the Bab Zuwailah; one of them, soon
after erection,
was found to be out of the perpendicular, and
its demolition
was ordered by the architect. In the course of
this
operation a stone fell and killed one of the
passers-by, in
consequence whereof the gate was closed for
thirty days,
‘the like whereof had not happened since
Cairo was built.’
The
cupolas which cover the graves of a daughter of the
THE DOME OF EL MOAIYAD FROM BAB ZUWEYLEY,
DAMASCUS..
Sultan, buried before
the first service had been held in the
mosque, and the Sultan
himself with his son Ibrahim, were
finished at different
times, both after 1421, the year of the
Sultan's death.
The story of this Ibrahim throws a painful light on the
builder of the mosque and its first librarian and
preacher.
The year before the Sultan's death he became so
infirm that
when he wanted to move he had to be carried on the
shoulders
of his slaves. The preacher told him that the
army
were tired of a paralysed Sultan, and were turning
their
regards to his strong and gallant son. The best
plan, he
suggested, was to get rid of this rival by poison.
The advice
was followed; but on the following Friday the
Sultan came
to hear a funeral sermon preached over his victim
in the
mosque which contained his remains. The preacher,
with
the view of diverting suspicion from his master,
delivered
an affecting discourse, telling how the Prophet
late in life
had himself lost a son of the same name, Ibrahim,
and
quoting the affecting and noble words of grief and
resignation
with which the founder of Islam bore the blow.
What
was intended to clear the Sultan's fame was regarded
by
him as a reproach; he determined then to get rid of
the
preacher by the same means as had carried off his son,
and
invited him to a meal, from the effects of which he
died in
a few days’ time.
The mosque rises about five metres above the level of the
street; in the time of Isma'il Pasha the whole building
with
the exception of the wall containing the Kiblah was
in
ruins. During his government it was restored, and
various
repairs have at different times been executed by
order of
the Committee. An inscription in the sanctuary
records some
restorations done by order of Ibrahim Pasha, son
of Mohammed
Ali, and some are recorded as having been
executed
under a yet earlier Ibrahim Pasha, who
governed
Egypt as viceroy for
the Turks at the end of the sixteenth
century.
The partial destruction of the mosque must have taken
place after 1826, when a plan was made—published in Coste's
Illustrations of Cairene Architecture—which
represents all
four cloisters as complete. The work done under
Ibrahim
and Isma'il Pashas must have been inadequate,
since the
plan of 1890 shows only the sanctuary, or
south-east, liwan
as standing, with the rest in ruins. The
work done by the
Committee in 1890 and later consisted in
restoring the sanctuary
and rendering it fit for public
worship, repairing the
great perron by which the mosque is entered, and completing
the minarets.
Two years before the erection of this wonderful edifice a
school was built in the ancient region Between the Two
Walls, sometimes called the Fakhri School after its
founder
Fakhr al-din, Vizier of the Sultan Muayyad, but
better
known as the “Girls’ School.” Its founder had an
unenviable
reputation: “He combined the tyranny of the
Armenians
with the cunning of the Christians, the devilry
of the
Copts and the injustice of the tax-gatherers, being by
origin
an Armenian, and trained among the other three
classes
mentioned.” He at one time had to flee to the Kan
of
Baghdad,
but found
means to regain the favour of the Egyptian
Sultan, who had in
him a convenient instrument for the
extortion of money from
his subjects. In 1852 it was restored
by a wife of Mohammed
Ali, but has since undergone further
alterations.
To a competent ruler Orientals, and perhaps not they
only, are willing to forgive much: and the judgement which
they pass on the Sultan Muayyad is on the whole exceedingly
favourable. They admire his skill in music and versification,
his taste for the fine arts, which undoubtedly is exemplified
in his Mosque, and his keen knowledge of men.
There lies in the Muayyad Mosque one more member of
its founder's family, his son, Ahmad, who reigned after him,
if a suckling can be said to reign. His story is rather tragical.
Muayyad's praetorians demanded that a son of his should
reign over them; and the surviving son was eighteen months
old. He was proclaimed sovereign in his nurse's arms, and
injured for life by fright at the beating of the drums.
The
Emir who was to govern for him married his mother so
soon
as he decently could, and hurried him off to
Syria, there to
quell one
of the rebellions that had by this time become
normal on such
occasions. By the most ruthless executions
he succeeded in
quelling it; and when he had quelled it he
at once divorced
the queen-mother, deposed her son, and
sent him to
Alexandria where dangerous persons were
ordinarily imprisoned. There nine years later he was
carried
off by plague. But the queen-mother had not been
Muayyad's
wife without learning some of the secrets of
empire. Before
the usurper reached his capital, he knew that
there was poison
in his veins; and after three months’ reign
he went to join
his victims. “God be pleased with him!” says
the historian
—truly a marvellous wish.
Another ephemeral child's reign and a series of palace
intrigues ended in the throne being occupied in 1422 by a
powerful ruler, Barsbai, who took the title Ashraf, less
ruthless
in his ways than his predecessors, yet not
unwilling to
use poison when convenient. His reign lasted from
1422 till
1438, and was on the whole a peaceful time for
Egypt, though
twice while it lasted much of the population was
swept away
by plague. In a census made during this reign, on
the occasion
of a new tax being introduced, it was found that
the
total number of towns and villages in Egypt had sunk
to
2,170, whereas in the fourth century A.H. it had stood
at
10,000. Barsbai began shortly after his usurpation to
build
his monument, which is called Ashrafiyyah, after the
title
by which he reigned.
It is situated where the street of the
same name crosses the
Rue Neuve. Its site was occupied
by a number of stores, of
which the rents were settled on
another mosque; these were
pulled down, but that there
might be no sacrilege, other rents
were substituted for them.
The construction was confided to a
certain Abd al-Basit,
who occupied important posts in both
this reign and the
last; he was in Muayyad's reign manager of
the trust funds
which provided the covering for the Ka'bah
sent yearly to
Meccah, and keeper of the royal wardrobe;
Barsbai made
him inspector-general of the army, and relied in
most things
on his advice. In Muayyad's reign he had himself
built a
School or Hospice in the Khurunfush quarter, opposite
the
palace of the Sayyid al-Bekri.
The Mosque of Barsbai consists of two large and two small
liwans—a characteristic of the later period of mosque
construction,
due to the fact that of the four orthodox
systems
of law only two retained their popularity in
Egypt. No
columns are employed in it; and it belongs to the
class called
Suspended, as there is an ascent to it by a
flight of steps.
Ali Pasha tells us that it is largely used by
students of al-Azhar
in preparing their lessons, owing to its
size and the
clean condition in which it is kept, and, of
course, its proximity
to the great University. A mueddin who
once was drunk
when he performed his sacred duty dreamed that
the Prophet
whipped him with the kurbash; he woke and finding
on his
person the weals resulting from the blows, repented of
the
wickedness of his ways. For many years the helmet of
the
King of Cyprus was suspended over the door. For one
of
Barsbai's titles to the gratitude of the Egyptians was
that
he avenged the repeated raids of the Cyprians on
Alexandria by
sending to Cyprus a fleet which burned Limasol, and
another
which took Famagusta, while a later expedition
succeeded in
taking the King of Cyprus captive, who was
brought to
Cairo, and presently released for a ransom
of
200,000 dinars, on condition of acknowledging the
suzerainty
of the Egyptian Sultan and paying him tribute.
An inscription
going along the sanctuary and the western liwan
about
the middle of the wall, contains the deed of
settlement on
the Mosque, which has been reproduced with an
ample and
exhaustive commentary by van Berchem. The
benefactions
as usual took the shape of rents on buildings
for the most
part, but some of them were in the form of lands.
The deed
also gives a list of other settlements made by the
same
Sultan both on his heirs and on other pious
institutions.
This is the last building mentioned by the great Cairene
topographer, Makrizi, whose work was begun in the reign
of Muayyad, and finished in the fourth year of Barsbai.
Few cities in the world have been so exhaustively
described
as
Cairo
is by this writer, who also composed a history of the
Mamluke
dynasty up to his time, and a biographical dictionary
of
persons who had lived in Egypt. His book on
Cairo has been the basis of all
archaeological studies connected
with Moslem Egypt; and the
French Archaeological
Mission has provided students with a
translation of it.
In the cemetery to the east of
Cairo the Sultan Barsbai
built himself a mausoleum and
a hospice. The latter has disappeared;
the former exists, but
has undergone some alterations.
In the ruins of the latter a
lengthy inscription has been
discovered, detailing the
revenues settled by the Sultan on
these institutions; it is
rather remarkable that two of this
Sultan's foundations should
contain such deeds which are
somewhat rare. The present deed
contains provision for the
maintenance of certain other tombs
besides the Sultan's;
among the buildings furnishing rentals
are some shops at
Bab al-Luk. These inscriptions, Ali Pasha
observes, by no
means had the effect contemplated by their
author, which
was to render the settlements inalienable, and
the foundations
regularly maintained;
they were overtaken by decay,
as others were.
The last years of Barsbai were clouded by the decay of
the Sultan's mental faculties, leading him to reproduce
the
part played of old by Hakim. He enacted that no
woman
should appear in the streets at all; the layers-out
of corpses
had to apply for a special badge from the
magistrate before
they could discharge their duty. The
animosity against dogs
that at one time seized the Prophet of
Islam also found its way
into this Sultan's bosom; they were
banished from
Cairo to
Gizeh,
and a reward offered to all who
arrested one of these
animals. Wrongs done to women and dogs
perhaps evoked
little resentment in the minds of the
Egyptians; but the Sultan's
eccentricity also assumed a
homicidal turn, and his
death was probably a relief to his
subjects.
He left as successor a son fourteen years of age, who was
almost immediately displaced by a minister, Jakmak,
originally
a freedman of the Sultan Barkuk, and
sixty-seven
years of age when he usurped the throne. And,
indeed, the
Palace revolutions which regularly followed on the
death of
a Sultan in this period, succeeded in fairly often
putting
into power a man of ripe experience, and free from
the vices
associated often with heirs-apparent. The dethroned
lad made
an attempt to escape from his honourable quarters in
the Citadel;
he dressed himself as a kitchen boy, bore a tray
on his head,
begrimed his face, and went out in the company of
the cook, who
rated him in suitable style. But the unfortunate
lad had no
plan in his head of the course to be pursued when
he had
escaped, and so waited about in
Cairo until he was retaken.
The early
days of Jakmak were distinguished by a Servile
War, reminding
the reader of his Roman history; five hundred
blacks fled from
their masters, crossed to
Gizeh, and
there set up a state and a Sultan of their own. This
attempt
ended as the Roman Servile Wars ended; the slaves
were
captured and sent off
in dhows to the markets of the now
powerful Ottoman Empire.
The time of this Sultan was also marked by persecution
of Christians and Jews, involving the destruction of many
Christian churches. As the chronicles represent the
matter,
this persecution was caused by the Sultan's desire
to enforce
total abstinence; and, of course, the win trade was
in the
hands of these two communities. If the Sultan heard of
any
of his praetorians being intoxicated, he would banish
him,
cut off his allowance and confiscate his property. A
strict
search was made into all houses, and wherever any
liquor was
found it was poured away.
Some monuments are left of Jakmak's reign. One is the
Mosque of the Emir Tangri Bardi, called also the Mosque
of
Mu'dhi, in the Salibah Street. It consists, says Ali Pasha,
of
two liwans with a covered court between them; this area
is
illuminated by a skylight. A white cupola covers the tomb
of
the founder, an Emir who held high office, but owing to
his
surliness was known by the title, “the Public Nuisance,”
which
the alternate name of the founder of the Mosque signifies.
His
disagreeable conduct was finally the cause of his
death at the
hands of his Mamlukes.
A more important personage of this reign was the Kadi
Yahya (the Arabic for John), whose mosque is by the Bridge
which takes the Mouski over what was once the Great Canal.
Its
founder had the high office of Mayor of the Palace, and
underwent repeatedly exile and torture, finally dying of the
latter, when at the close of his long life he was drawn from
his retirement by the Sultan Kaietbai, and bastinadoed in
the
hope that treasure might be extorted from him. Of his
mosque,
Herz Bey observes that it is of the model belonging
to the
latest period of the Circassian Mamlukes. Its dimensions
are
small, its shape cruciform, the north and south liwans
are
reduced, the minaret is at the point most in view,
the Mausoleum is at
the south-east, and is surrounded by a
small school.
The name of Jakmak himself is commemorated by a
mosque in the Salibah region, and a school, of which only
the
façade is preserved, in a street between the Mouski and
the
Boulevard Mohammed Ali.
Jakmak tried to perpetuate his dynasty by a plan which
has often proved successful—abdicating in favour of his
son,
who, being nineteen years of age, might reasonably
have
been competent to reign. And, indeed, he commenced
by
administering tortures to various Emirs from whom he
hoped
to extort money, in a manner worthy of an older man.
The
money was required for the usual largess demanded by
the
praetorians on a new sovereign's accession; and little
of it
being forthcoming, his minister of the works thought of
the
by no means new expedient of debasing the coinage to
make
a little go a longer way; a proceeding which so
exasperated
those whom it was meant to cajole, that a new
Sultan was
immediately elected, under whom the revolted
praetorians
besieged the son of Jakmak in the Citadel, and
ere long
starved him into surrender. Though at first
imprisoned, the
dethroned Sultan lived not only to be
released, but to return
to the Citadel, not, indeed, as
monarch, but as the honoured
guest of one of his successors.
The succeeding Sultan Inal tried to secure the succession
to his son by appointing him, so soon as he was himself
sovereign, to high office in the State; but he had to
retract
this step, which provoked jealousy. Since it was
the custom
of each succeeding Sultan to imprison numerous
suspects,
but to release many of those whom his
predecessors had
incarcerated, possibly there were always many
to whom the
continuity of a dynasty was undesirable, for some
persons
are likely to have been interested in those who
pined in
captivity. Yet it would be unsafe to draw any
inferences from
ordinary communities
to these regiments of freed slaves torn
violently from their
homes in youth and spending their
whole lives as garrison amid
an alien population. The
Janissaries would form the nearest
parallel to them; but
then the Janissaries did not furnish the
sovereign, nor
ordinarily the ministers.
This Sultan—whose reign lasted from 1453 to 1460, and
whose year of accession was noteworthy because in it
Cairo was decorated to celebrate the
taking of Constantinople by
the Ottomans, who before another
century had passed were
to be masters of Egypt also—like his
predecessor
perpetuated his name by a school, mosque and
monastery in the
cemetery that already contained some noble
monuments of
the kind. The whole set of buildings is
surrounded by a wall
which encloses various spaces, covered
and uncovered. The
mausoleum was commenced by the founder when
he was
still a minister only, two years before he ascended the
throne,
and is said to be the only example of a monument
begun
by a minister and ended by the same man as
sovereign.
Some of his children appear to have been buried
in it before
his accession, and steps were taken to alter the
inscriptions
in order to make them accord with his regal
titles. After he
had become Sultan, he decided on enlarging
his former
scheme by the inclusion in it of a vast monastery
or hospice,
the numerous cells of which, though deserted,
count, says
van Berchem, among the most curious relics of
Egyptian
Sufism. The historians record the festivities
with which the
inauguration of the monastery was accompanied;
and the
dedicatory inscription, without naming, makes an
allusion
to Jamal al-din Yusuf, director of public works
at this time,
who oversaw the building of this monument, and
indeed is
said to have supplied the necessary funds. We have
already
met with this personage, suggesting tampering with
the coinage
as a financial expedient. At a later period he
suggested,
and with some
difficulty carried through, an expedient
of the contrary sort,
the restoration of pure metal; a proceeding
which cost many
persons the third of their fortunes, though
its beneficial
results were speedily felt.
How many persons took advantage of the numerous hospices
for religious retirement we cannot say; besides those
which have met us as connected or identical with mosques,
there was a humbler sort called Takiyyeh or Ribat, and a
building of this sort, founded by Inal, still exists in
Cairo,
though only three
of those mentioned by Makrizi have left
any traces. Some of
these institutions were for female ascetics,
the greater
number for male. The Moslem notion of asceticism
or sainthood
by no means excludes marriage; yet it is likely
that most of
those who passed their lives in these retreats
were, when they
entered, near the end of their worldly careers.
The account given of the Sultan Inal personally is more
than usually favourable. He shed no blood, except in
judicial
executions, and he lived with one wife. On the
other
hand, he was so ignorant that he had to sign public
documents
with his mark, being unable to read or write.
An event occurred in this reign which illustrates the
relations between Sultan and Caliph. The solitary duty of
the latter was, as we have often seen, to give legitimacy to
the title of the former; and in the uncertainty as to the result,
when there was a variety of pretenders to the throne, the
Caliph's course was not easy to steer. The Caliph who had
invested Inal, having espoused his cause before his rival
had
been defeated, considered himself afterwards
insufficiently
rewarded and took up with another
pretender. The pretender
was defeated, and Inal then demanded
that the Caliph should
divest himself of his office. “I divest
myself of the Caliphate,”
he then exclaimed, “and I also
divest Inal of the Sultanate.”
This proceeding alarmed the
audience, not seeing
an exit from the deadlock. A courtier
easily found one.
A COURTYARD NEAR THE TENTMAKERS' BAZAAR, CAIRO.
Having divested
himself
first, he observed, the
ex-Caliph
no longer had the power to divest anyone else.
He ought to
have begun with the Sultan, if he had meant the
act to be valid.
The sufferings of the civil population are said to have been
very great in this reign, notwithstanding the benevolence
of
the Sultan. Where the sovereign's right was based
entirely on
force, and had absolutely no root in the loyalty
of the subjects
or their hereditary affection, it was his
natural policy
to furnish himself with a bodyguard of which
the members
solely looked to him; the freedmen of an earlier
sovereign
could not be trusted, as such loyalty as they
were capable
of feeling would have for its object, at least in
part,
the heirs of their former master. The accession of
each
usurper therefore either threw out of work, or left
in dangerous
idleness, a great number of mercenaries who had
no
affection for the Egyptian populace, while introducing
a
fresh supply in the service of the new Sultan whom he
could
not venture by violently repressive measures to
offend. The
result was a succession of riots, in which shops
were looted
and peaceful passengers robbed without any
possibility of
obtaining redress.
The successor of Inal, his son Ahmad, who came to the
throne in 1460, his father having abdicated in his favour
some time before his own death, was a favourite of the
Egyptian people, and endeavoured to repress the evils
which
have been stated. He apparently trusted too much to
the
loyalty of his father's freedmen and slaves, who as soon
as
they saw that he intended to govern for the good of his
subjects, turned against him. They sent to the Governor of
Damascus, offering him the Sultanate; but, in their impatience
to get rid of Ahmad, could not wait for his arrival,
and
appointed the commander of the forces, Khushkadam,
as stopgap.
Naturally the stopgap refused to make way for the
person whose
deputy he was meant to be, and retained his place.
[Back to top]
CHAPTER VIII
The Last of the Circassian Mamlukes
KHUSHKADAM, the thirty-eighth Sultan of the
Mamluke
dynasty, is said to have been in origin a
Greek slave, but the
name which Arab writers use
for “Greek” does not give much
information, since it is applied
to all residents in Asia
Minor or Turkey in Asia, and
indeed the Ottoman Sultan is by
Arabic authors of this
period called the King of the Greeks
(
Rum). His reign is
noteworthy for the commencement of the struggle between
the
Ottoman and the Egyptian Sultanates, which finally
led to the
incorporation of Egypt in the Ottoman Empire.
This began with
a quarrel over the succession in the principality
of Karaman,
where the two Sultans favoured rival
candidates, and the
Ottoman Sultan Mohammed supported
his candidate with force of
arms, obtaining as the price of
his assistance several towns
in which the suzerainty of
the Egyptian Sultan had hitherto
been acknowledged. Open
war did not, however, break out
between the two states in
Khushkadam's time. His reign of six
years is not otherwise
of consequence for the development of
either Egypt or
Cairo,
though he, as usual, built himself a mausoleum.
His death was followed by the accession successively of
two ephemeral usurpers, after whom there came another
great sovereign in the person of Kaietbai, who occupied
the
throne for the lengthy period of twenty-seven years
(1468-1495).
Much of his time was spent in struggles with
Uzun
Hasan, Prince of Diyarbekr, and Shah Siwar, chief of
the
Zulkadir Turcomans. He
gave grave offence to the Ottoman
Sultan, Bayazid II, by
entertaining his brother Jem, who
afterwards took refuge in
Christian Europe, and was poisoned
by Pope Alexander VI. In
the war which ensued the
troops of Kaietbai were successful,
and after they had repeatedly
defeated the Ottomans, peace was
made in 1491,
when the keys of the towns which the Ottomans
had seized,
were handed back to the Egyptian Sultan.
Kaietbai was a builder on about as great a scale as the
Sultan Nasir, and extended his operations far beyond
Cairo;
he erected
edifices on a costly scale at Meccah and Medinah,
Jerusalem
and elsewhere. The Citadel and the parts of
Cairo in its neighbourhood were, if we
may believe the
chroniclers, practically rebuilt in a more
magnificent style
than before by this Sultan, and he founded a
whole series
of mosques in different parts of his capital, on
the island
Raudah, in the Kabsh, and in the great cemetery
which
already contained so many of these monuments.
Apparently
the revenues of the country must have been
wasted on these
costly schemes, and the State treasury was
regularly during
his reign in an exhausted condition. The
historians, however,
turn their attention to his piety rather
than to his extravagance,
and surround his person with the
romance attaching
to a saint. Before his accession to the
Sultanate was ever
thought of, pious persons had the fact
revealed to them.
When a plague was raging in
Cairo, some one dreamed that
the Prophet's servant averted the destroying angel from
Kaietbai's person. He told Kaietbai of this vision, and
the
future Sultan wisely bade him conceal it. Another
person
saw in a dream a pomegranate tree with a single
fruit upon
it, which Kaietbai hastened to pluck. He told
Kaietbai that
this was a sure omen of his sovereignty, but was
rebuked by
the future Sultan when he ventured to narrate the
vision. In
a vision which the Sultan himself saw when he went
on
pilgrimage he was
informed by the Prophet that he was
one of the saved.
Many of the great monuments of
Cairo underwent some
form of restoration by his care,
such as the Mosque al-Azhar,
that of Sayyidah Nefisah, that of
Amr Ibn al-As, the tomb of
al-Shafi'i, the Meidan of the
Sultan Nasir and many more.
The chief architectural monument of his reign, which also
marks the highest point to which art was carried in the
days of the Circassian Mamlukes is his mosque in the
cemetery
now called “The Tombs of the Caliphs.”
“Everything
that is to be found separately in the other
temples is united
in this with incomparable talent,” says
Gayet. “The bold
gateway is surmounted by trefoil arch; to the
left the facade
is pierced by the windows of a fountain
[sebil] and a school.
Those of the fountain are closed with
grilles of network, to
the right is an octagon minaret with a
square base ornamented
with rosettes.The back wall of the
sanctuary is pierced
by two double windows, separated by a
rose window, also
in glass. This arrangement is reproduced in
the sepulchral
hall. The octagonal dome of the latter is of
incomparable
grace,” etc. The building embraces a school,
a fountain, a
school for children, a mausoleum and as usual a
hospice for
Sufis, though this last has disappeared. German
travellers
visiting
Cairo in 1483 were enthusiastic over the beauty of
this mosque which had then been completed nine years.
These
travellers-whose accounts are reprinted by M. van
Berchem-were
greatly struck by the noise made by the
Mohammedan “priests,”
i.e., Mueddins and Dervishes,
lodged in the hospice provided
for their use. The uncomplimentary
epithet “dogs” was applied
by these devotees
to their European visitors.
The plan of the school (madrasah) was that of the latest
period, in which, as has been seen, the two lateral liwans
are increased, and the others diminished in size. Together
with the alteration in
the structure of the schools or mosques
comes the gradual
displacement of brick by stone. The employment
of the latter
material in Egypt was a natural relic
of the traditions of the
Abbasid Caliphate, since the Babylon
of that monarchy, no less
than that of its predecessor,
was an
a figulis munita urbs. The architects towards the
beginning of the fifteenth century succeeded in building
stone cupolas over tombs, but for arches which had to
support
great weights they found stone difficult to work,
and
soon took to covering the liwans with wooden ceilings
in
preference to arched roofs.
The deed of foundation is given at length by Ali Pasha,
and apparently exceeds in munificence all preceding
foundations,
lavish as many of these had been. The leader
of
prayer was to have five hundred dirhems a month, and
three
loaves a day; there were to be nine well-paid
mueddins,
“scholarships” for two orphan schools, one of
twenty and
the other of thirty children; five hundred dirhems
a day
for each of forty Sufis with their head, and special
benefactions
for special occasions. The mere enumeration
of buildings
settled on this fourfold institution is lengthy.
A building less religious in character also belonging to
the epoch of Kaietbai is the Bait al-Kadi, occupying part
of the site of the old Eastern Palace of the Fatimides.
This
house was a portion of the Palace of the Emir Mamai,
which
he appears to have repaired rather than to have
built. The
late Mr H. C. Kay, who did not a little for the
exploration
of
Cairo, discovered some forty yards west of the law court
which is usually identified with the Palace, a ruined saloon,
with liwans separated from the central portion by lofty
arches of solid masonry. The base of the arches contained
an
inscription which identified this saloon as part of Mamai's
Palace. In Mr Kay's time it was occupied as a corn
mill, with
stabling for the cattle that worked the mill. This
Mamai played an
important part in the history of his time,
and was repeatedly
employed as ambassador from the
Egyptian Sultan to the Ottoman
Porte. The loggia is remarkable
for its size.
Another Palace, of which some remains are to be found,
is that of the Emir Yashbak, behind the mosque of the
Sultan
Hasan, constituting one of the latest specimens of
the
civil architecture of the Mamlukes. It comprehends a
rez-de-chaussée
vaulted with a saloon (ka'ah) of gigantic
dimensions.
Three buildings bearing the title Wakalah (often pronounced
Ukalah) were erected by Kaietbai inside
Cairo.
This form of edifice is similar
to what is called a khan in
Syria; it means a magazine in which
strange merchants can
deposit their wares. One of those
founded by this Sultan
was in the Rue Surujiyyah, and was
condemned by the
Committee, who, however, took care that any
objects left
there of artistic or archaeological interest
should be carefully
removed and preserved. Of the two others,
opposite
al-Azhar and near the Bab al-Nasr respectively,
the
façades are preserved. The Wakalah in the
neighbourhood
of the Nasr Gate had three façades—that
which faces the
street shows an alternate series of
mashrabiyyahs and
grilles, the first floor overlapping the
ground floor.
Various other buildings of interest date from the time of
the Sultan Kaietbai. One of these is the School or Mosque
of Muzhir, in the lane leading from the street Between the
Two Walls to the Khurunfush. Of its two gates one is
ornamented
with bronze, the other with inlaid ivory work
in
geometrical patterns. The two larger liwans have
pillars of
marble, and the whole is paved with marbles of
various
colours also arranged in geometrical designs. The
woodwork
of this mosque is also highly admired. The whole
is
said to be still much as its founder left it, except
for certain
slight improvements
and repairs executed at various times.
Muzhir, or rather Ibn
Muzhir, was private secretary to the
Sultan Kaietbai, and as
such had to represent him on certain
occasions. On one that is
recorded by the chronicler he
was sent by the Sultan to a
council that had been summoned
of the ecclesiastical
authorities, to decide whether
for the defence of the State it
was desirable to seize the revenues
of the religious
foundations, leaving them just enough
to maintain them in
working order. The Shaikhs naturally
made the same reply as
the privileged orders when their
taxation was suggested at the
commencement of the French
Revolution; such an act was against
the divine law, and the
Shaiks, if they countenanced it, would
have to answer for
their impiety on the Day of Judgement; it
was of no use
summoning them to a council, if such a
proposition were put
before them to discuss.
The Sultan Kaietbai made himself famous for the economy
of his regime, and the expedients which he invented for
saving
the revenues of the State—in order to squander them
on his
buildings—one of these might have been borrowed from
the
Odyssey of Homer, if we could imagine that
this Sultan had
access to that poem. Persons enjoying military
pay were
summoned to the Sultan's presence and invited to draw
a
tough bow; if they failed, they were disqualified and
their
pay withdrawn. The task of distributing it was
undertaken
by the Sultan personally, who sat on definite
days for the
purpose. In spite of this economy the fortunes
which the
Emirs managed to accumulate show that further
supervision
would have been desirable.
The Mosque often known as that of the Shaikh Abu
Haribah (after a saint buried in it) in the Ahmar Street, belongs
to the time of Kaietbai, and was built by an Emir of
his named Kachmas (Turkish for “flees not”). This person,
who held a variety of important posts, signalized himself
by building outside
Alexandria a refuge for travellers
who
arrived after the closing of the gates of the city,
when they
were exposed to the attacks of marauders. He also
founded
a number of religious institutions in the various
cities in
which he held office, chiefly hospices for Sufis.
The Shaikh
Abu Haribah is a modern celebrity who died in the
year
1851. Born in
Upper
Egypt, he studied various forms of Sufism,
until he
was ready to start a system of his own; he
came to
Cairo and took a situation as clerk in a
Christian
bakehouse, where he proselytized and made as
many as sixty
converts to Islam. His teaching was greatly
sought after,
and his fame attracted the attention of the
rulers of Egypt;
Mohammed Ali sent him a present of £ Eg.500,
and Abbas
Pasha offered him a gift of land, but both presents
were declined.
His disciples have erected an ivory monument to
him
in the Mosque.
The part of
Cairo called
Ezbekiyyeh, familiar to all European
visitors, dates from the
reign of Kaietbai. According
to the chronicler it was during
the Fatimide period partly
sand-heaps and partly morass; at
some time it was drained
by a canal called the Male Canal,
which was blocked when
the Sultan Nasir had his Nasiri Canal
dug. The buildings
which had sprung up in consequence of the
land being
drained now fell into ruin, and the region became a
haunt
of evil doers. By private enterprise a bath was
presently
built in the region, to which water was conveyed
by an
aqueduct from the Nasiri Canal; the same water was
also
used for agricultural purposes and cereals grown in
fields.
In the year 1470, near the beginning of Kaietbai's
reign, the
Emir Ezbek decided to build here some stalls for
his camels,
and afterwards residential quarters. He proceeded
to have
the rubbish-heaps that were there removed, to have the
land
levelled, and to excavate a pond, into which water
was
introduced from the Nasiri Canal. The pond was
surrounded
by a stone embankment.
Owing to the great liking of the
Egyptian residents for views
over water, the region speedily
became fashionable, and
handsome residences were erected
all round the new pool. By
the end of Kaietbai's reign the
Ezbekiyyeh, as the quarter was
called after its founder, had
become “a city for itself,” and
the same Emir proceeded
to build a mosque in splendid style
for the religious needs
of his “new city,” with baths, stores,
mills and bakehouses
for its temporary wants. The day in the
year on which water
was let into the pool became one of public
rejoicing, and the
occasion would be celebrated by the
lighting of a bonfire of
unheard-of magnitude.
At the time of the French occupation the bed of the pond
was according to M. Rhoné's estimate about three times the
area of the Place de la Concorde, or equal to the interior
of
the Champ de Mars. When the inundation of the Nile
filled
it with water, the surrounding buildings had the
aspect of
Venetian palaces, whereas in winter the area was
covered
with green vegetation. The pond was drained by
Mohammed
Ali, and his successor Ibrahim Pasha had the
recovered
land covered with fine trees. These were cut
down by Isma'il
Pasha, who “abandoned the place to the horrors
of speculation,”
and instituted the public park which now
occupies
the middle of the quarter. The statue of Ibrahim
Pasha
which originally stood on a mound was transferred to
its
present site, and the Mosque of Ezbek demolished to
make
room for its pedestal. The modern buildings in this
region
date from the reign of Isma'il or his successors.
The Emir Ezbek is celebrated for much besides the Ezbe-kiyyeh.
Originally a slave of the Sultan Barsbai, he was
purchased and manumitted by Jakmak, who gave him
successively
two of his daughters. He was promoted to high
office
at the Egyptian court, and for a time held a
governorship
in
Syria, whence he returned to Egypt to be commander of
the forces, under
Kaietbai; it was this office which under
the Circassian regime
often trained a man to be Sultan. He
led expeditions against
the Bedouins and Turcomans,
helped to defeat the Ottomans, and
in the absence of Kaietbai
from
Cairo was left in charge of affairs. According to a
custom illustrated in English history by the practice of
Queen Elizabeth he was in the habit of defraying out of
his
own purse the cost of the expeditions which he
commanded.
Like many eminent men's careers his was not
unclouded;
he was banished four times in the course of it
and imprisoned
in
Alexandria twice. When he died, owing to a dispute
between his heirs, his estate was seized by the Sultan, and
was discovered to include 700,000 dinars in coin, besides
goods corresponding in value; indeed, the chroniclers add,
had
it not been for what he spent in the public service, and
what
he had laid out on the Ezbekiyyeh, his wealth would
have
defied calculation. He is credited with great personal
ability, but otherwise with few good qualities; he had a
sharp
tongue and an arrogant manner; he was implacable
if once
offended, and if ever he imprisoned anyone, would
never permit
a release.
A Mosque erected by another Emir Ezbek still exists in
the Birket al-Fil (Elephant's Pool) region. It is of the
late
style, in which the two main liwans are enlarged to
the detriment
of the two lateral cloisters. It contains the
tomb of
a stepson of the founder,
Sidi Faraj, son of a governor of
Damascus whose widow became the wife of Ezbek. This
lady,
called the Princess Bunukh, is buried close by.
The architectural and engineering works ordered by the
Sultan Kaietbai were more varied in character than most of
those of his predecessors. Ezbek—of the Ezbekiyyeh—was
employed by him to restore certain bridges over the canals
which came between the Pyramids and
Gizeh, and which
when Saladdin ordered
his great plan of fortification, had
PLACE OF KAIT BEY, CAIRO.
formed part of a road
whereby material was to be taken
from the pyramids and brought
to the Nile. These bridges
were seen and their inscriptions
copied in the eighteenth
century; but in the nineteenth
century the bridges disappeared,
and with them their
inscriptions. One of these inscriptions
spoke of ten arches,
of which the original construction
went back to a period
anterior to Islam. This was
probably an exaggeration, though
perhaps intended in good
faith.
Ezbek's last triumph was in the year 1491, when he
brought his troops home from Asia Minor, after having inflicted
a severe defeat on the Ottoman forces, stormed some
fortresses, and taken many captives. He returned, indeed,
without having received leave from his chief, owing to the
insubordination of his troops, who demanded more and more
pay;
but
Cairo was adorned to welcome the
victors, and
Kaietbai made peace with the Ottomans on the
earliest opportunity.
The want of money in Egypt had by this
time
reached its height, and not all the expedients which
the
Sultan and his ministers could devise produced a
sufficient
supply. The revenues of all religious
foundations were sequestrated
for seven months, a measure
extended to
Syria as
well as Egypt, and ruthlessly executed. Another plan
adopted
by the Sultan was to endow research in the shape
of alchemy,
various persons professing to turn base metal
into gold, if
money were provided to pay for experiments.
When these
experiments proved unsuccessful, the Sultan
avenged himself by
depriving the unfortunate alchemists
of their eyes and
tongues. The great Nur al-din in Saladdin's
time had allowed
himself to be cajoled by a man of this
craft, who offered to
utilize his art for the Sultan's benefit
on condition that the
gold so produced should only be employed
for the sacred war.
The charlatan melted down a
thousand dinars, to give the
Sultan the satisfaction of seeing,
as he thought, a gold
ingot produced out of base metal;
and the Sultan, when he had
seen it, liberally equipped the
adventurer to go in search of
a large supply of the chemicals
that he required for his
experiments, of which, naturally,
sufficient was not to be had
in Damascus. One of the Sultan's
subjects then made out a
class-list of fools, placing the
Sultan at the head; he
offered if the alchemist ever returned
to erase the Sultan's
name from this post of honour, and
give it to the former, but
never had occasion to alter his list.
Kaietbai had one son, Mohammed, whose mother after
his death married one of his ephemeral successors, Jan-
balat,
and experienced various
vicissitudes of fortune in the troublous
times which Egypt
passed through in the early tenth
century of the Mohammedan
era, but has left a monument
of herself in a mosque at
Fayyum. This princess was the
wife of two Sultans, the mother of a third, and the sister
of
a fourth; for the first of the two Kansuhs who mounted
the
throne during these troubles owed his promotion to the
discovery
that he was the brother of Kaietbai's Queen.
The
Sultan Kaietbai had built a palace for his son, in
order to
gratify his taste for building; and in consequence of
a palace
intrigue which he was unable to quell he was induced
to
allow the prince to be proclaimed Sultan the day before
his
own death (Aug. 7, 1496), though, being only fourteen
years
of age, he would be unable to govern himself, but
would be
a puppet in the hands of the Commander of the forces.
The
expedient of securing the succession by appointing the
new
Sultan during his father's lifetime had been already
tried
under more favourable circumstances, and had failed.
It
succeeded no better now; for four years the supreme
power
passed into the hands of a series of adventurers:
and not till
1501 was there seated on it a monarch possessing
the capacity
to maintain himself.
Kansuh al-Ghuri is the last great monarch of the Circassian
THE MOSQUE EL GHOREE, CAIRO.
dynasty, and indeed of
Independent Egypt. His name
is perpetuated by the Mosque
al-Ghuri, in the neighbourhood
of the Citadel, and by another
in the Street called after it
Ghuriyyah, not far from the
Ashrafiyyah Mosque. There are
two large and two small liwans
(as usual at this period), and
no columns. The pulpit, which
is much admired, is said to
have a talisman to keep off flies
which is, according to Ali
Pasha, found to be quite effective.
The minaret commands
a fine view; and the mosque, which was
intended to be a
school, had the usual adjuncts of an hospice,
a fountain, and
a school for children. The cupola was supposed
to have been
built to hold the Koran of the Caliph Othman of
which the
binding, as might well be imagined, was by this time
sorely
in need of repair; the Sultan had it freshly bound,
placed
in a wooden case, and stored under the Cupola
specially
built to receive it. A deed of benefactions
rivalling that of
Kaietbai's foundation is given by our guide
in connexion
with this mosque; the writer of the deed was to
have a pension
of thirty dirhems a month and three loaves a
day for the
rest of his life.
The story of Kansuh al-Ghuri's accession shows that the
state of Egypt was generally unhealthy, and its easy
conquest
by a foreign power to be expected; for he was
selected
by the mutinous praetorians on the remarkable
ground that
being a man of little wealth and little influence,
he could
easily be deposed; and indeed he stipulated that if
they
chose to depose him, his life was to be guaranteed.
Once in
power he endeavoured by a variety of artifices to
isolate the
Emirs who were in control of affairs, and where
more gentle
means were unavailing, to employ poison. His reign
was
remarkable for a naval conflict between the Egyptians
and
Portuguese, whose fleet interfered with the trade
between
India and Egypt; Kansuh caused a fleet to be built
which
fought naval battles with the Portuguese with
varying result.
In 1515 there began
the war with the Ottoman Sultan
Selim, which led to the close
of the Mamluke period, and
the incorporation of Egypt with its
dependencies in the
Ottoman Empire. Kansuh was charged by
Selim with
giving the right of way through
Syria to the envoys of the
Safawid
Isma'il, whose destination was Venice, where they
hoped to
form a confederacy of west and east against the
Turks. The
actual declaration of war was not made by Selim
till May 1515,
when all his preparations had been made; at
the Battle of Marj
Dabik, Aug. 24, 1516, Kansuh was defeated
by the Ottoman
forces, and fell fighting. His body
was left on the
battlefield and never was interred in his
mausoleum. His
successor Tumanbai made a brave but useless
resistance to the
Ottomans, who now invaded Egypt.
The Mamluke rule had at no time been identified with
any national cause in Egypt, though the victories of the
first dynasty over the Crusaders had won for it the respect
of
the Moslems. The chroniclers do not wish us to suppose
that
the defeat of the Mamluke by the Ottoman Sultan was
regarded
as a national misfortune; indeed they suggest that
the
extortion and injustice which the last of the Mamlukes had
organized, or at least countenanced, rendered the prospect
of
a change almost desirable. As has been seen, the Egyptians
cared not at all to which of the two powers they paid
their
taxes, their only anxiety was not to pay them twice.
In his history of the Egyptian Revolution, Mr A. A. Paton
produced a description of the court of Kansuh al-Ghuri
given
by a Venetian ambassador, who visited it in the year
1503.
The Sultan had then been seated on the throne three
years;
“On reaching the foot of the castle they dismounted
and
ascended a staircase of about fifty steps, at the top
of which
they found a large iron door open, and within seated,
the
warder, dressed in white, with a muslin turban. On
either
side of him were perhaps 300 Mamlukes dressed in
white,
with long caps on
their heads, half black and half green;
they were ranged all
in line, so silent and respectful that
they looked like
observant Franciscan friars. After entering
this door they
passed eleven other iron doors, between each
of which there
was a guard of eunuchs, black and white,
three or four for
each door, and all of them seated with an
air of marvellous
pride and dignity. At each door upwards
of one hundred
Mamlukes stood respectful and silent. After
passing the
twelfth door, the ambassador and his suite were
tired out, and
had to sit down to rest themselves, the distance
they had
traversed being nearly a mile. They then
entered the area or
courtyard of the castle, which they
judged to be six times the
area of St Mark's Square. On
either side of this space 6,000
Mamlukes dressed in white
and with green and black caps were
drawn up; at the end
of the court was a silken tent with a
raised platform, covered
with a carpet, on which was seated
Sultan Kansuh al-Ghuri,
his undergarment being white
surmounted with dark green
cloth, and the muslin turban on his
head with three points
or horns, and by his side was the naked
scimitar.” The
Ambassador observed of
Cairo itself, “In the first place it
is so peopled that one cannot judge of the amount of its
population, and one can scarcely make way through the
streets;
there are very large mosques in great number, very
excellent
houses and palaces, handsomer within than without,
and the
streets are straight and wide (straight they
certainly were,
but their width must have been judged by a
Venetian standard)
living is dear; there is much populace
and a few men of
account. The Mamlukes are in fact the
masters.”
[Back to top]
CHAPTER IX
The Turkish Period
THE Ottoman army, though they had
circumvented
Tumanbai, did not take the metropolis without
a
severe struggle, in which large parts of
Cairo underwent
serious
damage. For four days the inhabitants maintained
the unequal
conflict, and contested with the Ottomans every
inch of
ground; 10,000 of them are said in that period to
have lost
their lives. A rigid search was then made by the
conquerors
for such of the Mamlukes as were concealed in
the houses, and
as many as were taken were killed. For
eight months the Sultan
Selim remained in Egypt, arranging
the future government of
the country; when he left for
Constantinople he took away with
him numerous artisans
and various persons of importance, and,
most important of
all, the Caliph who had accompanied the
unfortunate Sultan
Ghuri on his last expedition. By a
satisfactory arrangement
the Caliph was induced to resign his
rights as spiritual chief
of the Moslems to the Ottoman
Sultan; and those who hold
that such transference was within
the rights of the last of
the Abbasids recognize the Sultan of
Turkey as the Successor
of the Prophet.
The taking of Egypt by the Ottomans, however, deprived
Cairo of its status as an imperial city,
and, as has been seen,
one of the first acts of the new ruler
was to transfer to his
own capital some of the beautiful
marbles which had adorned
the Citadel, where it was not now
desirable that the Governor's
Palace should be too luxurious.
With the vast numbers
of religious and philanthropic
institutions in
Cairo it was
not his intention to tamper.
The administration of the new province of the Ottoman
Empire had for its aim the suppression of any forces that
might make for independence. Three powers were, therefore,
created, whose mutual jealousies might serve as a safeguard
to
the sovereign state. These powers were the Pasha, or
governor,
sent from Constantinople, and often recalled after
a few
years, or even months: an army of occupation divided
into six
regiments under a commander who was to reside
in the Citadel,
and leave it under no pretext whatever, while
to each regiment
six officers with different duties were assigned.
These
officers together formed the governor's council,
and had the
right to veto his orders. The third power
was the Mamlukes,
who provided the Beys or heads of the
twelve provinces or
Sanjaks into which Egypt was divided.
The Sultan who succeeded
Selim, Sulaiman, and who reigned
forty-two years, further
created two Chambers, called respectively
the Greater and the
Lesser Diwan; of these the
former sat on important occasions,
the latter daily. The
members of the former were partly
military, partly ecclesiastical
officials, while the religious
officers of Islam were
not represented on the latter. The
control of both extended
to various departments of internal
administration. This
Sultan also added a seventh regiment to
the existing six,
in which the Mamluke freedmen were enrolled.
The total
numbers of the army of occupation thus came to
about
20,000. Besides the title Pasha which the Turkish
conquest
introduced into Egypt there are a variety of
others that
meet us first from this time. Such is Agha, the
name for the
commander of the forces, or of the separate
regiments;
Ketkhuda or Kehya, the Pasha's deputy, used
also as the
title of an official attached to each regiment:
Bey and Efendi;
most of these had at the first special
applications, which in
the course of time they lost, degrading
into a mere hierarchy
of titles.
The first governor appointed in Egypt by the Ottoman
Sultan was Khair Bey, the man who is supposed to have
betrayed the cause of his master Ghuri, who when he reached
Syria in his campaign against the
Ottomans was repeatedly
warned against this lieutenant, but
was afraid of causing
open division in his force if he showed
his suspicions openly.
Having to command one of the divisions
of the Egyptian
Army in the battle of Marj Dabik, he is
supposed to have,
by preconcerted arrangement with the enemy,
made his men
leave the field, a proceeding which, of course,
led to a general
rout. His government lasted rather more than
five years, and
owing to his unpopularity with his Moslem
subjects, he espoused
the cause of the Jews and Christians. He
is celebrated for a
deathbed repentance. When he despaired of
life, he liberated
all except criminals who were pining in the
dungeons of
Cairo, and caused quantities both of
goods and coin to be
distributed among the indigent and those
who were dependent
on the religious institutions of the
capital. His mosque
is close to that of Ibrahim Agha in the
quarter called after
him Kharbakiyyeh, and it is there that he
lies.
His successor Mustafa, the Sultan Selim's son-in-law,
was the first of the governors of Egypt who had the title
Pasha (pronounced in Egypt Basha). The contemporary
historian
gives a rather humorous account of his arrival,
and receiving
deputations lying on his back, and through
his ignorance of
the national language looking as though
he were made of wood.
The need for provision against attempts on the part of
governors to render themselves independent of the Porte
was shown very soon after the conquest; the third of the
governors sent, Ahmad Pasha, made such an endeavour,
and went so far as to assume the insignia of sovereignty
in
the East, having his name mentioned in public
prayers,
and having coins struck in his name—and indeed
the right
MOSQUES IN THE SHARIA BAB-EL-WAZIR, CAIRO.
to an independent
coinage had been left to Egypt by the
Ottoman conqueror. The
safeguards which had been devised
were found to work
effectually; two emirs whom Ahmad
had imprisoned broke from
their confinement, and attacked
the ambitious Pasha in his
bath. Though he escaped their
onslaught and got away, he was
presently captured, and
his head, after being suspended on Bab
Zuwailah, was sent
to Constantinople.
The history of Egypt during the first century of Ottoman
rule has little interest even for Egyptians. It consists of
a
series of governors, sometimes no sooner appointed than
recalled,
of whom a few built schools or mosques in the
style
of the old Mamluke Sultans, while most spent their
time, as
might be expected, in profiting as well as they could
by their
opportunity of acquiring wealth. Of governors who
perpetuated
their names by monuments we may especially
mention
Sinan Pasha, who governed from 1567 to 1571, with
an
interval, and Masih Pasha, governor from 1575 to
1580.
The name of Sinan Pasha is otherwise famous in
Turkish
history for his wars in North Africa. He founded a
mosque
with its ordinary accompaniments in Boulak, and the
deed
of settlement contains the elaborate provisions for
its maintenance
to which we are accustomed. The control of
the
funds was to lapse after his death to the Shaikh of
Islam or
highest ecclesiastical authority in Constantinople,
who was
to appoint a suitable agent in Egypt.
Masih Pasha left a monument in the Masihi Mosque in
the street called after his name, east of the Bab al-Karafah.
It is called after Nur al-din al-Karafi, a learned man of the
time, for whose devotions and perhaps lectures it was built,
and in it he, and perhaps the founder, have their last resting
place. Masih Pasha is commended by the chroniclers
for having
restored peace to
Cairo with security for
life and
property, and for having ordered all his rescripts to
be
prefaced with some
pious sentiments out of the Koran. His
methods of restoring
order were apparently drastic in the
extreme, as they are said
to have involved the execution of
some 10,000 persons.
For various reasons the Ottoman Pasha exhibited the
tendency which the nominal head of the state or province so
often displayed in the East, that of ceasing to be virtually at
the head of affairs. The character of the army of occupation
enabled it to dispose of the Pasha as it wished, and get rid
of him by violence if his measures were displeasing to it.
When the Pasha took the part of the people of Egypt, and
wished to relieve them of onerous exactions by which the
army
profited, he had the army against him. One of these
Pashas had
to face an organized revolt, of which the leaders
had even
chosen a sovereign to supersede him. With the
aid of some
troops that remained faithful, and the guns at
his disposal he
succeeded in quelling it. Large numbers of
the disaffected
were then banished to Yemen, while some
seventy were executed.
And in the troubles over the succession
at Constantinople,
which followed on the decease of
the Sultan Ahmad I, the
Egyptian forces could defy the
Porte and choose their own
governor in opposition to the
sovereign's views. This
governor, Mustafa Pasha, used the
opportunity of a terrible
pestilence which devastated the
country in 1625 to declare
himself heir to all property left
by its victims. The feeling
which he roused against himself
by this proceeding led to his
downfall, and the Porte had no
difficulty in recalling him.
His successor compelled him to
disgorge his plunder, and he
himself was executed in Constantinople.
The process by which there came to be substituted for the
influence of the Pasha that of the chief of the Mamlukes,
called Shaikh al-Balad (something like Mayor of the City),
is not easy to follow. It would seem that the perpetual
changes at
headquarters and the disputes between the
governor and the
army left a bureaucracy the chance of
gaining or regaining
power, by the possession of hereditary
acquaintance with the
affairs of the country which the strangers
sent from
Constantinople did not possess, and also by
the bureaucrats
being identified in their interests with a
permanent part of
the population. What is clear is that
the practice of Mamluke
times, the acquisition by wealthy
persons of Circassian,
Turkish and other slaves, whom they
trained in arms and whom
they could promote to places of
wealth, did not cease with the
Turkish occupation, and that
the Mamlukes remained a power in
the country through the
whole of this period. By the end of
the seventeenth century
the Shaikh al-Balad becomes an
official of first-class importance.
When a governor was sent
from Constantinople,
the Shaikh and his associates would
despatch a deputation
to
Alexandria to inquire into his intentions. If they found
him likely to be a peaceful nonentity, they would
condescend
to give him an official welcome, whereas if he
seemed
likely to assert himself they would bid him remain
where
he was, while sending word to Constantinople that
the
governor appointed was unfit for the post and that
his
arrival would be injurious to the welfare of the
community.
The army of occupation appears to have been
permanently
quartered in the capital and so to have
gradually transferred
its allegiance to the permanent Emirs.
By the early eighteenth century the Mamlukes are themselves
divided into factions, named respectively the Kasimites
and Fijarites, whose origin is mysterious, but may go
back to the time of the conqueror Selim, or be much later.
Nothing appears to be heard of the rivalry between
these factions till the year 1707, when
Hasan Pasha, one of the
ephemeral
governors, set himself to create bad blood between
the two
with so much success that a battle was fought
lasting eighty days.
The Mamlukes had, it is said, the consideration
to go outside
Cairo and carry on the fight in
the
daytime, without interfering with the business of the
inhabitants;
at night they, or such of them as survived
the
fray, went home and reposed like ordinary citizens. In
this
prolonged battle, the Shaikh al-Balad Kasim Iywaz
perished.
He was succeeded in his municipal office by his
son Isma'il
Bey, who was fortunate enough to be able to
reconcile the
contending parties for the time. How much more
influential
the Shaikh al-Balad was now than the governor
is shown
by a story in which Isma'il compels the latter to
restore a
quantity of coffee which was in the possession of a
man whose
execution had been ordered from Constantinople. He
held
the office sixteen years, when his end was brought on
by a
concession to one of his faction, the Kasimites, who
desired
to seize an estate belonging to a Fikarite. The
Fikarite
complained to the Pasha, who could only suggest
to him
that he had best get an assassin to put an end to
Isma'il.
This suggestion was successfully executed, and
the confusion
which arose gave the Pasha opportunity to
organize a
general massacre of Isma'il's followers and to
assign his
place to the head of a rival faction named Shirkas
Bey.
It illustrates the condition of Egypt at this time that the
assassin, on whom the wealth of his victim had been
bestowed
as a reward, was in a position to purchase and
train a force
of Mamlukes, with whose aid he was able to eject
Shirkas
Bey, the Shaikh al-Balad, and install himself in
the vacant
place, when he proceeded to execute numerous Beys,
with
the idea of founding a tyranny. The expelled Shirkas
Bey
was repeatedly invited by the discontented to unseat
the
usurper, but failed and was finally defeated and
drowned;
while the assassin (named Dhu'l-Fikar) himself
presently
fell a victim to an onslaught similar to that
which had been
the foundation of his fortunes. His lieutenant,
Othman Bey,
A SIDE STREET IN CAIRO.
avenged his death by
numerous executions, and succeeded
in obtaining the place of
Shaikh al-Balad, though one of
his rivals attempted the
familiar stratagem of preparing a
banquet which was to be
followed by the massacre of
Othman and his party, who had been
invited to it; Othman
had, however, taken precautions, and his
rival fled to Constantinople
after seeing his helpers’ heads
lying severed
outside the Hasanain Mosque.
Othman Bey is the hero of various stories showing that
he left on the people of
Cairo a favourable impression of his
justice and
courage. The former quality is illustrated by an
anecdote
recorded by Zaidan. A donkey-boy (the word “boy”
in this
context implies nothing as to age) found in his house
some
treasure, which he put in his wife's charge, telling her
to
conceal the find, lest the government should claim it as
treasure trove. This she consented to do; but when her husband
refused to buy her some ornaments with the wealth
now at his
disposal, she betrayed the discovery to Othman
Bey. The
donkey-boy was summoned before the Shaikh al-Balad,
who to his
surprise bade him retain the treasure, but
divorce his wife.
A fresh couple of names that meet us in Egyptian politics
of this period is that of the Kazdoglu and the Julfi
Mamlukes.
The founder of the first faction was a saddler
by profession;
the eponymous hero of the latter was a porter,
who became
possessed of a secret hoard. The heads of these
factions, named
Ibrahim and Ridwan respectively, formed in
Othman Bey's
time a close alliance, and by their united wealth
won such influence
that they were in a position to challenge
Othman
Bey's supremacy. The latter endeavoured to form a
counter-alliance
of influential Beys, who advised the
assassination
of Ibrahim, at that time Ketkhuda of the
Janissary regiment.
The plot was betrayed by an official in
the household of
Othman Bey, who, fearing reprisals, fled to
Syria, leaving
Cairo clear to the hostile factions. The
leaders of these,
having possessed themselves of Othman's
house and effects,
proceeded to organize a massacre of his
supporters. These
were lured into the Citadel, the gates
closed on them, and
firing upon them ordered. The Pasha's
consent had been
obtained for this proceeding, which he would
probably have
been unable to prevent. When it was over, the
government
remained in the hands of Ibrahim Bey and
Isma'il Bey, who
agreed to take the offices of Shaikh al-Balad
and Leader of
the Pilgrim Caravan, and hold them in alternate
years; a
curious form of dual sovereignty which was
successfully
imitated at a later period. The former, who
was the more
energetic of the two, immediately set about
recouping himself
for the money expended in the attainment of
his ambition,
by a series of violent extortions, practised on
all in
Cairo who were supposed to be possessed
of means. An
attempt was made to overthrow the two Consuls by
one of
the ephemeral Pashas. Ibrahim's absence on
pilgrimage
offered a good opportunity for devising a plot,
and in fact
after Ibrahim's return he and his colleague were
actually
seized and imprisoned. Their supporters, however,
came to
the rescue, broke open their prison, and drove the
refractory
Pasha back to Constantinople.
The new Pasha came with instructions to gain the confidence
of the Beys, with a view to getting them at some
time into his power, and restoring the effective control
of
the Porte by a massacre. But Ibrahim Bey was wary,
and
though the coup was not attempted till the new
governor
had been in office two years, it only partially
succeeded;
Ibrahim Bey himself escaped, and only three of
his adherents
were killed. The Shaikh al-Balad thereupon took
it upon
himself to depose the Governor, and sent to
Constantinople
requesting that he be replaced. Into one of
the vacant Beyships
he promoted Ali, known as Ali Bey the
Great, destined
to play somewhat an
important part in the history of Egypt;
he was a freedman of
Ibrahim, who had won his esteem by
fighting and defeating a
gang of brigands who attacked the
Pilgrim Caravan. It will be
remembered that Ahmad Ibn
Tulun won his spurs by a not very
dissimilar exploit.
The promotion of Ali Bey evoked the jealousy of another
follower of Ibrahim Bey, called Ibrahim the Circassian,
who
presently gave vent to his resentment by murdering
his
master; whose office fell to his colleague Ridwan, who
had
maintained friendly relations with Ibrahim Bey all
along.
But another follower of Ibrahim Bey who himself
aspired to
the headship was able to direct the guns of the
Citadel at
the palace of Ridwan overlooking the Elephant's
Pool, and
in the course of the bombardment to inflict a wound
on
Ridwan himself of which he shortly after died. His
murderer,
however, soon succumbed to the resentment of
Ridwan's
friends, and a certain Khalil Bey became Shaikh
al-Balad.
For eight years Ali Bey kept pursuing the plan by which
the sovereignty of Egypt had been so often acquired, that
of
purchasing slaves and training them as a bodyguard,
while
doing his utmost to conciliate the other Beys.
Finally his
proceedings aroused the suspicions of the Shaikh
al-Balad,
who endeavoured to get rid of him by an open
assault. Ali
Bey's bodyguard defended their master, but were
defeated
and compelled to flee to
Upper Egypt; his office and those
of
his adherents were declared forfeited, and many persons
known
to belong to his party executed. In
Upper
Egypt Ali
Bey found other malcontents, who, joining his
bodyguard,
made up an army large enough to warrant an
attack on
Cairo, which he did not hesitate to
execute. In a series of
successful engagements Ali Bey drove
his rival northwards,
and finally obtained possession of his
person. Khalil Bey
was first banished, and then executed. Ali
Bey remained
supreme in Egypt, and in 1763 was installed
Shaikh al-Balad.
Shortly after his appointment he ordered the execution of
the murderer of his former master Ibrahim Bey, an act
which
was so ill received by the other Beys that Ali Bey
had to
flee from Egypt to Jerusalem and then Acre. At the
latter
place he succeeded in winning the favour and
affection of
the commander of the garrison, who obtained from
Constantinople
confirmation of his appointment as Shaikh
al-Balad
at
Cairo,
whither he proceeded to return.
Ali Bey appears to have possessed the qualities which
appertained to most of the great founders of dynasties in
in Egypt—astuteness, courage and ruthlessness. Jazzar, who
as
governor of Acre acquired a European reputation for the
last
of these qualities, began his career as one of his lieutenants,
sent out by him to quell a rebellion in the southern
provinces of Egypt. Ali elevated eighteen persons to the rank
of Bey, hoping thereby to provide himself with faithful and
powerful supporters, since each of them commanded some
sort of
force. These were, as usual, Circassians or Georgians.
His
ultimate aim was to render Egypt independent of the
Sublime
Porte, being herein as in much else the precursor
of Mohammed
Ali. With this view he endeavoured to oust
on one pretext or
another all the nominees of the Porte from
their places in the
Egyptian army, and to fill the vacancies
with creatures of his
own. A much more momentous step,
and one which must surely
have been attempted before, was
to monopolize the right to
purchase and train Mamlukes, and
so to prevent possible rivals
arising in
Cairo itself.
When in 1768 war broke out between Turkey and Russia
Egypt was ordered to provide 12,000 men for the Porte. Ali Bey
began to draft them, but it was uncertain whether he
intended
them to aid the Sultan or the Czar. Every
provincial
governor from the commencement of the Caliphate
had found
it necessary to maintain spies at the metropolis,
and those
kept by Ali Bey at Constantinople informed him on
this
occasion that
despatches were being sent to the Pasha at
Cairo to put Ali Bey to death. The Shaikh
al-Balad was
ready for the emergency; he had the envoys
waylaid and
killed, and their bodies buried in the sand, while
he himself
secured the despatches, of which he published an
account
suitable to his purpose. He averred that what was
ordered
from Constantinople was a general massacre of the
Mamlukes,
and urged his colleagues to fight for their
lives. In a powerful
oration he reminded them of the old
glories of the Mamluke
Sultans, of whose monuments
Cairo was full. The time
had now arrived to revive the old Mamluke Sultanate, and
free
Egypt from the Ottoman yoke. His speech carried conviction,
and his project was approved. The Pasha was given
forty eight
hours to leave the country. Ali Bey's old friend
the governor
of Acre promised his warm support to the
Shaikh al-Balad's
plans, and an attempt made by the
governor of Damascus to
reduce him to order was defeated
with loss.
The Porte being unable owing to the European war to
attend to remote provinces, Ali Bey proceeded to consolidate
his power in Egypt, and sent a force to reduce Arabia. Success
attended his efforts in the peninsula, and he further despatched
his son-in-law and favourite Abu'l-
Dhahab with a
force of 30,000 men to reduce
Syria, and here too his arms
were successful. Abu'l-
Dhahab, whose name “father of gold”
was earned, it is
said, by his habit of giving all his charity
in that metal,
met with little resistance.
But now the fickle goddess began to assert her character.
The Syrian lieutenant, who on a former occasion had been
concerned in a plot against Ali Bey, in which his part had
been condoned in consideration of his betraying his
fellow-conspirators,
preferred to conquer for himself
rather than
for his master; and, apparently, entered into an
arrangement
with the Porte by which he was to have under
Turkish
suzerainty the
reversion of Ali Bey's possessions, if he succeeded
in
overthrowing that usurper. With the troops employed
by him in
Syria he crossed to Egypt, where,
avoiding
Cairo, he made for Southern Egypt, and
seized Asiout. Ali,
being quite unable to defend his capital,
fled once more to
his benefactor, the governor of Acre,
followed by an insignificant
number of adherents. At the time
when he raised
the standard of revolt from the Porte he had
endeavoured
to enter into alliance with Venice and Russia,
and his
negotiations had met with fair success. Such a measure
was
at that time risky for anyone who depended on the
favour
of a Moslem nation, since alliance with Infidels
against
Believers is not only liable to denunciation as
being in defiance
of the doctrines of the Koran, but could be
shown
historically to be disastrous. However, at Acre Ali
Bey
enjoyed the fruits of his Russian policy, as a
Muscovite fleet
which happened to be there renewed the
alliance with the
refugee, and encouraged him to retake the
Syrian cities
which, after the departure of Abu'l-
Dhahab, had fallen
back
into Ottoman possession; and about a year after his
flight
messages came from
Cairo requesting his
return to
Egypt, to put a stop to the arbitrary regime
introduced by
Abu'l-
Dhahab, who had assumed the title Shaikh al-Balad,
and
was rendering himself unpopular by coercive measures.
Ali Bey thereupon decided to march into Egypt with a
motley force of eight thousand men, and in an engagement
with his rival at Salihiyyah scored a slight success. But his
alliance with Christian powers against the Turks had brought
his cause into disrepute with the Moslems of Egypt, and he
learned that he could count on no effective aid from his
partisans in
Cairo; illness and wounds,
moreover, prevented
his taking an active part in the
management of his affairs.
Abu'l-
Dhahab, besides, exhibited far more skill than Ali
Bey in winning over adherents from the opposite party by
A STREET SCENE IN CAIRO.
various modes of
corruption. In a following engagement
many of Ali Bey's
soldiers and captains left him for the
enemy, and those that
remained faithful fled in confusion.
Ali had not himself,
owing to illness, been able to take part
in the battle, and
his routed followers desired him to mount
a horse as well as
he could, and once more seek refuge at
Acre. He determined
that death was preferable to this
humiliation, and waited by
his tent until a detachment of
the enemy came up to it; with
these he fought bravely till
disabled by shots and thrusts. He
was finally taken and
conveyed to his house in
Cairo “in the Abd al-Hakk Lane,
al-Bakir Street, behind the Debt Chest,” where he was not
molested; but he died after seven days of wounds and
chagrin.
The Egyptian chroniclers give Ali Bey the title “the
Great,” which is perhaps more than he deserved, since his
enterprise left no permanent mark on the fortunes of Egypt.
He, apparently, was less to blame than some other conquerors
of that country for risking all in the attempt to acquire
possession of
Syria, since his
obligations to the governor of
Acre forced this upon him. He
appears to have made unpardonable
mistakes in the choice of
instruments. He was
for a time popular in Egypt because he
endeavoured to
check various forms of extortion which had been
long exercised;
but it is observable that his cry was not
Egypt for
the Egyptians, but Egypt for the Mamlukes.
During the period covered by Othman Bey and Ali Bey
vast restorations were carried out in the buildings of
Cairo by a man whose name has already
met us in connexion with
them, Abd al-Rahman Ketkhuda. His
father was patron of
a certain Othman Ketkhuda, who in this
office had acquired
great wealth, which some time after the
latter's death was
assigned to his patron's son in virtue of a
theory that
the property of freedmen goes to those who have
manumitted
them, in default of
other heirs. Abd al-Rahman
further attracted the notice of
Othman Bey, with whom he
went on pilgrimage, and by whom on
their return to
Cairo
he was made administrator of trusts. He utilized the funds at
his disposal for a general restoration of the religious institutions
of
Cairo, as well as
the erection of a variety of monuments
which were to
perpetuate his own name. His work of
renovation extended to
all the sanctuaries which bear the
names of famous ladies of
the Prophet's house. Eighteen
mosques were either built or
repaired by him, all these being
places of public worship; the
smaller sanctuaries which he
restored were still more
numerous, and he also saw to the
erection of numerous
cisterns, fountains, bridges and other
engineering works. His
useful labours were continued till
1764, when Ali Bey was in
power, who, fearing the influence
he had acquired, banished
him to the Hejaz. Twelve years
later, when the days of Ali Bey
were over, he was recalled to
Cairo, only to die. He was buried in a
mausoleum that he
had prepared for himself in his additions to
al-Azhar. His
personal character appears to have displayed
more piety
than virtue, since he is credited with having
introduced
bribery and corruption on an unprecedented
scale—a difficult
achievement in Egypt.
Abu'l-
Dhahab was rewarded by
the Porte in 1772 for his
services in suppressing Ali Bey,
with the title Pasha and
the official governorship of
Cairo. He did not enjoy his
honours long, for he died—it is uncertain how—two years
later on his successful expedition for the recovery of
Syria.
After some disorders two of the
Beys created by Ali, who
had afterwards deserted his cause for
that of his rival, persons
named Ibrahim and Murad
respectively, got possession
of the Citadel, and agreed on a
divided rule similar to that
which had been arranged between a
former Ibrahim and
Ridwan, the one to fill the office of
Shaikh al-Balad, the
other to be Leader of
the Pilgrim Caravan. The arrangement
was at the first marred
by broils, and even armed conflicts,
but presently the two
found themselves able to work
harmoniously, and their
government, with an interruption,
lasted on till the French
invasion of Egypt. This interruption
was occasioned by an
expedition sent from Constantinople
to restore order in Egypt.
The episode of Ali Bey
showed that the assertion of Ottoman
sovereignty was necessary,
and indeed, for a long time the
official representative
of the Sultan had been treated with
scant courtesy.
When the Shaikh al-Balad and his Emirs wanted
a Pasha
removed, they sent to Constantinople to request his
removal.
An emissary would then be despatched, who would
be introduced
to the Citadel, where he would kneel before
the
Pasha. On rising he would fold up the carpet on which
he
had knelt, and cry aloud, Pasha, descend! The Pasha
would
thereby be deprived of his office, and the emissary
would
take temporary charge.
In June, 1786, the Turkish expedition arrived in Egypt,
and the Mamlukes found themselves unable to make any
resistance to the artillery of the Ottomans. Ibrahim and
Murad fled before the invaders to
Upper Egypt, and
Cairo was seized by the Turkish troops. Their
treatment of the
population was no improvement on that of the
Beys, and
only the interference of the ecclesiastical
authorities prevented
atrocities which went beyond what the
people of
Egypt were accustomed to. No great change was made
in
the system of government by the conquerors, who
installed
as Shaikh al-Balad Isma'il Bey, a former
supporter of Ali
Bey, who had even held the office for a short
time after the
death of Abu'l-
Dhahab. When, in 1790, he and most of his
family
were swept off by a plague, Murad and Ibrahim,
having had
experience of government, found it possible to
return to
Cairo and resume the offices which they had
previously
held. Of these they
were in possession when in 1798
Bonaparte invaded the country.
Murad Bey carried on some
operations ostensibly for the
restoration of the Mosque of
Amr, but really, it is said, in
order to discover an iron chest
which the Jews knew to be
hidden somewhere about the
Mosque, and the secret of whose
existence they had sold to
Murad as the price of his remitting
an extraordinary contribution
which he had imposed on their
community. The
chest was discovered, but found to contain only
leaves from
an ancient copy of the Koran. Murad Bey's piety
was not
sufficient to make him consider this find a substitute
for the
treasure which he had expected, and the Jews got
harder
terms than if they had consented to the imposition
at the first.
The Turkish period was on the whole of little importance
for the decoration or growth of
Cairo, though, as has been
seen, some
Pashas and others went to the expense of erecting
mosques, and
many a palace was built by the wealthy
Mamlukes. Writers on
Arab art usually stop at the taking
of
Cairo by the Ottomans, because the architecture of
Egypt
from that time becomes more and more dependent on
Turkish models.
Many European travellers visited
Cairo between the entry
of Selim and that of
Bonaparte, and some selections from
their experiences are put
together by Mr W. F. Rae, in his
work called
Egypt To-day: the First to the Third Khedive.
These extracts deal chiefly with the condition of
foreigners
in
Cairo, which is painted in very dark colours. The mass
of the people, we are told, in no place could be more barbarous
than in
Cairo; foreigners, persecuted
and even illtreated
under the most frivolous pretexts, lived
there in perpetual
fear. If they ventured to appear in public
in the attire
of their own country, they would be infallibly
torn in pieces.
Bruce, who visited
Cairo in 1748, asserts that a more brutal,
unjust, tyrannical, oppressive, avaricious set of infernal
miscreants there was
not on earth than the members of the
Government of
Cairo. Of the streets it was asserted
that
the widest would be looked upon as a lane in Europe.
Hasselquist,
in a letter to Linné, dated 1750 from
Cairo, said
that if a man
were guilty of any crime he could not expiate
it better than
by going to reside for a little while in that city.
[Back to top]
CHAPTER X
The Khedivial Period
THE sufferings of the French merchants resident in
Cairo would have been a sufficient
justification for
the enterprise of Bonaparte, but its object
was undoubtedly
to strike a blow at Great Britain, and the
latter
country endeavoured to stop it at the outset, and
succeeded in
crippling it and eventually bringing it to a
disastrous termination.
On the history of the French
occupation of Egypt, which
has often been described, we need
not dilate here; the Beys
were as much put out of their
reckoning by the tactics of
the greatest general of the age as
the Sultan Ghuri had
been put out of his by the artillery of
the Sultan Selim.
The capture of the Egyptian capital caused
the plunder of
many houses by the invaders and the mob, and
besides
meant the desecration of numerous religious
edifices which
were required for the French system of
fortification. After
the naval engagement of Abu Kir had
resulted in the annihilation
of the French fleet, the people
of
Cairo rose against
the invader and barricaded the streets. Bonaparte planted
artillery on all high points, partly destroyed the Husainiyyah
quarter where the fiercest resistance had been made, and
occupied al-Azhar, which had been the headquarters of
disaffection, with a force. Cavalry stabled their horses in
the great home of Moslem learning, smashed the coloured
lamps
and tried to erase the verses of the Koran with which
the
walls were decorated. Only after complete submission
on the
part of the insurgents, and the intercession of the
most
esteemed shaikhs, did the French general agree to
withdraw his
soldiery from the Mosque.
SHARIA-EL-KERABIYEH, OR STREET OF THE WATER CARRIERS,
CAIRO.
Short as was the French occupation of
Cairo, it marked
the introduction of European
methods into the government
of the city, which it was left to
the Khedivial family to carry
out. The gates which had
formerly closed the streets and
lanes were all removed by
order of the French commander;
the practice of lighting the
streets at nights was introduced,
and for administrative
purposes the city was divided into
eight quarters (or rather
eighths), each under the supervision
of a shaikh. To the
French are due the registration
of births and deaths, the
abolition of intramural interment
and some other precautions
of sanitation. An honourable
monument of the French occupation
is the great
Description
of
Egypt, well worthy of the keen interest in science and
archaeology which characterizes the people from whom it
emanated.
Whether the programme of the French occupation was in
itself consistent and intelligible to the Egyptian people is
not very clear, but it may be considered to have first formulated
the Egyptian nationalist aspirations, though the
French may have done little to gratify them. Ostensibly
the invaders wished to abolish the tyranny of the
Mamlukes,
who are attacked in their manifestos in violent
terms;
and though the Egyptians at first supposed that the
purpose
of the invasion was to reclaim the country for the
Sultan, it
was soon shown that this view deviated widely from
the
facts. To Bonaparte's profession of belief in Islam
apparently
no importance was attached by the real
adherents
of that religion. The Turkish manifesto which
declared the
old faiths of Europe to be far nearer Islam than
the religion
of the French Revolution was undoubtedly in
accordance
with the facts. Most writers are agreed in
regarding these
professions of Mohammedanism as a mistaken
policy. The
French occupation, however, while it may be
doubted
whether the moral and political standards which
the invaders
exhibited were a very
great improvement on those
to which the Egyptians were
accustomed, prepared the
country for that discipleship to
Europe which it underwent
for the greater part of the
nineteenth century and is still
undergoing. Other invaders
were no further advanced than
the Egyptians in science and
culture; from the French the
inhabitants learned that in such
matters they were far behind.
The respect for the ability of
the European, which is
now so often exaggerated in the East,
begins in Egypt with
the French occupation. And the cry of
“Liberty, Equality
and Fraternity,” which perhaps had never
been heard in
the East before, at least with any practical
meaning attached
to it, could not fail to rouse an echo here
and there even
in a population that had been accustomed from
time immemorial
to despotism, and for centuries to the
despotism of
foreigners.
Like Ali Bey, Bonaparte regarded the possession of
Syria as necessary to the security of
Egypt, and in February 1799
he started on a career of conquest
in the former country,
which terminated with the well-known
check at Acre, occasioned
by the co-operation of the British
fleet under Sir
Sidney Smith with the Turkish troops.
Bonaparte on his
return had to satisfy himself with fortifying
al-Arish, the
key of Egypt, in lieu of the possession of
Syria, but the
failure of
his original scheme was doubtless the cause of his
evacuation
of the valley of the Nile. Murad Bey and Ibrahim
Bey, who had
been in retreat in
Upper Egypt, were
emboldened
by the defeat of Bonaparte to proceed
southwards,
hoping to co-operate with a Turkish force that
was to land
at Abu Kir. Bonaparte had, however, no difficulty
in defeating
the Beys, and afterwards inflicting a crushing
blow on the
Turks at the moment of their disembarking. But
from the
English squadron at Abu Kir he learned news of
European
affairs which determined him to quit Egypt, and
his departure
sealed the future of
the French occupation of the
country.
Kleber, whom Bonaparte had left to govern at
Cairo, showed
himself equal to dealing
with a difficult situation, and arranged
by an honourable
convention at the beginning of 1800
for the evacuation of the
country; the rejoicings in
Cairo over
the prospective departure of the French were great, and
an enforced impost was cheerfully paid. The Mamlukes
whose houses had been pillaged and who had been compelled
to conceal themselves, began to return, hoping to
enjoy a new lease of power; and one Nasif Pasha placed
himself at their head. Meanwhile through the intervention
of Great Britain the convention was rendered ineffective;
an
Ottoman army after taking al-Arish, advanced towards
Cairo,
and at
Matariyyah, north of the capital, an engagement took
place in
which the united forces of the Turks and Mamlukes
were
defeated by the French general. Nasif Pasha, retreating
from
the battlefield, marched to
Cairo with
his Mamlukes,
and succeeded in rousing the Moslem population
against the
French, and even started a massacre of the
Christian population
both native and foreign. Nasif's attacks
on the Citadel
and the forts in the possession of the French
were, however,
unsuccessful, and in a bayonet charge of 200
French
troops in the Ezbekiyyeh the superiority of
European discipline
asserted itself over the Mamlukes and
their Cairene
allies. The French continued to bombard the city
from the
Citadel and the forts, while batteries were erected
by the
insurgents for cannon, dug up out of places where they
had
been hidden. The streets were barricaded; a powder
factory
was improvized; and every Moslem was compelled to
pass the
night in the discharge of some military duty.
Before Nasif Pasha could renew his attack on the French
headquarters, and when the insurrection had lasted two
whole days, a force arrived to relieve the French
garrison,
having been sent for
that purpose by Kleber. The vigour
and enthusiasm of the
insurgents and the able measures
which they had taken for the
defence of the streets rendered
it difficult for the French
relieving force to retake the city.
And though Nasif Pasha,
when Kleber himself arrived on
the spot, was disposed to
capitulate, the fanatical party
prevented him from doing so.
Kleber resolved to storm
Boulak before attacking the city, and
on April 14, 1800,
carried out this project and gave up the
place to pillage and
conflagration. He immediately proceeded
after this success
to an attack upon the city itself, in which
numerous houses
were burned down, especially in the region of
the Ezbekiyyeh.
Lighted torches were, it is said, flung right
and left by the
soldiers, with the object of destroying the
whole city by
conflagration; and women and children flung
themselves off
walls and roofs to escape being burned. Nasif
Pasha himself
went into hiding.
When at last resistance had ceased, Kleber ordered an
amnesty to be proclaimed, and proceeded to have the streets
cleared of debris and corpses, after which a three days’ feast
was announced in celebration of the victory. The arrest of
fifteen shaikhs with their subsequent release on payment of
twelve millions of francs was the only repressive measure
which followed the retaking of
Cairo.
Orders were then
issued to repair those parts of the city that
had suffered
during the insurrection.
Two months after these successful operations Kleber was
assassinated at the house of General
Damas in the Ezbekiyyeh;
and the
assassin when discovered was shown to have
been instigated by
a commander of Janissaries, and to have
been in communication
with the shaikhs of al-Azhar, three
of whom were condemned to
execution as having been accessories
before the fact. The
assassin himself was impaled,
public opinion in Europe at that
time not sufficiently condemning
the barbarous
punishments in use in the East; the
act, however, was rendered
the more culpable, because it
would appear that the man had
been induced to confess on
promise of a free pardon.
Kleber's follower, Menou, was an eccentric personage,
who adopted Islam, and tried in various other ways to conciliate
the Cairene population, with whom he gained little
favour, while losing his influence with the French. As an
ardent convert he deprived the Egyptian Christians of the
equality which under Bonaparte's regime they had shared
with the Moslems. As an equally ardent Frenchman he
declared
Egypt a French colony, whereas till then the
suzerainty
of the Porte had been nominally recognized. He
had
soon, however, to have his military skill put to the
test, and
this proved no greater than his administrative
ability.
On March 21 there was fought the action in which Sir
Ralph Abercrombie, having landed with a British force at
Abu Kir, defeated the French army brought against him by
Menou, at the cost of his own life. Four days later the
English were reinforced by a body of Turks, which proceeded
to
capture
Rosetta. And another Turkish army
was
now on its way from
Syria and was advancing towards
Cairo. The defence of that city had been
left to General
Belliard, whom Menou, now shut up in
Alexandria, had
left in
command, when he went north to meet Abercrombie.
A junction
having been effected between the English and
Turkish armies,
Cairo was invested; and the French
commander
not having sufficient troops to hope for victory
over
the allies, an armistice was agreed to on June 22,
followed
by a convention on June 26, by which
Cairo was to be
evacuated
by the French troops, who were to proceed to the
coast and
embark for France. The evacuation of Egypt was
accomplished a
few months later.
This was the end of French domination in Egypt, and the
commencement of the
relations of Great Britain with that
country. At first the
Mamlukes seemed to have their star in
the ascendant. A
contingent of Mamlukes had been with the
force that compelled
General Belliard to treat for the evacuation
of
Cairo, and Ibrahim Bey, emerging from his
hiding
place, had implored the assistance of the English
General,
and been treated with respect. Murad Bey had
succeeded in
negotiating with Kleber before that General was
assassinated
and had by him been confirmed in the
government of Upper
Egypt. He died shortly before the
evacuation. His dependents
broke his arms over his bier, in
token that no one was
worthy to bear them after him. It was
possible that the end
of the foreign occupation might lead to
a resumption of the
old regime. Those, therefore, who aimed at
ruling Egypt
considered that the relics of the Mamlukes must
before all
things be destroyed.
The process was commenced by the agents of the Porte,
and in the style familiar to readers of Moslem history.
The
Turkish Admiral at Abu Kir entrapped a number of
Beys into his
barge by inviting them to a conference, and
this barge was
presently surrounded and attacked; whereas
a number more were
bombarded at
Gizeh without previous
intimation of any difference. In spite of these disasters
the
country even before the final departure of the English
fell
back fast into Mamluke hands—besides
Alexandria and
Cairo little was virtually subject to the
Porte, and the newly
appointed Pasha was unable to procure the
money to pay the
troops who now occupied the Citadel.
The situation gave an opportunity to a man who proved
himself well qualified to use it—Mohammed Ali, the founder
of the dynasty that now reigns in Egypt; often called by
anticipation the first Khedive, wrongly, inasmuch as that
title was conferred first on Isma'il Pasha; yet not without
ground, since the fortunes of the Khedivial family were made
THE KHAN EL DOBABIYEH, CAIRO.
by the founder of the
line. He comes to the front in history
first as leader of a
corps of Albanians in the Turkish force
which soon after the
arrival of the English took
Rosetta;
his
16 birthplace was Cavalla, where he lost his parents in
infancy,
but received kindness from an uncle, and also
from a French
resident, a fact which did much towards
determining Mohammed
Ali's Francophile policy at a later time.
Like other
residents in Cavalla in his early years, he traded
in tobacco
with conspicuous success. Coming to Egypt with the
Turkish
force sent out for the recovery of the country, he
advanced
in the service by leaps and bounds, and was after
a short
time given command over a force of between three and
four
thousand Albanians by Khosrau Pasha, a Georgian
freedman
of the Turkish Admiral, who at the latter's
suggestion
had been installed by the Porte in the
government of Egypt.
In the struggle that ensued on the one
hand between the
governor and his discontented soldiers, on
the other, between
the Turks and the Mamlukes, Mohammed Ali
succeeded in
at first holding the balance between the parties,
and presently
found an opportunity for decisive action when
Khosrau Pasha had been driven by a revolution in the
Citadel to fly in the direction of
Damietta, and another
ephemeral ruler
had been installed in Khosrau's place.
Mohammed Ali decided to
join forces with the Mamluke
leaders, Othman al-Bardisi and
the veteran Ibrahim Bey,
took possession of the Citadel, and
drove out of it all troops
save his own Albanians and those
under the Mamlukes;
he then proceeded in the direction of
Damietta, where he
compelled the Pasha to capitulate. At first, apparently, the
old system was to be restored; Bardisi, the Mamluke leader,
was to be in a position similar to that held by the Shaikh
al-Balad, whether with or without the title, while the presence
of a powerless governor was to maintain the tradition
of
the Porte's suzerainty.
Soon, however, Mohammed Ali turned against Bardisi;
his Albanian troops demanded arrears of pay, and threatened
disturbances unless their demands were complied with.
To meet
them Bardisi imposed heavy contributions on the
people of
Cairo, which only aroused general
indignation.
Finally, March 12, 1804, Mohammed Ali with
his troops
attacked Bardisi's palace, and having previously
won over
his artillerymen had little difficulty in driving him
out of
Cairo, when he was followed by Ibrahim
Bey, who appears
to have resumed his old place in the
government of the city.
The Cairenes summoned
Khurshid Pasha, Governor of
Alexandria, to undertake the government
of
Cairo, and he
had a
triumphal entry. He proved no more capable of dealing
with the
difficult situation than those who had preceded
him, but saw
the necessity of maintaining a force capable of
counteracting
that of Mohammed Ali, whose Albanians
were greatly attached to
his person, and to that end obtained
a regiment of Moors, whom
he introduced into the Citadel;
Mohammed Ali, who was engaged
at the time in reducing
Upper Egypt, returned to
Cairo on hearing of this, and in
May, 1805, received the appointment of Governor of Jeddah
from the Porte. Before leaving for Arabia, his Albanians
demanded pay from the Pasha, and were told to obtain the
equivalent by plundering. Before Mohammed Ali could
leave for his post, if indeed he ever had intended to do
so,
a deputation came to him from the leading shaikhs in
Cairo,
urging him
to undertake the government of the city, and to
depose
Khurshid Pasha, of whose incompetence and
arbitrary
methods they declared themselves tired. After
some
hesitation Mohammed Ali consented to accept their
nomination,
and a deputation was sent to
Khurshid Pasha, informing
him of his deposition, which he, as the representative
of the
Sultan, refused to recognize, since only the authority
by whom
he had been appointed could cashier him. As
Khurshid Pasha did not hesitate to
bombard the town,
Mohammed Ali employed the Mosque of the
Sultan Hasan
as a counter-citadel, a use to which it was
accustomed, and
dragged cannon up Mount Mokattam so as to
command the
Citadel from behind also. Earnest representations
had meanwhile
been sent to Constantinople, urging the recall
of
Khurshid and the appointment of Mohammed
Ali in his
place; and by July 9 a rescript arrived from the
Sultan,
confirming the action of the shaikhs, and
declaring
Khurshid
deposed. A Turkish force was also sent to carry out
these
orders by force, should
Khurshid continue
to resist.
Khurshid presently saw the vanity of such
an endeavour,
and on August 3 Mohammed Ali entered the Citadel
as
governor of Egypt for the Porte.
The Mamlukes had played an important part in the rise
of Mohammed Ali, but he proved to be a more effective
enemy
to them than either the Turks or Bonaparte had
been. In two
scenes of carnage he caused the remains of
them to disappear
from the face of Egypt. In August, 1805,
shortly after his
official appointment, a party of Mamlukes
were through the
Pasha's agents induced to enter
Cairo
by
the Northern Gate, on the supposition that the Pasha
was
away, seeing to the opening of the Nile dams, a
ceremony
which the chief authority in the capital
regularly attended;
soldiers had been put in ambuscade in the
houses that line
the narrow street that ends at Bab Zuwailah,
and these
marksmen, when the Mamluke cavalry entered, dealt
deadly
execution on both men and horses. The survivors
took refuge
in the School of the Sultan Barkuk, in the
Nahhasin Street;
here they were captured, and most of them
afterwards
executed.
The second massacre took place in February, 1811, when
an army was equipped and ready to start for Arabia, to
restore
the authority of the Porte, and quell the
Wahhabi
rebellion. A reception
was given at the Citadel, to which
the Mamlukes were invited
in numbers. On their departure
they were attacked by the
Albanian troops of the Viceroy,
in the avenue cut in the solid
rock which leads down from
the Citadel, the lower gate having
been closed. In this gorge
460 are said to have perished, and
orders had been issued
to massacre those that were scattered
about in Egypt. The
event was followed by an attempt made by
the soldiery to
ack
Cairo, which the Pasha had some difficulty in repressing.
To understand the feeling which prompted this measure
it must be remembered that after the departure of the French
one of the Mamluke leaders had visited England, and for a
time, while French influence was on the side of the maintenance
of Mohammed Ali, English influence was in favour
of the
restoration of the Mamluke regime. The idea of the
Pasha was
then to annihilate the party which in the event
of disasters
in Arabia might be in a position again to bring
Egypt into
disorder. And he did annihilate it. The Mamlukes
play no part
in the politics of Egypt since 1811. The
widows of the slain
were spared, but the Pasha claimed the
right to give them in
marriage to his followers.
In the whole Mamluke system there is much that is obscure,
especially in the phenomenon that these slave-rulers
required constantly to be refreshed from outside, the
offspring
of the Emirs apparently amalgamating with the
Moslem
population, and invariably taking ordinary Moslem
names.
It was a late survival in history of the old
beginning of
kingship, where a man slew the slayer and should
himself
be slain; for if this does not always literally
hold good of
the Mamluke sovereigns, yet it is a formula which
does not
diverge over widely from the truth. Ali Bey saw that
the
system must be struck at, but was satisfied with
preventive
measures for the future; Mohammed Ali tore out
the system
by the roots.
CAIRO: SHARIA
DARB EL GAMAMIZ.
Not quite a century has elapsed since that event, and
Cairo is still the capital of Mohammed
Ali's dynasty, and
has expanded to greater dimensions than it
ever reached
under the most prosperous of its earlier
sovereigns.
Mohammed Ali's career has been repeatedly narrated, and
we have no room even to sketch it here. Aided by his able
son, Ibrahim Pasha, he subdued Arabia, whereas two other
sons extended his dominions by conquests in the region of
the Upper Nile. Like other possessors of Egypt, he was
anxious to hold
Syria
as well; and, picking a quarrel with
the Porte when that power
had been weakened by the
Greek War of Independence, he sent
Ibrahim Pasha northwards,
and shortly overran
Syria and Asia Minor, and was
in a position to threaten Constantinople itself. The
interference
of Russia prevented the Egyptian Pasha
dealing
with the Sultan as the Buyids and Seljukes had
dealt with
the Caliph of
Baghdad; but for some six years
Syria was an
Egyptian province. The discontent of
the Syrian population
then gave the Porte an opportunity to
attempt the recovery
of this region, only, however, to sustain
severe losses both
on land and sea. But at this point the
European concert
stepped in. Yet it was not before Ibrahim
Pasha had been
defeated by European officers that the
pretensions of the
Pasha of Egypt were moderated, and he was
satisfied with
the hereditary government of the Valley of the
Nile. In
1841, by the terms of peace between Mohammed Ali on
the
one side and the Sultan with his European allies on
the
other, the government of Egypt was vested in the
Pasha's
family, though the title Khedive was not conferred
on the
ruler till some time later.
Perhaps, if the history of the older Eastern conquerors
were better recorded, we should in each case understand
the means whereby they came to the front and defeated
their rivals. In Mohammed Ali's case, the secret lay in
his
determination to adopt
the civilization of Europe. The introduction
of European drill
and tactics was entirely against
the prejudices of his
subjects, and at first led to a plot for
his assassination;
the conspiracy was revealed in time, but
the unpopularity of
his measures did not daunt the Pasha,
and he even allowed the
objectors to go unpunished.
European, and especially French,
officials were introduced
to train troops, cast cannon and
build men-of-war; but the
military inventions of the West were
not exclusively adopted
by the Pasha, who imported education,
architecture and
medical appliances from the same source. Vast
schemes,
some successful, others destined to failure, were
set on foot
with the object of increasing the productiveness
of Egypt
and even rendering it a manufacturing country, and
the internal
administration both of town and country
underwent
a radical change. To Mohammed Ali, moreover, is
due, if
not the introduction yet the enforcement of religious
toleration
on an ample scale. Fanaticism, whether
exercised
against native or foreign Christians, was
punished by him
with exemplary promptitude; and the attitude
of mutual
respect and consideration adopted by the various
religious
communities of Egypt, which is a pleasing
feature to any
visitor of that country, probably dates from
Mohammed
Ali's time, though the brief French occupation
may have
contributed towards bringing it about.
In
Cairo itself Mohammed Ali
introduced the first specimens
of European architecture, and
of course the capital
was greatly altered during his long and
eventful reign. His
draining of the Ezbekiyyeh Pool has
already been noticed;
he built himself a palace at
Shubra and laid out the long
boulevard that connects this suburb with the capital, as
well as another connecting
Cairo with Boulak, where a substantial
new stone
quay was erected for river steamers. To
a late period in his
reign belongs the Rue Neuve, the need
for which was
occasioned by the great number of foreign
merchants settled in
the Mouski, a street which derives its
name from a bridge
built over the Great Canal by one
Musak, a relation of the
great Saladdin, who died in the
year 1188. The Rue Neuve was
begun in the year 1845, its
width being calculated by the
space requirements of two
loaded camels passing each other. It
crosses at right angles
the old thoroughfare which originally
bore the name Between
the Two Palaces, and, doubtless, in the
course of its
construction many an old landmark was
obliterated.
The name of Mohammed Ali is perpetuated in
Cairo by his
great mosque, erected on
the Citadel after the older mosques
of which there were so
many, at different times had fallen
into ruin or become
disused. The Mosque of Nasir still remains
as a shell, but of
the others few but archaeologists
know the traces. Mohammed
Ali's building is in imitation
of the mosques of
Constantinople, for all which the original
model was furnished
by Saint Sophia. Prince Puckler
Muskau visited
Cairo when this mosque was in course of
erection, and speaks of it in the following enthusiastic
strain:
“At the southern extremity of the Citadel the viceroy is
now erecting a mosque, just opposite to the ruined
Saladdin
[rather Nasir] Mosque, which in some respects
will be the
most superb edifice in the world; for not only are
all the
columns made of massive, polished alabaster, but even
the
inner and outer walls are completely covered with this
costly
material, which has hitherto been employed only in
making
vases, watchstands and little knick-knacks of the
kind; and
I should not be in the least surprised if the entire
quarry of
Shaikh Abadeh were to be exhausted in the creation
of this
temple. The effect of the whole is quite astonishing;
but it
is very much apprehended that this delicate stone will
not
be able to withstand the effects of the climate.”
Most European visitors are much more restrained in their
admiration of this building, and regard the taste which it
displays as vastly inferior to that exhibited in the
mosques
of the Mamluke period. The following is a
translation of Ali
Pasha Mubarak's description of it:
“This Mosque was built by the late Hajj [i.e., Pilgrim],
Mohammed Ali Pasha, native of Kavalla, founder of the
Khedivial family in Egypt. He began its erection in the
year
of the Hijrah, 1246 [1830-1831], after he had set the
affairs
of Egypt in order, and terminated those operations
of vast
utility which we have sketched in the introduction to
this
book. He selected for its site the Citadel of
Cairo, in order
that the
benefits of public worship might be enjoyed by the
employés in
the palaces and public offices, inasmuch as during
his time
all the ministries and most of the offices were
on the
Citadel. He prepared for its erection a broad area,
which
contained the remains of edifices that had been erected
by
former sovereigns, all of which he ordered to be cleared
away,
as also the soil till he came to the solid rock, on which
he
ordered the foundations to be laid. He built the walls of
enormous stones, some three-and-a-half metres in length; iron
rods connected each pair of stones, and molten lead was poured
in. In this style the foundations were laid till the surface of the
ground was reached. The mosque was modelled on the
beautiful
Nur Osmaniyyeh Mosque of Constantinople, and in
part
on that of Sidi Sariyah on the Citadel—an
unimportant
mosque of which the original appears to be
obscure. The
building of the walls was continued in the style
that has
been described. Four doors were made, two to the
north, one
admitting to the court, the other to the dome; two
also
were placed on the south side. The stone walls were
faced
with alabaster both within and without to their full
height.
He who enters from the gate of the Citadel called
Bab al-Daris
finds a wide place in which he is confronted by
the
doors of the court and
the dome. The door leading into the
court has inscribed over
it in marble a text from the Koran
commending prayer. The
letters are gilt. The threshold is
of marble, the door of
antique wood; the tympanum is of
wood also. The height of the
door is four metres, the wooden
tympanum is one metre high.
The wall is two metres thick.
The court is fifty-seven metres
long by fifty-five broad, its
surface being 3,135 square
metres. It embraces five liwans,
surmounted by forty-seven
domes, mounted on marble pillars,
eight metres high, exclusive
of the base. The number
of these pillars which surround the
court and support the
domes is forty-five. Each has a necking
and torus of brass,
and each column is connected with every
other by an iron
bar; the number of these bars amount to
ninety-four. To
each dome there is appended a brass chain, to
which a lamp
is attached. On the left side as one enters from
this door is
the door of the minaret, of ordinary wood, 265
steps lead to
the summit, exclusive of those which lead up to
the iron
obelisk which crowns it. On the left side in the
middle, between
the two liwans is the door which leads from
the court
into the dome; it is of folding doors of antique
wood, as also
is the semicircular tympanum; over it the date
is written in
Turkish. Some seven yards in front of the liwan
which comes
next to the door of the dome is the door which
leads to the
second minaret, ascended by the same number of
steps as
the last; they form winding staircases with bronze
balustrades.
The height of each of these minarets is
eight-four
metres from the ground, of which twenty-five
and two-thirds
are from the ground to the roof of the mosque.
On the same
left hand side are nine windows belonging to the
dome,
each of which contains a text from the Surah called
Fath,
engraved in
marble and filled in with gold. Over the door of
the dome
there is written a text promising Paradise to Believers;
doubtless this promise has been realized in the founder's
case. In the middle of
the court there is a wooden dome
mounted on eight marble
columns, seven metres high,
underneath which there is a
fountain with an alabaster cupola,
and sixteen spouts, with a
marble spout over each,
containing the text of the Koran which
enjoins washing
before prayer, and the tradition, ‘Washing is
the Believer's
Weapon.’ In front of each spout there is a
marble base.
Between each pair of pillars there is an iron
rod, holding a
brass chain for a lamp, while over each is a
crescent of
bronze. Close by is the entrance to the cistern
which is
underneath the court; the coping is of alabaster, and
the
lid of brass. There is a pump there also for raising
the water.
“The southern gate of the court resembles the northern,
which it faces, and there is engraved above it in marble
the
text, ‘Your Lord hath prescribed unto Himself mercy.’
In
the liwans which surround the court there are
thirty-eight
windows, each two-and-a-half metres in length
and one-and-a-half
in breadth; the thickness of the wall is
two metres.
It contains a window in bronze. In front of the
north door
which gives entrance to the dome there is a gallery
on
twenty-four alabaster columns, with bronze neckings
and
tori, each eight metres high, not including the base.
The
pillars are connected by twenty-two iron bars, and
surmounted
by eleven domes with bronze crescents. Hence
you
proceed into the sanctuary, which is almost square,
forty-six
metres by forty-five, exclusive of the liwan on
the kiblah
side, which is seventeen metres by nine, with an
area of one
hundred and thirty-five metres. In it there is a
very lofty
dome, some sixty-one metres above the floor of the
Mosque,
mounted on four piers of hewn stone, faced with
marble to
a height of two metres. The dome has four
semicircles, one
on each side, and four small domes. The whole
of the great
dome is elaborately painted, and decorated with
gold-leaf.
There are circles painted round it, with
certain pious formulae
inscribed in
gold-leaf. To the left of the sanctuary you
find the Mihrab,
with a semicircular roofing, while the
niche itself is in
marble with an inscription in coloured
glass. The niche is
enclosed by two small marble columns,
with brass necking and
torus. To the left, close to one of the
piers that have been
mentioned, is the reader's chair made
of wood, with a
balustrade of the same material turned. Five
steps lead up to
it, and it is carpeted with red cloth. To
the right is the
pulpit of wood, decorated with gold-leaf,
reached by
twenty-five steps, also carpeted with red cloth
and with
folding doors. Above in a circle there is inscribed
the text,
‘Friday is with God the best of days.’ Above the
preacher's
seat is a tall dome on four wooden columns, with
a Koranic
text written round it. At the bottom of the pulpit
there is a
guichet on each side, inscribed with texts; between
them there
is a sort of cupboard to which access is
given by a door under
the pulpit. Opposite the Mihrab is
the door of the dome
leading out of the court, surmounted
by a dikkah for the
Mueddins, extending the whole breadth
of the sanctuary, and
mounted on eight marble pillars,
eight metres high, surrounded
by a bronze balustrade, which
also surrounds the upper part of
the sanctuary, this upper
part containing thirty-one windows
framed in brass, with
lights of white glass. At a distance of
about twelve metres
there is another balustrade, facing
thirty-one more windows,
this time of stained glass. Between
[?] the two there are the
twenty-four windows of the great
dome, with a brass balustrade,
the windows being of bronze
work with stained glass
lights, and the balustrade at the top
of the dome has in
front of it forty stained glass windows.
Round each of the
four domes mentioned above there are ten
windows with
balustrades. The purpose of these balustrades is
to support
lamps. In the semicircle of the Mihrab there are
sixteen windows,
with a gallery containing a balustrade in
front, and
round the wall low
down there are thirty-six windows each
two-and-a-half metres
long, with white glass lights, each
one containing a portion
of the poem called ‘Burdah.’ Access
is given to the galleries
from the two minarets and the
roof of the Mosque. The southern
door of the dome, which
faces the northern, has written on the
outside ‘God's are
the places of worship, and invoke no one
with God.’ In
front is a vast gallery, on eleven columns of
alabaster, some
eight metres high. Twenty-two iron bars
connect these pillars,
which are surmounted by eleven domes,
similar to
those in the gallery facing the first door. The
tomb of the
founder, which he ordered to be hewn for himself
in the
solid rock, is in the south-west corner to the right as
one
enters from the door leading from the court into the
dome.
The completion of the Mosque in this style was in
the year
1261 [1845]. The founder died three years later, and
was
followed by Ibrahim his son, who died shortly after.
He was
succeeded by Abbas Pasha, son of Tusun, who ordered
the
Mosque to be finished. They whitewashed the piers,
and
then painted them to look like alabaster, paved the
floor, and
painted and inscribed the domes.”
One other monument in
Cairo
which preserves the name
of Mohammed Ali, the Boulevard called
after him, belongs
to the reign of Isma'il Pasha, who governed
Egypt from 1863
to 1882. Its site was a series of graveyards,
which continued
in use till Mohammed Ali's time. The bones
were collected
when the Boulevard was cut, and distributed in
various
places; over the spot where many of them were laid
a mosque
called the Bone Mosque was built. The plans were
drawn
in 1873. M. Rhoné, who is no friend to the
renovation of
Cairo, gives the following description of
the process by which
the Boulevard was made: “Like a shot
fired too soon, it
started one fine day from the Ezbekiyyeh,
without knowing
whither it was going, and alighted at a
distance of two kilometres
SOUK SELAL, THE ARMOURERS' BAZAAR CAIRO.
from its
starting-point, at the formidable angle of the
mosque of the
Sultan Hasan, which it could not help encountering.
On its way
it had displaced a whole hillfull of
houses and mosques;
half-way, on the canal, it let fall its
burden of débris, and
this gave birth to the palace of Mansur
Pasha.” Ali Pasha, who
took part in the undertaking, naturally
speaks in a different
style of this great artery, which
he holds to have benefited
Cairo enormously, among other
services purifying the air. But the amount of displacing
done
was enormous; 398 buildings had to be removed to
make
room for the Boulevard; of these 325 were dwellings,
some
large and some small; the rest were baths,
bakehouses, etc.,
besides religious buildings. We have already
seen that the
Mosque of Kausun suffered severely, though it
must be added
that Mehren, who made his list of the religious
monuments
of
Cairo
before the construction of the Boulevard found this
mosque in
a ruinous condition; another sanctuary that suffered
was that
of the Shaikh Nu'man, dating from the year
1575.
Isma'il Pasha is the founder of modern
Cairo, of which the
centre is the
Place Atabah al-Khadra, or the Green Threshold,
supposed to be
called after a palace with that name
which formerly existed
there, and was the abode of one
Mohammed al-Shara'ibi, who
lived in the twelfth Mohammedan
century. From it there radiate
streets or boulevards in
all directions; the Mouski leads
eastwards to the old parts of
the city, crossing where was
once the Grand Canal to what
remains of the work of the
Fatimides; westwards a number
of avenues lead to the quarter
called after Isma'il, the abode
of the English and the
wealthy. When new streets are built,
an attempt is made to
preserve some history in their names;
a few, such as the
Boulevard Clot Bey, are called after quite
modern personages;
in most cases they preserve the memory
of either an ancient
quarter, or some building that once
stood near their
sites. The Committee, to whose work allusion
has so often been
made, acting on expert opinion, sees
that no ancient work is
destroyed which has either historical
or artistic interest.
Europe has taught the East to pay reverence
to its ancient
monuments.
If
Cairo should ever indulge
in the taste for historical pageants
which is so
characteristic of our country at this time,
it would not be
difficult to find a number of scenes worth reproducing,
some
of them graced with figures that loom large
in the vista of
the centuries. Ahmad Ibn Tulun's architect
summoned from his
prison to solve the problem of the
mosque; Jauhar drawing the
lines of his city at an auspicious
moment; Saladdin rejecting
the splendours of the Fatimide
Palace; Shajar al-durr
receiving the homage of the Emirs
behind her curtain; Baibars
receiving his investiture from the
Caliph of his own
appointment; Kala'un's Hospital inaugurated
by a disloyal
preacher;
Cairo decorated to celebrate
the fall of Constantinople, and presently itself entered
in
triumph by the Ottoman Sultan; al-Azhar, stormed by
Bonaparte's soldiers; the Mamlukes surrendering to
Mohammed
Ali in the Barkuk Mosque—these might be
suggested
as a characteristic and not wholly
uninteresting
selection. And if scenes from yet later
times were included,
there might be a few in which great
Englishmen figured
also: Baker, sent by Isma'il Pasha to
suppress the slave-trade
in the Soudan; Gordon, hastening to
his heroic defence
of Khartoum; and last, but not least, the
farewell address of
the statesman to whom the present
financial and administrative
prosperity of
Cairo is due.
THE FAIR, MOOLID EL AHMADEE, CAIRO.
[Back to top]
CHAPTER XI
Jerusalem: an Historical Sketch
THE situation of Jerusalem is majestic and
impressive.
It lies on four hills, which some with a
taste
for sacred numbers have wished to increase to
seven;
on three sides deep valleys encircle it. Both those
that
separate the hills and those which surround them were
at
an earlier period far deeper than they are now, since
excavators
have found accumulations of rubbish about
them,
varying in depth from forty to over a hundred feet;
one of
the hills was, it is said, deliberately lowered as a
military
precaution, and one of the internal depressions
artificially
filled up. Before these operations of art and
nature were
accomplished, the features which excite our
admiration now
must have been greatly accentuated. And those
have taught
us most about the ancient topography of the city
who have
driven shafts and tunnels through these
accumulations, and
mapped out underground Jerusalem. Their
work constituted
a record in excavation, and some of their
names are dear
to the British nation on quite other than
archaeological
grounds. If they have left many a
controversy undetermined,
it is because inscriptions, the
surest indications of ancient
sites, have rarely been
discovered, and still more rarely on
the places where they
originally stood; because the place
has been often taken by
relentless enemies, determined if
possible to leave no stone
upon another; and because ancient
descriptions of it are often
either ideal descriptions, or made
by persons who wrote at a
distance from the scenes which
they described, and were
perhaps unskilled in accurate observation
and the
technicalities of architecture.
The nature of the soil
has determined the area of the city,
but except for its brief
period of glory, to which allusion
will presently be made,
there was no reason why it should
ever have to harbour a great
population. Since the building
of the second Temple it has
been far more a religious than
a political centre; and even as
such it has never been able
to occupy quite the first rank.
With Islam it was only occasionally
and under special
circumstances able to rival
Meccah; with the more powerful
portion of Christianity it
was superseded by Rome. Probably
the more energetic and
capable of the Israelites have
regularly preferred to be its
occasional visitors than to
constitute part of its permanent
population. The class whom
such a place attracts consists of
persons worn out with
worldly things, and interested
only in spiritual concerns,
while the expectation of a golden
stream from outside
discourages in the natives original
effort and the growth of
those sterling qualities which the
struggle for existence
ordinarily produces. Constantly recruited
from without, it
produces little or nothing from
within. Thus for an indigenous
art or architecture in Jerusalem
no one looks; the explorer
searches only for relics of
the styles imported at different
periods sometimes by domestic
rulers, more often by donors and
benefactors. The
Solomonic Temple was in Phaenician style, the
Temple of
Nehemiah probably Persian; for later buildings the
models
were furnished by Greece, Rome and Byzantium,
after
which came Norman and Gothic importations from
Europe;
to-day the patterns in fashion in every European
state of
consequence are represented. Should a new Jewish
Temple
be built on the Haram area, it would probably be
from
French or Italian designs.
The period during which the city could claim the title
imperial was very short, extending no longer than the
reigns
of David and Solomon, the former of whom appears to
have
MORNING IN JERUSALEM: THE MOSQUE OF OMAR ON THE SHADED
SIDE.
brought several of the
surrounding peoples into subjection.
This is the view which we
take, if we approach the Old Testament
record without too
great scepticism. With the name of
the first of these two
sovereigns the city has been in historic
times connected,
although there is a great doubt as to the
part of it which he
occupied; the operations executed by
him with the view of
making the place a metropolis are too
briefly stated to permit
of much being elicited. The name
appears to go back to a much
earlier period than that of
David, who is said to have found
the city, or part of it, in possession
of a tribe called
Jebus, after whom it was then called;
members of the tribe
occasionally meet us after David's
seizure of their
stronghold. Their fortress is usually supposed
to have
occupied one of the hills only, with which the
founder of
Israelitish Jerusalem incorporated others, enclosing
the whole
with a wall. Such dwellings as already existed
would then be
allotted to those who helped to storm the
fortress, and
permission given for others to build. The speed
with which the
residence of a victorious prince attracts inhabitants
is
extraordinary, and Jerusalem was doubtless a
populous city
before his reign ended. That no sanctuary was
erected by him
to the national Deity seems certain, and the
fact required
explanation at an early time; that in which
the later Jews
acquiesced was that he was disqualified for
erecting a
sanctuary by the blood which he had shed, but the
earlier
explanation may have been different.
The only monument in the city's neighbourhood which
may be actually connected with David is the King's tomb outside
the Sion Gate. The exact spot where David was buried
is not
mentioned in his biography, but his tomb is employed
as a
landmark by Nehemiah, and is mentioned repeatedly
by Josephus,
who declares that the King had much treasure
deposited with
him, which in the centuries just preceding
the Christian Era
was despoiled by Hyrcanus and Herod.
In the Acts of the
Apostles also the tomb of David is mentioned
as a well-known
object in Jerusalem. A Christian
tradition identifies a room
in the buildings surrounding the
tomb as the Upper Chamber
where the Eucharist was instituted
and where the miracle of
Pentecost was wrought.
The room is said by Epiphanius to have
remained undestroyed
when the city was burned by Titus, and to
have
afterwards been used as a church. A convent for the
Franciscans
was here erected in the fourteenth century by
Sancia,
Queen of Robert of Sicily, which was taken from
them by
the Moslems in 1560, it is said, owing to the
vengeance of a
Jew, who had desired to perform his devotions
at the tombs
of David and Solomon underneath the convent, and
had
been refused permission by the Franciscans, and who
then
persuaded the Grand Vizier at Constantinople to take
the
tombs of the two Kings, whom the Koran calls
Prophets,
out of the hands of unbelievers. A few favoured
travellers
have had access to the tombs themselves, which
appear to
have been discovered in the time of Benjamin of
Tudela,
when stones were taken from the wall of Mount Sion
to
repair the church. The story of their discovery is not
free
from fabulous elements, but some monuments of
artistic
excellence appear to exist on the spot. The
question to
whom they belong has not been definitely solved,
and even
in Nehemiah's time the traditional site may not
necessarily
have been the real one.
Solomon's character, like that of David, is a familiar one
to readers of Oriental history. While the father was the
enterprising
and astute empire-builder, the son was the
magnificent
patron of the arts, of literature, and of
commerce.
Under him the metropolis began to be adorned
with edifices
worthy of the sovereign's power and wealth, and
foreign
artificers were summoned to erect them, the
Phaenicians at
this time occupying the place which at a later
period belonged
to Greeks, and after
them to nations yet further west.
Of the building of the
Temple, the sacred writers have preserved
a most elaborate
account; and though there is some
controversy as to the part
of the Haram area which it occupied,
there appears to be
general agreement as to the practical
correctness of the
traditional site. The breaches in the
continuity of the
tradition are not indeed considerable; perhaps
the most
considerable being that between the times of
Jeremiah and
Nehemiah, though Moslem writers make it
appear that when the
Mohammedan conqueror wished to
be directed to the site of the
Temple, wrong directions were
given him at first, apparently
through ignorance. The probability
is that none of the
vicissitudes through which
Jerusalem passed left the country
quite without inhabitants
familiar with so notable a site.
Besides the Temple, the
King's own domestic arrangements
required the erection of
several palaces, and probably of
numerous shrines for the
housing of the deities worshipped by
the different nationalities
represented in his household.
Of these palaces and sanctuaries the Bible preserves some
names and some architectural details; but of the general
appearance of the city in Solomon's time it is not
possible
to gather any distinct impression. The material
used by him
appears to have been perishable in the extreme,
and it is
unlikely that any work executed by him still
remains.
Owing, however, to the memories of Solomon's
wisdom and
magnificence, legend attributes to him all
anonymous works
on a great scale that are to be found either
in the city or in
its neighbourhood. The theory that Solomon
had supernatural
agencies under his control enabling him to
carry
out the vastest designs can be traced back to the
time of
Josephus, and through the influence of the Koran has
become
an article of faith with Moslems. The Biblical
account
of his methods shows that no supernatural agents
were
requisite. The whole
wealth of a small country, and unlimited
labour, such as lay
at the disposal of the Sultan of the time,
would easily
account for the execution of any of the works
attributed to
him. No contemporary traveller tells us what
Jerusalem looked
like in his day, for the memoirs of the
Queen of Saba, if she
left any, have not come down. Probably
it was largely a
collection of wooden huts. These form
an intermediate stage
between the dwellings of the nomad
and the town resident; and
the cry, “To your tents, O
Israel” had not ceased to be heard
in Solomon's time. The
palaces differed from the other houses
in the quality, but
not in the nature of the material of which
they were mainly
constructed.
The magnificent monarch often leaves on the mind of his
subjects not so much pride in his grandeur as resentment
at
the extortions which have been the source of his
magnificence,
and with all but Solomon's own tribe and one
other
the latter appears to have been the sentiment which
dominated.
The unpopularity which has attached to the
tribe of
Judah ever since it became known to the general
world, seems
to have belonged to it in its relations with the
other tribes
constituting Israel, and so soon as Solomon was
dead, they
hastened to throw off a yoke, which indeed the
King's taste
for building by forced labour had rendered
exceptionally
severe. Other sanctuaries became more
popular with the
northern kingdom, which was far more populous
and powerful
than the small remnant which remained loyal to
the
family of David. That loyalty, however, appears to
have
been a deep-rooted sentiment, and to have kept the
southern
kingdom tolerably free from the scramble for the
sovereignty
which disturbed and finally wrecked the
northern. The record
which we have of both is exceedingly
imperfect, and in
the matter of building we hear chiefly of
repairs done to the
wall of Jerusalem, of the occasional
erection of towers, and
HEZEKIAH'S POOL
of provision made for
a better water supply. The only inscription
in Jerusalem which
is from the period of the kings
is that which records the
construction of an aqueduct in the
time of King Hezekiah. This
aqueduct, which took the form
of a tunnel, appears to have
been commenced at both ends
at once, a fact which implies the
existence of greater engineering
skill, and instruments of
greater precision, than we
should ordinarily suppose to have
been possessed by the Jews.
The condition of Jerusalem during the period of the divided
kingdom, as the Books of Kings record it, was by no
means one of quiet development; it was, on the contrary,
one of perpetual disturbance, in which city and temple
were
repeatedly sacked, varied at times by spells of peace
and
prosperity under some competent ruler. The maintenance
of
the Temple was, it would seem, during the whole time,
the
chief function of the King, and according to the
influences
to which different kings were subject many
innovations were
introduced, both in the structure of the
sanctuary and in the
form of ritual. The unfriendly attitude
adopted by the Jewish
religion towards all others appears at
least in practice to
date from the last century of the
monarchy; previously Jerusalem
contained sanctuaries dedicated
to objects of worship
other than the God of Israel, and the
Temple itself at times
harboured altars of more than one
Deity. The record which
has come down to us of Jewish history
is written in the
spirit of Deuteronomy, and is too deeply
hostile to pagan
cults to take any interest in the monuments
erected for their
celebration; while, therefore, we hear
occasionally of the
names of deities to whom shrines were
dedicated in Jerusalem,
it is chiefly when the historian
rejoices over their destruction;
neither has he any more
sympathy with sanctuaries
intended for the God of Israel, but
outside the Temple
area. We therefore conjecture rather than
know for certain
that Jerusalem, in its best days, presented
an appearance
not unlike what it
exhibits to-day, where with one preeminent
mosque representing
the dominant cult, there is
associated a variety of other
mosques, churches and synagogues,
the latter belonging, to a
large extent, to strangers,
though in part to natives; the
notion that the sanctity of
the chief edifice is impugned by
the presence of these other
places of worship has now been
outgrown, even before the
Deuteronomic reform it had no wide
currency.
The mode whereby that reform was introduced has been
made out, so far as the nature of the evidence admits of positive
conclusions, by those who have written on the history of
Israelitish religion, and we know that when Judaism was
once
started on the doctrine of one God, one Temple, it
drew the
inferences with ever-increasing rigour. Probably
those are
right who trace the origin of the process to the
deliverance
of Jerusalem from Sennacherib, when the
northern Kingdom
had been swept away by Assyria. If, as the
history suggests,
there were strong reasons why the sect,
whose motto was the
doctrine stated, could claim the miracle
as one granted
specially to their cause, their ability to
monopolize Judaism
and in time Jerusalem seems to be
explained. That effect
was not attained without violent
reactions, in the course of
which Jerusalem itself perished,
for the miracle was not renewed,
and the violent religious
persecutions which followed
the reign of Hezekiah must have
greatly reduced such power of
resistance as the Jewish people
might have been able to bring
against the tremendous power of
Babylon. Belief, however,
in the sanctity of the spot where
alone a temple might stand
and sacrifice could be offered was
harboured as a precious
heirloom by the descendants of those
who had been forcibly
ejected from the sacred city. The
conviction that it would eventually
arise from its ruins, no
more to be polluted by alien
worships, gave it for a time an
ideal existence, and enthusiasts
devoted their energies to
planning how it should be laid out.
The time which elapsed before such operations could be
executed seems to have been very lengthy. It is not now
thought probable that there was a Jerusalem between that
of
David and that of Nehemiah; if there was it must have
been a
place of small importance, for the inquisitive
Herodotus, who
composed his inquiry in the fifth century B.C.,
had heard of
Palestine but appears not to have heard of
Jerusalem. Josephus
answers that he had also not heard of
Rome, a reply which
seems unsatisfactory. A return from exile
in the form of a
splendid pageant, such as some of the
Prophets awaited, did
not take place; but early in the fourth
century, B.C., one
Nehemiah, who had won promotion at the
Persian court, then
in possession of the East, obtained leave
to rebuild city and
temple on a modest scale. The restored
Jerusalem appears to
date from his efforts, but the
combination of his authentic
narrative with another of unknown
date and authority has
rendered the process of restoration
hard to follow. The unfriendly
attitude adopted towards their
neighbours by the
Israelites seems to have involved the
rebuilders of Jerusalem
in difficulties, but there is no doubt
that through the work of
Nehemiah it was raised to the rank of
something like a provincial
capital, and this rank it retained
when before the close
of the fourth century Persian domination
gave way to Greek.
For the gap which separates the termination of the Old
Testament from the Maccabaean period even Josephus appears
to have had only historical romances to guide him, but
in the restored city, prevented by the suzerain power from
having an independent foreign policy, something like the
theocracy contemplated in the Mosaic legislation could be
put
in practice. And of the divine worship which
constituted the
main concern of the city the representation
projected by the
Books of Chronicles into the age of David is
likely to be a
faithful account.
The one fragment of history that belongs to this period
tells how one of the
high priests fortified the Temple and
secured the city against
besieging. This does not imply independence,
but a wise
precaution, since one of the most
painful features of warfare
in all but the most modern times
was that the people, whether
belonging to the ruling castes
or not, suffered all the
horrors that accompanied the sacking
of cities in quarrels
that were not theirs. During this period
Palestine was
alternately in the power of Egyptian and Syrian
princes, and
was perpetually exposed to their hordes.
The pec1uliarities of
Israelitish worship began to attract
some attention in the
Hellenic world, and with these the
foreign garrisons located
in the Citadel could not fail to obtain
a tolerable
acquaintance. While in some cases the impression
created was
not unfavourable, in others Judaism
roused the vehement hatred
which for some reason or other
it has constantly been found
capable of exciting. Finally, in
the first third of the second
century B.C., the Syrian monarch
Antiochus Epiphanes set
himself the task of destroying
Judaism, and compelling its
adherents to adopt Hellenic
culture. Pagan worship was
instituted in the Temple itself,
and the animal which for
unknown reasons is abhorred by
Jews and Moslems was selected
for sacrifice. Interference
with the exercise of the Law
provoked resentment which no
amount of oppression of a
different sort could have awakened:
the family of Mattathias,
a descendant of Asmoneus, was
found equal to organizing
resistance, and its members by
their victories secured to
their countrymen a fresh lease of
independence, and renewed
prosperity for Jerusalem. A
tower commanding the Temple area
which had been erected
by the persecutors was destroyed by the
defenders of Judaism,
and the Temple purified from its
defilement.
To the Maccabaean period—or a little later—there belongs
a description of the city, professedly written by a Greek
of
the third century B.C., but in reality by a Jew of a
much
later time, anxious as
many as of his race have often been
to conceal his nationality
and identity. Whether this writer
had ever seen the city which
he depicts is uncertain: in any
case his account is quite
ideal and belongs rather to the
conception of the heavenly
Jerusalem, of which we have
seen the origin. Situated in the
midst of mountains, on a
high hill, Jerusalem was crowned by a
Temple girt with three
walls over seventy cubits high. The
court of the Temple,
which was paved with marble, covered vast
reservoirs of
water—this part of the description is confirmed
by Sir C.
Warren's discoveries—fountains of which washed away
the
blood of the myriads of beasts there offered. The
streets
formed a series of terraces stretching from the
brow of the
hill down into the valley, and were furnished with
raised
pavements, the purpose of which was to prevent the
clean
being contaminated by contact with the unclean. It
was admirably
fortified with a number of towers arranged like
the
tiers in a theatre. The compass of the city was about
forty
stades. The comparison of the city to a theatre, of
which
the temple area was the stage, has been made by
others, yet
its appropriateness seems very doubtful.
Before the Maccabaean dynasty had lasted a century, the
precious possession of independence was sacrificed to the
personal ambitions of rival claimants for the chief place
in
the State; Jerusalem was taken by Pompey, and the
Holy
of Holies profaned by the entrance of a stranger. But
ere
long Herod, who in the troubles which ruined the
Roman
Republic, had played with consummate skill a
difficult hand,
being installed as monarch, and obtaining
possession of
Jerusalem at the price of a tremendous massacre,
restored the
city to greatness by no means inferior to that of
its imperial
days. His deeds were recounted by a contemporary
of his
own, whose work survives in the excerpts made by the
Jewish historian Josephus, whose books form a storehouse
of information on the
topography of Jerusalem, which, if in
no wise to be compared
with Makrizi's account of
Cairo, is
yet highly prized for its fullness of detail.
Money ruthlessly extorted by Herod was spent by him in
beautifying and strengthening his capital, where he
rebuilt
the Temple on a scale of unsurpassed
magnificence—unless,
indeed, the concept of the heavenly
Jerusalem may have affected
the representations of Josephus.
The king built three
towers “excelling all in the world in
size, beauty and strength,”
which he named after his brother,
his friend and his wife.
To the north of the city he built a
palace surpassing all
powers of description, surrounded with a
wall thirty cubits
high, containing banqueting-halls,
guest-chambers, avenues,
channels for water, and all else that
can be imagined. The
white marble blocks of which the towers
were constructed
were so truly joined that each appeared to be
one mass of
stone. How much in the descriptions of these
buildings is due
to the imagination is unknown: the buildings
themselves
have disappeared without a trace. Herod's
magnificence no
more won the affection of his subjects than
did Solomon's
before him; the people at his death thought the
direct yoke
of Rome preferable to an Oriental despotism, and
before
the destruction of the city they had painful
experience of
both.
The Jerusalem of the Gospels is, of course, Herod's Jerusalem,
with some alterations effected by Roman occupation.
On the whole the magnificence ascribed by Josephus to the
buildings of Herod is borne out by allusions in the early
Christian records, and an inscription discovered by M.
Clermont-Ganneau, composed in the Greek of this period,
in which strangers are forbidden to proceed beyond a
certain
point in the Temple area on pain of death,
strikingly
confirms the statements of the Jewish
historian. The employment
of the Temple at this time as a
place where those
who wished to give
instruction could do so is similar to that
which is
characteristic of the Moslem Mosque. But the elaborate
ritual
of which the Temple was the scene has rather
been inherited by
the Christian sanctuary, though of course
the abolition of
sacrifice, due to the destruction of the
Temple, has deprived
religious worship of what used to be its
most important
feature. The attention of the Jewish historian
and the oral
tradition of his countrymen is so much
engrossed by the
Temple, the palaces and the forts, that
little is left for the
other public and private buildings which
at this time filled
the city; we hear casually of a gymnasium,
and obtain a casual
reference to public baths. We hear of
numerous synagogues
shortly after the destruction of the
Temple, and it is likely
that there was no lack of these, in
different parts of the
city, in the period which preceded that
disaster. Some
provision must also have been made for the
religious wants of
the foreign army of occupation, and indeed
for those of other
foreign visitors, though the Romans
seem ordinarily to have
respected Jewish prejudices on this
subject so far as
possible. And especially must provision
have been made for the
great numbers of devout persons
who visited the metropolis
regularly at feast times.
Of Herod's descendants, Herod Agrippa, the friend of
Claudius, who for his services in connexion with the Emperor's
accession had received his grandfather's kingdom,
continued the work of fortification, and commenced, where
practicable, a new encircling wall, rendered necessary by
the growth of the population, which, had it been
completed,
should, in the opinion of Josephus, have
rendered the city
impregnable.
The city was for a short time the focus of general attention
during the rebellion quelled by Vespasian and Titus,
and ending in the fall of Jerusalem in the year 70. It
would
be interesting to know the amount of the population
at this
time, but our
authorities give figures which could only with
great
difficulty be accommodated in the space; 600,000, or
about
eight times the present population, and 2,500,000, or
about
thirty-five times the existing numbers. Moreover, the
present
population covers an area which seems certainly to
include
ground that was outside the city besieged by Titus.
The same
must be said of these numbers as of the wall
seventy cubits
high that surrounded the Temple, that they
suit the heavenly
Jerusalem rather than the earthly. Whatever
the numbers may
have been, they were unable to defend
the city, which appears
to have been destroyed no less
thoroughly than after its
capture by the Babylonians. Herod's
three towers are said to
have been left, with as much of the
western wall as would
serve to protect the ruins. It would
seem that the destruction
of the public buildings did not
prevent a certain number of
persons returning to their homes,
and a community established
itself there after the fall, similar
to that which may have
occupied the same site before
the time of Nehemiah.
About sixty years after the fall a man who believed himself
to be the Messiah, and persuaded others of the same,
Bar Cochba, heading a new nationalist movement on the
part of the Jews, seized the ruined city, refortified it,
and
proceeded to rebuild the Temple. The revolt was not
more
successful than that described by Josephus; and,
after its
suppression, Jerusalem was turned into a Roman
colony,
called Aelia Capitolina, with a temple to Jupiter
Capitolinus
on the Temple area. To that god in Vespasian's
time the
tribute had been assigned that had previously been
sent by
the Jews to their own Temple, and the Jews were
forbidden
access and even approach to the city of their
fathers. The
name Aelia supplanted the time-honoured name,
which for
awhile belonged exclusively to the heavenly city of
devotional
fancy, which the fall of Jerusalem under Titus
had
caused to be painted
in more gorgeous colours than before.
Even now Aelia is with
Moslems the alternative appellation
for “the Holy City,” and
figures on the imprints of books
printed at Jerusalem.
Of the events which led to Jerusalem being endeared to
half the world, few at the time realized the importance.
The
progress of Christianity, its separation from Judaism,
its
honeycombing the Roman Empire, and its final adoption
by
a Roman emperor, form a fascinating subject of
study,
which at no time is likely to make the process
perfectly
clear. Except for the brief period occupied by
siege and fall,
it is probable that the Christian community at
Jerusalem
maintained a sort of continuity, and the concept
of the New
Jerusalem covered the site of the Old with a
sanctity of
which it was never divested, even before the
instinct for pilgrimage
found its interpretation in the desire
to visit the
sacred sites.
One of the first results of the conversion of the Empire to
Christianity was that steps were taken to cover with
worthy
monuments the places where scenes of transcendent
importance
had been enacted. A church was erected with
great
magnificence by Constantine, containing within its
walls
the Tomb of Christ, the place of the Crucifixion,
and the
spot where the True Cross had been found.
What reason is there for supposing that the sites were
still known in the fourth century, and could be accurately
located? The question has often been debated, though it is
uncertain when scepticism was first expressed. The best
discussion
of it is to be found in the posthumous work of
Sir
Charles Wilson, called
Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre, published
by the
Palestine Exploration Fund in 1906. The
eminent explorer's
conclusion is ambiguous, and does not
therein differ from that
of many others who have been over
the ground. There is no
evidence that the site had any
interest for the
Christian community till long after all chance
of being able
to identify to it had disappeared, owing to the
violent
convulsions which had attended the taking of Jerusalem
by
Titus, its recapture at a later time by Bar Cochba,
and its
transformation into a Roman colony by Hadrian.
To those who
were filled with belief in the living Christ, any
interest in
the Holy Sepulchre would savour of the absurdity
condemned in
the Gospel of seeking the living among the
dead. Only when an
emperor desired the site to be recovered,
persons would not be
wanting ready to discover it.
The question for us is what
indications led those who identified
the site to select one
rather than another. How came
they, to mention only the most
obvious difficulty, to place
the Tomb inside the City, when
the Gospel leads us to suppose
that it was outside? If the
site was in accordance with
authentic tradition, the City must
have been moved, i.e., its
walls must in the time of
Constantine have included a space
which they did not include
at a time when there is great
reason for supposing the City to
have been far more populous.
Moreover, is the proximity of the
Sepulchre to the place of
crucifixion either likely or
suggested by the sacred narrative?
The writers who narrate the
discovery of these sacred
sites usually introduce into the
story the miraculous element;
and this portion of it is
scarcely less improbable than the
explanation given by some
narrators that the site was learned
from a Jew tortured to
reveal it. For why should such knowledge
be preserved by Jews?
Tradition seems unanimously
to assert that the site was hidden
beneath a Temple of Venus,
a goddess of evil reputation, whose
shrine was thought to
be an intentional profanation of the
holy spot, and that those
who searched there were rewarded by
the discovery of a
grave, and presently by other confirmation
of their find. The
large literature that exists on this
subject illustrates the
varying effect of arguments not only
on different minds, but
on the same mind at
different times. The ordinary visitor
may be contented with
Sir C.Wilson's conclusion that while
there is no decisive
reason, historical, traditional or topographical,
for placing
Golgotha and the Tomb where they
are now shown, yet no
objection urged against the sites is
of such a convincing
nature that it need “disturb the minds
of those who accept in
all good faith the authenticity of
places that are hallowed by
the prayers of countless pilgrims.”
Other writers have expressed themselves with much less
caution on this subject. Some have regarded the credit of
Christianity as in a way bound up with the site selected
in the time of Constantine, and even Sir C. Wilson says
he would attach more weight to the opinion of Constantin's
contemporaries than to the conjectures of modern
scholars, if it is a question of conjecture. On the other
hand,
those who have been fortunate enough in modern times
to
hit upon places which seem to them to correspond to
the
requisite conditions are apt to express themselves
very
positively; so Colonel Conder, whose suggestion is
marked
on modern maps, regards it as a happy occurrence
that the
sacred site was trodden by the Crusaders without
knowledge
of its importance, and so spared the terrible
scenes that
were enacted at the taking of Jerusalem in the
immediate
neighbourhood of the site selected by
Constantine. Scepticism
has once or twice been expressed on
the identity of the
present location of the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre with
that of Constantine's building; but for this
there appears to
be a continuous tradition, interrupted once
or twice for
a very few years only, not for a period during
which there
would be any probability of the sites being
forgotten. Of
the interruption of the tradition before the
time of Constantine
there is no question, but we have no
accurate knowledge
of the length of the break. In a city built
on the plain, a site
is easily rendered
unrecognizable by such convulsions as
befell Jerusalem and its
neighbourhood in the three centuries
which elapsed before
Constantine built his church; but
on such ground as is
occupied by Jerusalem, landmarks are
somewhat more permanent.
In the period which followed the conversion of Constantine
Jerusalem was adorned with many religious edifices,
and the whole land began to teem with monasteries and the
abodes of anchorites. There is a record of a strange
attempt
made by the Emperor Julian to restore the Jewish
Temple
on the area which probably contained a disused
sanctuary
of Capitoline Jupiter, but for some reason or
other this
scheme was not carried out. The practice of
pilgrimage to
the sacred sites grew in popularity, and owing
to various
inconveniences that arose was at times
discouraged,
though with little effect, by the Fathers of
the Church. The
Empress Eudocia is said to have rebuilt the
walls of the
city, and to have founded various religious and
philanthropic
institutions both in and around the place.
More importance attaches
to the buildings of the Emperor
Justinian, who erected
a hospital for sick pilgrims and
finished the Church of the
Virgin which the Patriarch Elias
had begun. Twelve years
were occupied in the erection of this
edifice, of which contemporary
writers speak in enthusiastic
terms. The platform
on the Temple area selected for the
building not being
large enough, it was artificially increased
by arches on
substructures. New methods were devised for
bringing on
stones and columns of a size vast enough for the
building
contemplated. The hospital was to contain 200
beds, and
substantial revenues were settled upon it.
The Church of St Mary in some way escaped destruction,
when in 614 the nearer East was invaded by Chosroes—that
last dying exploit of the Sassanian Empire, whose days
were
numbered. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was not
equally
fortunate, as it, with
all its contents, was burnt to the
ground. The malice of the
Persian invaders is said to have
been directed by Jews, who,
as usual, were destined to reap
no permanent advantage from
the catastrophe. If the figures
of the historians are to be
trusted, the massacre effected by
the Persians must have been
on as great a scale as any of
the events of the kind witnessed
by Jerusalem; 90,000 Christians
of both sexes are said to have
perished, and 65,000
corpses were presently gathered and
deposited in a single
cave outside the Western Gate.
The news of this terrible blow to the Byzantine Empire
penetrated into Arabia, where the Prophet Mohammed, still
at Meccah, foretold that the Persian victory would shortly
be
followed by a defeat. The rebuilding of the Church of
the
Holy Sepulchre appears to have commenced almost as
soon
as the Persians had departed, the name of Modestus,
superior
of the monastery of Theodosius, being connected
with
this restoration, which took ten years to accomplish.
Mohammed's
prophecy was fulfilled fourteen years after its
occasion,
and in 628 the conqueror Heraclius visited the
city on
pilgrimage, and the part taken by the Jews in the
former
disaster was now visited on them heavily at the
time when
their brethren in Arabia were suffering persecution
at the
hands of another enemy. The imperial visit had
doubtless
the effect of causing the city to rise fast from
its ruins, and
a few years later a calculation, which may rest
on tradition
or conjecture, estimates the population of
Jerusalem at
12,000 Greeks and 50,000 natives, nearly the
number of
human beings which the city with its suburbs
contains at
the present day.
But the restoration of Christian rule in Jerusalem was not
destined to be permanent. A power of which there had been
no previous indication was springing up at the time,
destined
to give Jerusalem a new lease of existence as a
sacred
city, while banishing
Christianity, at least as a dominant
religion, from the nearer
East. On Mohammed's mind the
sanctity of Jerusalem had in his
youth been impressed by
those Jewish or Christian
story-tellers with whom he had
associated in his travels as a
leader or as a follower of a
caravan. And to him it had been
portrayed as somewhat
similar to the Bethel of Jacob's dream;
the place where
there was a ladder between heaven and earth,
whereby
visitors could ascend or descend. For him who was
to be
permitted to approach the Deity's abode Jerusalem was
the
starting point. Thither the Koran tells us the Prophet
made
a night journey from Meccah; and as dreamland is
bound
by no conditions of space or time, it was the
Temple—long
ruined and even polluted, but still the
Furthest Sanctuary,
furthest from us and so nearest to
Allah—whither he was
taken; it was there that—according to the
tradition—he
mounted the Pegasus that was to convey him to
the upper
world and its seven stories. Whether the tradition
that
gives us the details of this eventful journey is all
of it or any
of it Mohammed's statement, cannot now be known;
all that
concerns history is that it was believed. Jerusalem
was to
the followers of Mohammed what Sinai was to ancient
Israel, more than the unknown Mount of the Transfiguration
ever became to Christians; and yet, just as most Islamic
institutions are coloured by something out of both the
preceding
systems, so the Furthest Mosque has
associations
similar to those that belong to each of these
mountains.
Starting thence the Prophet associated with
some of his
less mighty forerunners, and received the honours
due to
his worth; and thither he brought down some of the
legislation
which through the ages is distinctive of
Islam. So long
as Mohammed was bent on holding no compromise
with
Meccan idolatry, it was to the Furthest Sanctuary
that
his followers were commanded to turn when they
prayed.
Only when
circumstances rendered it necessary to conciliate
Pagans and
exasperate Jews, was Meccah substituted as
the direction of
prayer.
Fourteen years after Mohammed's flight from Meccah
came the Moslem conquest of
Syria,
decided by the battle
of Yarmuk. The Patriarch of Jerusalem
was invited to deliver
up the city without resistance to the
Caliph's general,
Abu Ubaidah, and since the terms of
capitulation included
security for life and property,
religious toleration, and involved
only the payment of a
poll-tax and certain other by
no means vexatious duties, not
much difficulty was made
about accepting them. As the
Christians, it is said, declined
to treat with anyone but the
Caliph himself, perhaps
doubting the power of any subordinate
to make treaties,
Omar, the second follower of the Prophet,
then reigning at
Medinah, decided to accept this condition,
and came to receive
the capitulation of the sacred city. His
name has ever
since clung to it, in connexion with the Mosque
of Omar,
often falsely located.
From 636 till July 15, 1099, the city remained under
Moslem government; the nature of which renders religious
toleration very variable, since it depends on the taste of the
ruler for the time being whether non-Moslems shall be
molested
or not. And in such a city as Jerusalem, the possession
of
which could not fail to be an object of keen desire
to Jews
and Christians, the tendency to fanaticism must
always have
been greater than in any part of the Moslem
world, except
perhaps the sanctuaries of Meccah and
Medinah.
The Moslem conquest tended, therefore, to secure to Jerusalem
sanctity similar to that which it had enjoyed under
Byzantine rule, though to the Moslems it was one of three
sanctuaries, to only one of which, and that not Jerusalem,
pilgrimage was enjoined. When in Umayyad times the
Caliphate gravitated
towards Damascus, Jerusalem ran a
chance of becoming the
central sanctuary, perhaps even the
capital of Islam; but this
prospect was found to be incapable
of realization, and Islam
would scarcely have survived such
a shifting of its religious
centre. If any place in Palestine
could supplant Meccah, it
should rather have been Hebron,
the city of Ibrahim or
Abraham, the mythical founder of
the Islamic or Hanefite
faith. The doctrine of the Koran
connected the sacrifice of
Abraham's son not with Mount
Moriah but with the neighbourhood
of Meccah, where indeed
the Ka'bah was supposed to have been
rebuilt by Abraham
and Ishmael; the heroes of Jerusalem were
persons in the
main respected indeed, but not of primary
importance for
Islam.
In accordance with the territorial division which the Arabs
took over from the Byzantines, Jerusalem was situated in
the Jund [or army] of
Filastin (Palestine), of which the
capital was
Ramlah, in the time of the Caliph
Sulaiman
(715-717) who founded it, and long after; when
Ramlah had
been
destroyed by Saladdin in 1187, Jerusalem inherited the
right
to the title of capital in this province. But the history
of
Syria was chequered, and as the
conquest of the Abbasids
had meant the loss of the metropolis
to that country, it had
a tendency to fall to those usurpers
whose efforts gradually
led to the establishment of a western
Caliphate, to which
Syria regularly belonged. Professor
Palmer observes that
the ravages of the Carmathians in Arabia,
where, in 929,
Meccah itself was pillaged, and the Black Stone
removed, led
to Jerusalem being for a time the chief resort of
Moslem pilgrims,
a circumstance which also tended to cause a
recrudescence
of persecution.
The annals of a cathedral town, especially when it is not
the capital of a province, are unlikely to be exciting;
and
the scantiness of the annals of Jerusalem before the
Frankish
conquest and after it
is easily explicable. Its history is
little more than a record
of damage and repair to the Christian
and the Moslem
sanctuaries. This, as will be seen, is
fairly well recorded,
but the governors of the place were not
sufficiently important
for chronicles of their doings to be
kept. The present
condition of the city, in which the Christian
feasts are the
matter of real importance, which the
Moslems, whose religious
concern they are not, have to
regulate, is likely to reflect
the state of affairs that has been
normal since the Moslem
conquest. The Moslem is a casual
visitor, the Christian a
visitor to be reckoned on. He is not
a welcome guest, but as a
show place lives by its visitors,
it is unwise to discourage
him too much. On the other hand,
a place of pilgrimage loses
something of its attractiveness,
if it be too accessible;
exploits over which no risk is incurred
are of little honour.
So long then as the Christian
pilgrims were only moderately
humiliated and fleeced, Jerusalem
could prosper.
Mr Lestrange, whose Palestine under
the Moslems contains
extracts from Moslem writers
both before and after the Crusaders,
lucidly arranged and
interpreted with reference to
the present topography of
Jerusalem, has drawn attention to
the descriptions of
Jerusalem by Moslems who wrote at the
end of the tenth and in
the middle of the eleventh century
respectively. The first of
these was a native of the place,
whose description is somewhat
coloured by patriotism, and
by the theory of the heavenly
Jerusalem. The second, a Persian
visitor, of excellent repute
as a writer, estimated the
population at twenty thousand, and
fancied that as many
more Moslem pilgrims sometimes came in
the month of
pilgrimage.
Numbers of Christians also came on pilgrimage, and the
Jews had a synagogue which was to them what the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre was to the Christians; the native
writer
of half a century
before declared that these two communities
had all the power.
One can hear similar complaints from
Moslems now in Turkish
cities. Both praise the place for
its cleanliness; which,
however, they rightly attribute to the
geographical position
of the city, and to the mode in which
the streets are laid
out, which permits impurities to be carried
down by the rain.
Of the list of eight gates made in the tenth
century only one,
the Bab al-Amud (called by Europeans the
Damascus Gate) has
preserved its name up to the present
time. The sites of the
remainder are not difficult of identification.
Perhaps some of
these may be on the same sites as gates
mentioned by Nehemiah,
though the variations in the elevation
of the soil renders
this doubtful.
In spite of the assertions of these writers the condition of
the Christians within Jerusalem, as in other places where
Moslems
were in power, was precarious in the highest
degree. They
were in a way hostages for the good behaviour of
their coreligionists
outside; and activity on the part of the
Christian
powers might be avenged on them. Moreover, Islam
was
lacerated by internal wars, and the contributions
which the
different aspirants to power required for the
support of their
armies could more easily and conveniently be
levied on unbelievers
than on believers. The Crusades were
preceded by
armies of pilgrims, large enough to inspire
suspicion, though
not of sufficient size to attempt violence
with much hope of success.
The destruction of the Church of
the Holy Sepulchre
in 1010 by the mad Hakim had aroused some
indignation in
Europe, and the Seljuke rule, which at
Baghdad was accompanied
at first by violent disorders, had put the Christians
of
Palestine in a worse plight than before. The Jews,
whether
truly or not, were supposed to get at the ear of
Moslem
sovereigns, and avenge the ill-treatment of their
brethren in
Europe by falsely accusing the Christians of the
East. Yet all
the wrongs of the branches of the Church subject
to Moslems, and all
the humiliations to which pilgrims
from the West were
subjected, would have produced no effect,
had not one man been
found gifted with the enthusiasm, the
eloquence, and the
energy to transform sentiment into words
and action. The
historians of the Crusades rightly give Peter
the Hermit a
place beside the most powerful movers of human
masses that are
known to fame. That such a man should have
proved but an
indifferent fighter is not surprising; credit
must be given
him for the possession of more organizing
ability than many
mere rousers of enthusiasm have been
able to display.
The movement started by Peter the Hermit led to the
foundation of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, of which lucid
accounts have been given by Conder, Palmer and many
others. On
Friday, July 15, 1099, after a siege of forty days,
Jerusalem
was taken by the forces led by Godfrey of Bouillon,
who
himself was the first to scale the wall. His scaling
tower,
which had been vainly tried on the east of the city,
was
advanced with greater effect on the north side of the
wall,
near the gate called after Herod; and when once the
city had
been entered on this side, the forces of Raymond
of Toulouse
entered without difficulty from the west and
south. The
vanquished Moslems sought refuge partly in the
Haram area, and
partly in the Tower of David. In the former
place a massacre
took place, in which the slain are estimated
by Arabic
writers, accustomed to exaggerate, at
70,000; while the other
refugees appear to have been sent
in safety to Askalon by the
efforts of Count Raymond. The
impression created by the news
in the Moslem world was
vast. An attempt was made at
Baghdad, its centre, to start
a rival crusade for the delivery of the captured city, but
the
time was not yet ripe amid Moslem dissensions for such
an
enterprise.
Godfrey was appointed ruler of the reclaimed city, where
he refused on
religious grounds to bear the title king. He
proceeded to
transform the mosques into what many of them
had been before,
Christian churches, and to arrange on
western lines for the
proper maintenance of these as also of
those churches which
the Christians had under Moslem domination
been allowed to
retain. A patriarch was soon appointed
without reference to
either the local Church or to
the Pope; and a code of laws
gradually drawn up which has
won much admiration, as
displaying a spirit far in advance
of the time to which it
belongs. For military purposes a
modification of the feudal
system of Europe was introduced
in the new kingdom, which was
to include all Palestine,
with certain vassaldoms beyond its
confines.
Among the most remarkable phenomena of the Crusades
was the establishment of the orders at once military and
ecclesiastical of the Templars and the Knights of St John.
The
Templars were lodged in the Aksa Mosque, which at
first was
used as a royal palace; when in 1118 the Order
was founded,
King Baldwin removed to other quarters, and
the knights were
housed in what they called the Temple of
Solomon, to which
they made various additions for religious
and other needs. The
Muristan, now incorporated in the recently
built German
Church, retains the memory of the
Hospice of the Knights of St
John, who there had two
buildings of this nature, one for
males and another for females.
They were not the first
buildings of the sort for the
use of Christians even since
Moslem domination; since the
good relations between
Charlemagne and the famous Harun
al-
Rashid had rendered it possible for the former to
found
a hospice in Jerusalem, and in general obtain
tolerable conditions
for the Christians resident there. A
third Order,
the Teutonic, also had a hospital of St Mary in
Jerusalem,
founded after that of St John's Knights, for
the accommodation
of German pilgrims.
The theory of the Frankish kings appears to have been
to exclude Moslems from Jerusalem, just as non-Moslems
were
excluded from the Arabian sanctuaries. In order to
replenish
the devastated city the second king, Baldwin I,
brought into
it a number of Syrians from villages beyond
Jordan. The needs
of trade appear to have caused the admission
of a certain
number of Jews into the city during
Frankish times, since a
traveller found two hundred Jewish
dyers living under the
Tower of David. The various branches
of the Oriental Church,
Abyssinians, Armenians, Copts,
Georgians and the different
sects of Syrians appear to have
all found representation in
the Frankish city, just as they
find it now.
Whereas at one time it was supposed that the West
owed much of its architecture to the East, the converse
is now
very generally believed. “The monuments,” says
Colonel Conder,
“which the Latins left behind them
attest their mastery in the
art of building. The masonry
was far more truly cut than that
of the Byzantines.
The slender clustered pillars, the bold
sharp relief
of the foliaged capitals, the intricate designs
of cornices
witness their skill as masons and sculptors.”
The
authors of
The Survey
of Western Palestine have made out a
list of
thirty-seven churches known to have existed in Jerusalem
or in
the vicinity of the city walls in the twelfth century.
“Nor,”
they add, “is this all that remains of the
crusading town, for
wherever the explorer walks through
the Holy City he
encounters mediaeval remains. The whole
of the present Meat
Bazaar, adjoining the Hospital of St
John on the east, is
crusading work, representing the old
street of Malcuisinat;
and the walls of the street leading
thence towards the
Damascus Gate, together with a fine
vaulted building on the
east side, are of mediaeval masonry.
The present Tower of
David is the Crusading Castle of the
Pisans, which was
rebuilt as soon as the city was taken by
Goldfrey. The
so-called Kal'at Jalut in the north-west angle
of the present
city is the mediaeval Tancred's Tower.”
The Frankish kingdom of Jerusalem lasted eighty-eight
years, and the throne was occupied during that time by
nine
sovereigns, one of them an infant, and more than one
under the
influence of a woman. Apparently western government
of eastern
states can only be carried on successfully
when the western
invader is not a colonist, but a temporary
occupant, to be
replaced after a time by some one fresh from
the West; the
colonist speedily degenerates and cannot even
cope with the
indigenous inhabitant. Although the State
founded by the
Crusaders was perhaps less disturbed by
wars and dangers than
the ordinary histories of the time
might lead the reader to
believe, and the condition of Moslems
subject to the Frankish
king was not intolerable, the new
kingdom took no root,and it
is agreed by students that the effect
produced by the
Crusaders on Europe was far greater than
anything which they
achieved in Asia. It has been pointed
out that many Arabic
words remain in European languages,
as mementoes of that
enterprise, whereas few, if any, Frankish
words have got into
the vernaculars of
Syria or Egypt in
consequence of the presence of the knights. When once the
differences between the sections of the Islamic world had
been appeased by the great Saladdin, the ejection of the
Franks ceased to be impossible. The final battle, of
Tiberias
or Hattin, fought July 2, 1187, ended with the
army of the
King of Jerusalem being annihilated by Saladdin,
and the
King himself, Guy of Lusignan, falling into the
Moslem
leader's hands. The defeat appears to have been due
to incompetent
leadership on the Christian side, not to
brilliant
generalship on the part of Saladdin. The effect,
however,
was the same. Town after town now fell back into
Moslem
hands, and after a futile attempt at resistance
Jerusalem was
JERUSALEM: THE DOME OF KAIT BEY,
HARAM-ES-SHEREEF.
given back by
capitulation to Saladdin on October 2 of the
same year. Few
events in the history of Islam are more
honourable than
Saladdin's entry into Jerusalem without massacre
and without
pillage. According to the Mohammedan historian
of Jerusalem
the number of the inhabitants at the time
was 100,000, from
whom ransom was demanded at the rate
often dinars per man,
five per woman and one per child.
Guards were stationed at the
gates, and only those who paid
their ransom allowed to go out.
Yet several managed to
climb down the walls, and many were
released on one pretext
or another, the Sultan being
kind-hearted.
The recovery of Jerusalem by the Moslem Sultan counted
in the East as no less an exploit than its conquest had
counted in the West, and pilgrimages to Jerusalem
commenced
from all Islamic countries. The Frankish
residents
sold their goods for whatever they would fetch,
being anxious
to quit a Moslem city; and it was suggested to
the Sultan
to seize the gold and silver in the churches, as
not
having been included by the capitulation, but he,
anxious
for the fair fame of Islam in Europe, refused to
profit by this
suggestion. Owing to the crusade for the second
recovery of
Jerusalem in which the English king, Richard I,
played so
noteworthy a part, Saladdin deemed it advisable to
strengthen
the fortifications of the city, and for that
purpose came
and took up his abode in the hospital near the
Church of the
Holy Sepulchre, now called Muristan. Artisans
were sent
for from Mosul, with whom 2,000 Christian prisoners
were
compelled to work; a series of towers was constructed
from
the Jaffa to the Damascus Gate, a trench being at the
same
time excavated in the rock, whence the stones were
used in
erecting the towers. The Sultan himself set the
example of
carrying stones on his saddle, and the whole Moslem
population,
including ecclesiastical and military
dignitaries,
helped in the work. In this way operations
that might have
taken, we are told,
many years were accomplished very quickly.
The English forces
did not actually besiege Jerusalem on this
occasion, as a
treaty was made between Richard and Saladdin,
securing certain
advantages for the Christians in
the holy city. Whence its
great number of Moslem inhabitants
had come we are not told;
but probably the state of
war caused many to be homeless, and
of the Moslem pilgrims
attracted by the recovery of the place
many may have been
induced to remain by the favourable
conditions on which
property could be purchased; and the
colleges of
Baghdad
must have been turning out numerous jurists and theologians
anxious to be placed. A certain number of Christians, we are
told, asked and obtained leave to continue residing in the
city on the terms granted by Moslem rulers to tolerated cults.
The work of Saladdin was not to remain undisturbed. In
1219, when
Damietta
was being besieged by the Franks, Isa,
called al-Muazzam, who
had inherited
Syria from his father
al-Adil, fearing that Jerusalem might again be taken by
the
Christians, sent a party of masons and sappers to
destroy it.
This measure was followed by a general stampede of
the inhabitants,
who disposed of their property at ruinous
prices.
The people who remained assembled in solemn
supplication
at the two great sanctuaries on the Temple
area, where this
sovereign had himself carried out many works
of decoration,
besides founding schools for the study of law
and grammar
in the vicinity. Doubtless the idea of this prince
was the humane
and advanced one that the only way to avoid
disputes between
the two religions was to render the city
common property, each
sect having free access to its own
sanctuary—a condition which
would be rendered impossible by
the presence of walls and
fortresses, which must necessarily
be in the possession of one
party, only too likely to
tyrannize over the other. The prince
should have lived either
much earlier or much later for his
views to be practical.
Some authorities go so far as to assert that his workmen
reduced the whole city to a heap of ruins with the
exception
of the great Christian and Moslem sanctuaries
and the Tower
of David. The demolition of these walls shortly
afterwards
caused the failure of negotiations for the
restoration of Jerusalem
to the Franks, as an indemnity was
demanded which
the Egyptian Sultan refused to pay. In 1229
owing to the
quarrels between the representatives of the
Ayyubid family
the Emperor Frederic II succeeded in obtaining
the ruined
city from the Egyptian Sultan, on condition that
the walls
should not be rebuilt, and that there should be no
interference
with the sanctuaries on the Temple area.
These terms naturally
gave little satisfaction to either of
the contending religions.
For eleven years the Franks held the
city under them,
when al-Nasir, prince of Kerak, on the
pretence that the
conditions under which the sacred city was
held were being
violated by its fortification, attacked the
place, and levelled
to the ground the Tower of David which
al-Muazzam had
spared. But four years afterwards (1243) on the
arrival of the
Duke of Cornwall, brother of Henry III, with a
company of
English Crusaders the former treaty was renewed,
the Prince
of Kerak who was in possession finding it desirable
to obtain
the aid of the Franks for purposes of his own. It
was not,
however, to remain long in European hands. The next
year
the Egyptian Sultan obtained the help of the subjects
of the
Khwarizm-Shah, driven from their country by the
Mongol
hordes, and 20,000 of these appeared before
Jerusalem, whose
defences had only begun to rise after their
complete demolition.
The Khwarizmians, whom history represents
as little
less savage than the Mongols, swept away the
Christian
population, beheaded the priests ministering at
the altar in
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and wrought
great havoc
in that edifice; the graves of the kings there
buried were
opened and their ashes scattered, and other
churches in and
about the city were
desecrated or demolished. Since the year
1244 Jerusalem has
remained in Moslem hands.
With other possessions of the Ayyubids, Jerusalem was
handed on to the Mamluke dynasties, whence it came into
possession of the Turks. The attitude adopted by these
dynasties towards Jews and Christians was ordinarily tolerant,
and both Jews and Melchite Christians undoubtedly
received
better treatment under their rule than under that
of the
Franks. At no time since the abandonment of the
Crusades has
the City of David been the focus of public attention
in both
East and West as it was when Europe and
Asia were contending
for its possession. It sinks into provincial
mediocrity, and
is entirely overshadowed by
Cairo or Constantinople, the capital whence it derives its
ruler.
Even its special historians have little to say
about it from
this time. To the imperial historians it is
chiefly of interest
as a place of exile or retirement of
eminent men who commemorate
their residence there by some
benefaction. The
ruined fortifications appear to have lain in
heaps till the
time of the Ottoman Sultan Sulaiman, the
builder of the
existing walls which bear date 1542. To the
Christians the
chief interest of the place lay in the Church
of the Holy
Sepulchre; to the Moslems in the Temple area. For
these two
sanctuaries Jerusalem might be said to exist.
In order to be true to the title of this book, a little should
be said about the work done by the Mamluke Sultans for the
decoration of the city. Baibars I, who built a mosque over
the supposed Tomb of Moses, is said to have instituted the
festival in honour of the “Prophet Moses,” which to this
day serves as a sort of counterpoise to the Greek Easter.
He
renewed “the stonework which is above the marble “of
the
Dome of the Rock. Outside the city on the north-west
he
built in the year 1264 a Khan or Hospice, which he
adorned
with a door taken from the Fatimide palace in
Cairo, and
THE GATE OF THE COTTON MERCHANTS, JERUSALEM.
TOWER ANTONIA, JERUSALEM
SOUTH PORCH OF MOSQUE AND SUMMER PULPIT,
JERUSALEM
on which he settled
the revenues of several villages in the
neighbourhood of
Damascus. The building contained a mill
and a bakehouse, as
well as a mosque. Its purpose was to
harbour visitors (perhaps
belated visitors) to the city, and an
arrangement was made for
the distribution of bread at the
door. In Mujir al-din's time
the revenues had already been
sequestrated, and no more bread
was handed out. Baibars
also repaired the Dome of the Chain.
The Sultan Ketbogha is credited with having done some
repairs to the stonework of the Dome of the Rock, and
having rebuilt the wall of the Temple area which overlooks
the
cemetery of the Bab al-Rahmah in the year 1299. His
successor
Lajin renewed the mihrab of David in the southern
wall near
the Cradle of Jesus.
The great builder Mohammed al-Nasir naturally left some
memorials of his taste in Jerusalem. He faced the front of
the Aksa Mosque with marble, and opened in it two windows
which are to the right and left of the mihrab. This was
done
in the year 1330-1331. He had the domes of the two
chief
edifices regilt, so well, says Mujir al-din, that,
though in his
time 180 years had passed since the operation,
the work still
looked brand-new. He rebuilt the Gate of the
Cotton-merchants
in very elaborate style.
The Sultan Sha'ban, grandson of Nasir, built the minaret
near the Gate of the Tribes in the year 1367. He renewed
the wooden doors of the Aksa Mosque, and the arches over
the western stairs in the Court of the Dome, opposite to
the
Bab al-Nazir, nine years later. The next year the
Franciscans
on Mount Sion were massacred by this
Sultan's
order.
The great Sultan Barkuk built the Mueddin's bench opposite
the mihrab in the Dome of the Rock, and repaired the
Sultan's Pool outside Jerusalem on the west. The author
quoted remarks that it had gone to ruin and was useless in
his day. In 1394 a
governor named Shihab al-din al-Yaghmuri,
appointed by Barkuk,
placed on the western
door of the Dome a marble slab
containing a declaration
that various imposts instituted by
former governors had
been remitted.
The following Sultan Faraj placed on the wall of the Bab
al-
Silsilah a slab
declaring that in future the Sultan's representative
at Meccah
and Medinah must be a different person
from the governor of
Jerusalem, which was to form an
administrative unit with
Hebron. The effect of this edict was
quite temporary.
The Sultan Jakmak on the occasion of his turning the
Christians out of the Tomb of David in the year 1452 instituted
a severe inquisition into the monasteries of Palestine,
and, in consequence of this, damage was done to the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre and other Christian edifices. New
constructions raised by the Franciscans in the Monastery
of Mount Sion were demolished, and a chapel erected by
them near their cloister was in 1491 destroyed by order of
Kaietbai.
We may now condense the history of the two chief sites.
The Temple area, containing the Dome of the Rock and
the Furthest Mosque, counts, as we have seen, as one of
the three great sanctuaries of Islam. On the Israelitish
temples that once stood there much has been written, and
ingenious reconstructions of them are exhibited by the
heirs
of the late Dr Shick; it does not come within our
scope to
do more than allude to them. When Jerusalem was
taken
by the Moslems, the church erected by Justinian was
on
part of the area; and a late writer who narrates the
erection
of the Moslem temple, states that Omar prayed in
this
building. For the rest the account reproduced by E.
H.
Palmer of the founding of the Furthest Mosque has
been
shown by Mr Lestrange to be apocryphal. It belongs to
a
period after the
recovery of Jerusalem from the Franks,
when the Arabs produced
many an historical romance, and
the exploits of the early
heroes of Islam were adorned with
divers fabulous details.
According to these works Omar,
coming to the Sacred City to
receive the capitulation of the
Patriarch, demands to be shown
the Furthest Sanctuary.
He is taken to the Church of the
Resurrection, but tells his
guide that he lies; he is then
conducted to another church,
and again refuses to be cajoled;
finally, he is brought to the
Temple area, which, from
Christian spite against the Jews,
is covered so thickly with
refuse that it can scarcely be approached.
The Caliph proceeds
in great humility to clear
away the refuse with his cloak, and
his followers aid him.
Even when this work of purification has
been performed, the
area has to be three times cleansed by
rain from heaven
before prayer on it is permitted. Apparently
this story is in
the main an etymological myth, to account for
the name
Kumamah (sweepings) applied by Moslems not to the
Temple
area, but to the Church of the Resurrection
(Kiyamah). The
connexion of Omar's name with the Dome of the
Rock is
probably due to the tradition of his clearing the
site. A
curious description of a building by him above the
Rock
has been preserved by Adamnan, Abbot of St Columba,
as
related to him by a French pilgrim, Bishop Arculphus.
He
states that the Mosque of the Saracens was a square
building,
put together of planks and beams yet large
enough to
contain 3,000 worshippers.
The building by Omar of a Mosque in Jerusalem is, however,
not recorded by early Arabic historians, though Mr
Lestrange has discovered an allusion to it in the
Byzantine
chronicler Theophanes. Of that which now bears
his name
the Arabic geographers appear to take no notice; it
is a
meagre building, probably meant to commemorate a site
on which the Caliph said his prayers, he having
magnanimously,
according to the
legend, refused to do this in the
Church of the Holy
Sepulchre, for fear this might afterwards
give the Moslems a
title to the place; a story which implies
that Omar possessed
a remarkable power of projecting himself
into the future. That
the Moslems who took Jerusalem
did not seize the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre is doubtless
due to the fact that this site
could have no interest for them,
since their system denies
both the death and resurrection of
the Christian Saviour; the
very name Holy Sepulchre involves
according to them mendacity
almost comparable to
that of the Cretans. The Temple area
contains two sacred
buildings of primary importance, the Dome
of the Rock
which is in the centre, and the Furthest Mosque.
Both are
ascribed to the Caliph Abd al-Malik, who reigned
from
685-705, and who had a political reason for
endeavouring to
make Jerusalem once more supersede Meccah as
the great
place of pilgrimage. Belonging to the Umayyad
dynasty,
which, though descended from the most stubborn of
the
Prophet's opponents, had, through the ability of
Mu'awiyah,
the first Umayyad Caliph, not only usurped the
Prophet's
throne, but made it an hereditary possession, he
had the same
reasons as Jeroboam of old for wishing to divert
the stream
of pilgrimage from the place where both objects and
persons
would remind the visitors that their sovereign was
seated
on a throne to which others had a better claim. The
worship
of a stone was held by the ancients to be the main
article
of Arabian religion, and to this sentiment
Mohammed had
to give way, though Omar was notoriously
reluctant to retain
the ceremony of kissing the Black Stone,
which was
the nucleus of the Meccan Ka'bah, the surrounding
sanctuary,
and of Islam. Abd al-Malik, like most of the
Umayyads,
considering religion as of political value only,
fancied he
could satisfy his co-religionists if he provided
them with a
stone and a sanctuary round it, and appears
deliberately to
DOME OF THE ROCK FROM THE MOSQUE OF EL AKSA,
JERUSALEM.
have started the cult
of the Rock round which he in the
year 691 built the Dome
which was to correspond with the
Ka'bah, ordaining at the same
time a ceremony similar to
the time-honoured circuit round the
Meccan shrine. Like
Jeroboam he went so far as to forbid the
pilgrimage prescribed
in the Koran, and substitute his own for
it. The
second founder of the Abbasid line of Caliphs, whose
capital
Baghdad became world-famous, made a
similar endeavour,
and for the same reason; the fear that a
visit to Meccah
might turn Moslems into partisans of the
Prophet's descendants.
But even in the year 691 the ordinances
of Islam were
too deeply rooted to permit of so tremendous an
innovation;
and later writers, regarding even the attempt
as inconsistent
with ordinary prudence, suppose the sagacious
Caliph's
purpose to have been to counteract the effect
produced on
men's minds by the magnificence of Christian
churches
existing at the time at Jerusalem and elsewhere.
It should be observed that some eminent authorities identify
the Dome of the Rock with Justinian's Church of S. Sophia,
and it has even been suggested that the Rock is itself one
of the sites regarded as Golgotha. This opinion has,
however,
few supporters.
With regard to the Stone it appears that nothing is known
of it prior to the statement of the Bordeaux Pilgrim, who
visited Jerusalem A.D. 333, and asserts that near the two
equestrian statues of the Emperor Hadrian still standing
on
the Temple Area there was a pierced stone which it was
the
custom of the Jews to anoint with oil once in the
year, when
they wailed and tore their garments, after which
ceremonies
they retired. The process of pouring oil on
stones belongs to
the pre-Mosaic religion of the patriarchs;
it has no countenance
in the law of Moses. We find, however,
that according
to the Moslem tradition the anointing of the
stone
was ordered by the Umayyad Abd al-Malik, and
continued
till his dynasty
closed. It would seem, then, that what the
Dome of the Rock
restored was not a Mosaic cult, but one
which belongs to a
different stratum of the Israelitish religion,
which somehow
was continued, probably in secret,
during the domination of
Judaism, and after the destruction
of the Temple was revived.
The ordinary theory identifies the
rock with the site of the
altar of burnt sacrifice, whence the
blood is supposed to have
been conveyed into a chamber
below the rock, whence it was
drained into the Kedron. Other
suggestions have been made by
eminent explorers.
The name of Abd al-Malik lies concealed in the inscription
above the cornice of the octagonal colonnade which
supports the Dome. For Abd al-Malik the name of Mamun,
who reigned from 813 to 833 has been substituted, the
alteration being still noticeable in the crowding of the
letters,
and the different tint of the tiles. The person,
who made
this alteration forbore to alter the date also,
whence Mamun
is said to build this Dome in the year 691 [72
A.H.], nearly
a century before his birth. From M. van
Berchem's Corpus of
Cairene inscriptions we have already had
examples of this
mode of alteration, which reminds us of the
treatment by ancient
compilers of the documents which they
embodied in their
books, resulting in contradictory statements
being left side by
side. M. van Berchem thinks that the bronze
plates above
the northern and eastern doors belong to the
period of Abd
al-Malik, but in these cases both names and
dates have been
altered, the latter to the year 216 A.H. [831
A.D.]
The quotations of Mr Lestrange show that the shape and
appearance of the Dome have varied very slightly since its
foundation by Abd al-Malik, though during the period that
has elapsed it has frequently suffered from earthquake,
and
the episode of the occupation of Jerusalem by the
Franks
might have been expected to leave a permanent mark
upon
it. The chief effect of the Frankish possession would
seem to
HARAM ES SHEREEF, JERUSALEM
DOME OF THE ROCK, INTERIOR
be found in the
chipping away of pieces of the Rock to be
taken to Europe as
relics; the priests in charge of the Rock
being amply paid for
these fragments. This abuse is said to
have led to its being
paved over as a precaution; Saladdin
ordered the pavement to
be removed, the Moslem theory of
sacred objects being
different from the Christian. The accounts
given by different
visitors vary somewhat as to the number
of columns, but in
most matters are in striking agreement
with the present
condition of the edifice. Abd el-Malik undoubtedly
employed
Byzantine artists for his building, and
to them is due the
extremely rich mosaics which cover the
arcades above the
columns, form a wide border round the
dome and fill the spaces
between the windows. The cubes are
not only of glass coloured
and gilt, but of ebony and mother-of-pearl,
which latter
material gives a lovely translucent effect
in the dim light
beneath the dome. The designs are chiefly
large vases and
crowns whence wreaths and garlands depend.
Other sovereigns who have left inscriptions in the Dome,
commemorating work done by them in restoring or
beautifying
it, are the Fatimide Caliph Zahir (1022 A.D.),
who rebuilt it after
it had fallen in, in consequence of the
earthquake of the year
1016; Saladdin (1187), who renewed the
gilding; the great
Cairene builder, Nasir son of Kala'un (1318
and 1319) and
the Ottoman Sultan Mahmud II; the last repaired
the Dome
in the first third of the nineteenth century, but the
inscription
which records what he did is imperfect. Of the
restoration
by Sulaiman the Magnificent (1520-1566) there
is no commemorative
inscription.
Yet much of the special beauty of the mosque is due to him;
it was he who restored the cupola and altered its windows,
the arches of which are slightly pointed, while the older
and
wider arches beneath are round; he filled them with
coloured
glass in an elaborate setting of small patterns,
so that the light
filters through with rich effect. He
substituted Persian tiles on
the upper parts of the
outer façade for El-Walid's mosaics: for
this he probably
imported Persian potters, as his predecessors
had mosaic
workers. On the broad border round the building
a broken
colour effect is obtained by the juxtaposition of
enamelled
bricks of very varied shades, chiefly blues, from turquoise
to
full and dark tints relieved with pale and rich
greens, while
the bricks of the archivolts are glazed on
their outer
surfaces with blue and white alternately. The
pilasters
between the windows are chiefly of a golden brown.
These,
however, seem to have suffered more from restoration
than
other parts. And there must be frequent occasion for
restoration. We saw workmen without ladders attempting
to
remove weeds growing far above them with a long pole
pointed
with metal; this while ineffective against plants, as
it could
at most cut off their leaves, scratched the enamel
and
occasionally knocked out a tile. Several bays have lost
their
marble casing and are temporarily covered with a
plastering
like mud, till Yildiz Kiosk allows the replacing of
the slabs,
which are, we were assured, ready to hand.
The other great building which occupies part of the Temple
area, the Aksa or Furthest Mosque, was probably built at
the same time as the Dome of the Rock or rather
transformed
into a mosque from the remains of
Justinian's
Church; but there appears to be no authentic
account of its
origin. The later romancers state that in Abd
al-Malik's time
the gates were covered with plates of gold and
silver, which
were stripped off and turned into money by order
of the
Abbasid Mansur, who utilized the sum so obtained for
restoring
the Mosque after the ravages of an
earthquake,
which had wrecked it shortly before the fall
of the Umayyad
dynasty. Another earthquake brought the
building down
after this restoration, and the Caliph Mahdi
(775-785 A.D.)
had it rebuilt, but with the proportions
somewhat altered;
for supposing that the weakness of the
edifice had been occasioned
by excessive length
and deficient breadth, he made
the new building shorter but
broader than the old. It has
been shown that these Caliphs did
actually visit Jerusalem,
whence there is no inherent
improbability in the romancers’
statements with regard to the
successive restorations, though
the story of the gold and
silver plates is probably apocryphal.
According to a
geographer of the tenth century, in the
restoration effected
by Mahdi, the rebuilding of the several
colonnades was
assigned by the Caliph to various governors,
but a portion of
the ancient edifice and that supported on
marble columns,
remained embedded in the new. A marble
colonnade on the north
side had been added in the first half
of the ninth century by
the governor of Khorasan.
The account of the building given by the historian of Jerusalem
at the end of the fifteenth century agrees very closely
with its present condition, but those historians who
described
it before the times of the Crusaders appear to
have
seen a much more magnificent edifice, double the
width of
the present Mosque, with 280 pillars supporting the
roof, and
fifteen aisles. The Mosque has now seven aisles
only. The
dimensions, according to the eleventh-century
traveller, were
420 by 150 cubits, the former a wholly
impossible figure, for
which Mr Lestrange reads 120, making
the width greater
than the length. Another English writer
supposes the Mosque
to have suffered in the taking of
Jerusalem by the Crusaders,
and accounts for its reduced
dimensions (230 feet by 170) by
the work of the Franks, who,
however, are supposed to have
added rather than to have taken
away, and whose work was
removed without much difficulty, it
would seem, by Saladdin.
In the case of a building at
Jerusalem the chance of exaggeration
cannot be eliminated,
whence it seems doubtful whether
there is any necessity for
the hypothesis to which reference
has been made.
The small Dome of the Chain, which is a few paces east of
the Dome of the Rock,
is supported on seventeen pillars,
without any enclosing wall,
except on the kiblah side.
Moslem writers have fabulous
accounts of the reason why a
chain was suspended from this
dome, which in Frankish days
is said to have been called the
Chapel of St James the Less.
MrLestrange has, in this case,
too, the merit of having refuted
certain fictions that have
got into European works from a
late Arabic historian of
Jerusalem, with reference to the
origin of this building,
which may be as old as the Dome of
the Rock. A dome should
serve to shelter something, probably
an image, and the fact of
this dome being open all
round is evidence that its original
purpose must have been
something of the kind.
Another of the many isolated buildings is a little
scbil or
drinking fountain built in
1445 by Kaietbai, of whose palace
in
Cairo we have an illustration and who has left traces
at
Damascus also of his love of building. This fountain
is
thoroughly Egyptian in style, and bears considerable
resemblance
to Kaietbai's tomb, especially in the shape
of
the cupola, its ornamentation of arabesques and its
metal
finial.
Of the other domes and sanctuaries included in the Temple
area the existence is certified at different times before
the
Crusades, but there would appear to have been some
variation
both in their names and location. The same is
true of
the eleven gates of the area.
We have seen that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre goes
back to the time of Constantine, who enclosed the three
sites of importance within a single building. After the
destruction
of the church by Chosroes three, or according
to
some authorities four, separate churches were erected
in the
same area. In 1010 the church was again destroyed by
order
of the Fatimide Caliph Hakim; various accounts are
given
of the motive or occasion for this arbitrary
proceeding, and,
DAMASCUS FROM SALAHIYEH: SUNSET OVER THE CITY.
SUMMER PULPIT, HARAM AREA
as might be expected,
the Jews are supposed to have had
a hand in it. In the case of
this particular despot it is unnecessary
to search for either.
Rebuilding is said to have
commenced shortly afterwards, but
it would appear that
serious operations did not begin till
1037, after lengthy negotiations
between the Byzantine
Emperors and the Egyptian
Caliphs; the church, in the
condition in which it was
found by the Crusaders, was finished
by the year 1048, chiefly
at the expense of Constantine
Monomachus, who sent Byzantine
architects for the purpose. The
cave of the sepulchre
was surmounted by a circular church,
while detached chapels
were erected over the other sites,
which were now, owing to
the accumulation of legends, more
numerous than they had
been in the time of Constantine or
Heraclius. The Franks
enlarged the Rotunda, which covered the
sepulchre, by the
addition of the choir, from the south-east
of which walls
were built so as to include the Calvary chapel,
while on the
east the choir was connected through the Chapel
of St Helena
with the Chapel of the Invention of the Cross.
During
the Frankish period the Church was, of course, in
the possession
of the Latins, whereas after the conquest of
the city
by Saladdin the Greeks resumed possession; certain
rights
were afterwards purchased for the Latins in 1305,
and in
1342 they obtained possession of the Chapel of the
Apparition.
Of the damage done to the church by the
Khwarizmians
when the city was finally restored to the
Moslems
mention has already been made, and at some time
all
entrances were closed except one in order to save
Moslems
trouble in the collection of admission fees from
pilgrims.
In 1502 Peter Martyr was sent by Ferdinand of
Aragon to
negotiate a treaty for the defence of pilgrims and
the maintenance
of the sanctuaries. In 1598 the Pasha of
Damascus
wished to turn the church into a mosque, but was
induced
to desist by the representations of French and
Venetian
envoys. These dates
are given by Sepp, who has also gone
more fully than other
writers into the history of the Latin
orders established in
Palestine, and the martyrdoms endured
by over-enthusiastic
preachers to Moslems, till orders
were issued from Rome,
forbidding such endeavours. In
1808 a conflagration occurred
which did considerable damage,
but this had been repaired by
September 11, 1810,
at a cost of 4,000,000 of roubles. To one
who has witnessed
the ceremony of the appearance of the Sacred
Fire it is
marvellous that such conflagrations are not more
frequent.
Modern Jerusalem is the product of a variety of forces
which had free play in the nineteenth century, religious
revivals in England and America, archaeological enthusiasm
in the same countries, and political ambitions on the part
of various European nations concerned with the nearer
East. To these there has been added in quite recent times
the force of Zionism, the programme of those who regard a
return to Palestine as the natural solution of the problem
raised by anti-Semitism in the countries where there are
the largest Jewish congregations. The relations between
the
Ottoman Empire and the European powers being so
very
different from what they were when Europe was in
disorder,
Jerusalem has by these various forces been
transformed into
a centre for religious and philanthropic
effort, unconnected
to a great extent with either of the
sanctuaries which formerly
constituted its chief attraction.
Curiosity attracts
nearly as many visitors as are drawn by
devotion, and the
ease with which pilgrimage can be
accomplished detracts
somewhat from its merit. While the
Christian and Jewish
quarters are constantly expanding, the
latter indeed at an
enormous rate, the Moslem population shows
no sign of
increase, and its members, while not unaffected by
European
philanthropy, appear ordinarily incapable of
emulating
Western enterprise. Those who, like the Khalidi
family,
do so, are happily
adopting the conception of unsectarian
philanthropy, which the
new and bloodless invasion from
Europe has brought. The
enthusiasm which characterized
the descriptions of those who
arrived there at the cost of
vast sacrifices is wanting in the
memoirs of the traveller who
is conveyed thither comfortably
by steam; yet it is probable
that in population and in the
beauty of its buildings modern
Jerusalem would compare
favourably with the Jerusalem of
any earlier period. Certainly
at no time have life and property
been so safe, or the
relations between the different
elements of the population so
satisfactory. The number of
tongues spoken by its inhabitants
and its visitors, great
even in the time of the Apostles, is
now phenomenal, being
variously estimated at from twenty-five
to forty. But the
dangers which used at one time to attend a
great influx of
strangers are now almost forgotten, and the
most crowded
solemnities pass off with little or no disorder.
Should the
present tendencies meet with no unexpected check,
the city
may long maintain the position of an international
sanctuary,
common to the chief religions of the world.
[Back to top]
CHAPTER XII
The Praises of Damascus
THE enthusiastic language of Moslem writers
about
the beauties of Damascus, which they regard as an
earthly Paradise, may seem to western visitors exaggerated
and true of it only at an age long past, if ever.
And, indeed, there are few show buildings left where once
there were many. The great Umayyad Mosque, much of it
brand new, is the one important edifice, whither the
sightseer
hastens; there are besides one or two
show-houses,
gorgeous rather than beautiful; and the
Bazaars, still illustrative
of Oriental manners, are probably
roofed with European
materials, and largely stocked with
European goods.
The beauty of the place lies rather in its
natural than
its artificial endowments. Its situation is
indeed neither
wild nor grand; but the contrast between its
luxurious
vegetation with its copious waters, and the arid
region which
often lies between it and the traveller's
starting-point
or destination, connects it in the mind
with eastern conceptions
of Paradise, literally a garden, and
never represented
without trees and running water. A fountain
enlivens the
courtyard of every house: to him who looks down
upon the
city from Mount Kasion the minarets and
castle-battlements
appear to rise out of an orchard; peace
seems to reign within
its walls, and plenteousness within its
palaces. To the
south-west the snow of Mount Hermon lends a
touch of Alpine
beauty to the scene. The mountains which
surround it
on three sides are no more than a background to
the picture,
viewed from the east; they are a natural finish
to the landscape,
not a bulwark of defence.
WALLS OF THE CITY AND BARADA RIVER, DAMASCUS
Probably the eastern admiration for Damascus was in
part at least influenced by certain material comforts, chiefly
its abundant fruit, and in ordinary circumstances the cheapness
of living, which even a system of railways with Damascus
for terminus has not yet seriously changed. Another
beauty of
a more artificial sort lay in the goods manufactured
there by
craftsmen who inherited their skill and transmitted
it to
their descendants, till foreign conquerors withdrew
them from
the place, hoping to transplant their crafts.
Such was the
manufacture of damask, and equally famous
that of Damascene
blades.
A Damascene writer of the ninth or tenth century of Islam,
translated by M. Sauvaire, makes out a list of the
beauties of his native city, some of which still exist,
while
others are in ruins or have disappeared. The list is
heterogeneous,
as it deals with single buildings, villages
and
flowers. The last include “the many-flowering
eglantine,
trained over arbours like the vine”; narcissus,
violets—this
flower gives its name to a neighbouring
valley—jessamine,
lily, lilac, ox-eye, cyclamen, myrtle,
anemone,
water-lily, Egyptian sallow, and one called “Stop
and
look!”
Among buildings he assigns the first place to the Citadel,
which has long been a shell; from a distance it still
looks
formidable, but the interior is in ruins. In the
tenth century
of Islam it was still a hive of activity,
containing a bath, a
mill, various shops, a mint, a mosque
and, of course, the
governor's palace. The canal called Banyas
passed through
the Citadel, and divided into two streams, one
for drinking
purposes, parted afresh into a number of rills,
while the other
served as a drain, and went some twelve feet
underground
to issue at the Little Gate, whence it was
turned towards
farms. The round tower of the Citadel, “which
might have
been cast in a mould of wax,” was thought to have
no rival
in the world. At one
time—probably during the Mamluke
period only—the Citadel
possessed a great council-chamber
whose walls and ceilings
were covered with the richest arabesques,
and inscribed with
texts of the Koran written in
gold-leaf. Its foundation is
ascribed to Atsiz, the contemporary
of
Badr al-Jamali, who for a time got possession of the
chief Syrian cities; but it was rebuilt by Nur al-din, in
whose
time the eastern peoples had learned something about
fortresses
from the Crusaders. Further improvements
were
made by the Egyptian Sultan Adil, who ordered each
member
of his family to build a tower, and whose name
remains
in an inscription of the north-east tower. The
towers were
stripped of their roofs and the walls of their
battlements
by Hulagu's Mongols; these were restored by
the Sultan
Baibars, whose services are recorded in several
inscriptions.
Great damage was done when Timur-Lenk
besieged and
took the city; a trench was dug round the round
tower, and
wood piled against it and fired. The ruinous
condition of
the whole edifice apparently dates from the time
of the disbanding
of the Janissaries at the beginning of the
nineteenth
century.
In Mamluke times the governor's palace was within the
Citadel, once three stories high. The present palace, or Serai,
is said to occupy the site of one built by the Sultan Nur
aldin,
called “House of Justice.” The modern building
dates
from the time of Ibrahim Pasha, who effected many
changes
in Damascus. A famous palace in Damascus called
the Particoloured
Castle was the model for similar buildings
elsewhere;
it dated from the time of the Sultan Baibars,
and
was located in the Meidan.
Below the Citadel, i.e., on the east side, there was a square
somewhat similar to the Rumailah Place below the Cairene
Citadel. This counted as one of the beauties of Damascus,
being surrounded by palaces, and supplied with all that
THE HAMAREH, DAMASCUS.
could delight the ear
or charm the eye. Shops stocked with
all kinds of goods were
established there. It was a pleasure
resort of the people of
the city at evening time, till a double
beat on the drums
within the Citadel reminded them that
the second watch of
night had begun, and they cleared
away to their homes.
The Citadel was joined at either side by the Walls, which,
where they still exist, display, as has often been
remarked,
traces of three styles of building—Roman, Arab
and Turkish.
Inscriptions on the towers forming part of the
wall record
the names of Nur al-din, who is credited by the
historians
with having rebuilt the walls, and the Ayyubid
Salih. The
height is from fifteen to twenty feet. The Moslems
have a
tradition that when the place was taken there were
seven
gates, called like the weekdays after the seven
planets; and
the gates, they assert, were surmounted by images
of the
deities corresponding with those planets—probably
they
mean before Christian times. If there be any truth in
this
tradition, the names must have all been altered, for
the
modern names can be traced back to an early period of
the
Moslem occupation with only a few variations. Two
new
gates, called Faraj and Salamah, in the style of the
gates of
Cairo—these words meaning “Safety” and
“Deliverance”—are
said to have been added by the Ayyubids.
Another
gate that once existed was called Bab al-Imarah,
from the
new quarter to which it led.
The waters of Damascus naturally take their place among
its beauties, and of the pride of the inhabitants in their
rivers
we have a trace in the Old Testament story of
Naaman, who
felt personally wounded at the suggestion that the
Israelitish
Jordan could possess properties not to be
found in the
waters of Damascus. In these days the Damascenes
are said
to attribute to their waters the actual property
required by
the Syrian Captain, viz. that of curing leprosy,
or at least
preventing it
spreading. This belief must go back in some
way to the story
of Naaman. From an early time there has
existed an elaborate
system of canals, by which the water
of the Barada has been
made to irrigate a large area. Within
the city the water is
conducted in underground tubes from
which every house gets its
supply. In von Kremer's time
leaks in the tubes were repaired
by putting refuse into the
water, which eventually stopped
them; but this process naturally
was insanitary. Modern and
ancient writers agree as
to the names of six canals drawn off
the main river before
it enters Damascus and flowing at
different levels. The channels
for these are largely excavated
in the rock, and are
thought to be at least partly
pre-Islamic. The most northerly
of these, which bears the name
Yazid, is said to have
been dug by the Caliph of that name,
who reigned from 680
to 683. Further operations, with a view
to irrigation, are
said to have been executed by the Umayyad
Caliphs Sulaiman
and Hisham, but the account of them is not
quite easy
to understand. Apparently they consisted in making
arrangements
whereby the amount of water to flow in
each
channel could be exactly regulated. Besides the water
supplied
by the Barada, there were supposed to be 360
springs
between the Bab Salamah and the Bab
Tuma to the northwest
of
the city, all flowing southwards. The number is one
used by
Arabic writers to denote an indefinite quantity,
one for each
day in the year.
Two places are mentioned by a writer on the Beauties of
Damascus, in which the water furnished the chief
attraction.
One of these was called the Place Between the
Two
Rivers, to the east of the city, where the Barada
parted
into two channels, of which one bore the name of
the saintly
Shaikh Arslan. It was used as a place of public
entertainment,
and the names of the dealers in different
kinds of
refreshments who had stalls there exhibit wonderful
specialization.
That the religious
needs of the visitors might be
gratified also, there was a
chapel where special rites were
performed on Tuesdays and
Saturdays; some of these ceremonies,
probably forms of dance,
were of a sort calculated
to daze those who witnessed them.
Another place of public
resort was “The Parting of the
Streams,” said to be where
the seven canals divided, but this
can scarcely be correct.
The pools and cascades formed by one
of these canals were,
we are told, and may well believe it, “a
spectacle which
banished care and made sorrow fly away.”
The southerly canal, called Kanawat, was made with the
view of supplying the city with drinking water, which is
abundant and good. But as all advantages have some
corresponding
drawback, the wealth of water with which
Damascus
is blessed is probably the reason why fever
prevails
there as much as in any city of
Syria. On the other hand,
those who had to defend the place against besiegers could
at
times utilize the waters for rendering approach difficult,
and
the Barada itself saved the necessity of building many
towers
to strengthen the wall before which it flows.
The classical writers say little or nothing of the buildings
of Damascus, yet there is evidence that the city contained
some fine monuments when the Arabs took it, and we hear
of two palaces near the site of the Umayyad Mosque. With
the Street called Straight, famous from the allusion to it
in
the Acts of the Apostles, it is usual to identify the
great
thoroughfare bisecting the city from the western
gate, called
Bab al-Jabiyah probably from a village of that
name, to the
gate still called eastern (Sharki). The gates
were originally
threefold, and between them was a threefold
avenue, divided
by Corinthian colonnades, the central being
for the use of
foot-passengers, while the other two were to
enable the
horse-traffic going in opposite directions to keep
separate.
“I have been enabled,” says J. L. Porter, “to
trace the remainder
of colonnades at
various places over nearly one third
of the length of this
street. Wherever excavations are made
in the line, fragments
of columns are found
in situ, at the
depth in some places of ten feet and more below the
present
surface: so great has been the accumulation of
rubbish during
the ages. This street was thus a counterpart to
those still seen
in Palmyra and Jerash. “Further traces of
this ancient thoroughfare
have been discovered at a later
period. The Arabs
blocked up all but the northern passage of
the gates. There
is at present no street in Damascus which
would command
much admiration, but the long-roofed bazaars, of
which that
called Hamidiyyah (after the present Sultan) is the
most important,
are admirably adapted to the traffic of the
place,
though the absence of trottoirs occasions some
inconvenience.
On the justice of the identification of the
Street called
Straight it would be unwise to make any
pronouncement.
Fifteen churches are said to have been granted to the
Christians by the Moslem conqueror, but the author of the
Description can apparently enumerate only thirteen, and in
this list one is a Jewish synagogue. In most cases too he can
only locate them roughly, without being able to specify their
names: the romancer translated in the next chapter was better
informed. The Church of St Mary was the most famous, and
according to Ibn Jubair was the next most important Christian
edifice in the east, after the Church of the Holy Sepulchre;
it contained a marvellous number of ikons, “sufficient to bewilder
the thought and arrest the eye.” When the news of
the defeat of the Mongols in 1260 reached Damascus, the
Moslems attacked this church and destroyed it. Most of the
others fared similarly at some time or other. A church,
curiously
called “the Crusaders',” was turned into a
mosque in
the time of Saladdin at the instance of a
silk-merchant, who
asserted that it had been a mosque
originally; he got a crowd
together to dismantle it, and when
the images had been removed
A KHAN IN DAMASCUS.
from the south side, a
mihrab was discovered, surrounded
by an Arabic inscription in
lapis lazuli; the crowd
were overjoyed at this confirmation of
the man's assertion.
Another pretence whereby churches could
be destroyed was
that they had either not been included in the
original treaty
of capitulation, or that they had been built
since that time,
so we are told that “the Mosque of Shahrazuri
in Eloquence
Street” was a church that had not been specified
in the treaty.
When the Description was written, it would
appear that there
were only two churches in Damascus, one
belonging to the
Jacobites, the other probably to the
Melchites, called the
Church of Humaid son of Durrah (a
relation on the mother's
side of the Caliph Muawiyah), who was
owner of the street in
which the church was situated.
The relations between Moslems and Christians in this
place appear rarely to have been cordial. It is asserted that
at the time of the Moslem conquest only one Christian
family adopted Islam, and this would imply greater tenacity
on
the part of the Damascene believers than was displayed
by
their co-religionists in most Oriental cities. The latest
writer on the history of Islamic civilization charges the
Umayyads, in whose time Damascus was the capital of the
Moslem
Empire, with persecution of Christians; and the
transformation
of the Church of St John into a mosque is
admitted by Moslem
historians to have been against the
treaty. These persecutions
were not dictated by fanaticism
on the part of the Umayyads,
who, with one exception, were
notoriously lax; but by the need
for money with which to
pay partisans, their claim to the
Caliphate being untenable
on its own merits. This at least is
the explanation given by
the writer quoted. Syrians were,
moreover, constantly suspected
of being in league with and
abetting the Byzantine
Emperor, and the Episode of the
Crusades naturally embittered
the relations between the
communities, though Damascus
never actually fell
into Frankish hands. In the extract
dealing with the taking of
Damascus by Hulagu, it will be
seen that in the year 1260 the
Christians for a few months
enjoyed the privilege of avenging
to some extent the oppression
of centuries, and how speedily
the sky clouded again
over them after that brief gleam of
sunshine. Since the time
of Ibrahim Pasha, when various
humiliations imposed on
Christian visitors were removed, the
relations have probably
improved; yet the events of 1860
showed that the anti-Christian
feeling was deep, and among
certain portions of the
Moslem population it might still be
roused.
The Umayyads in such anecdotes as are preserved of
them often figure as luxurious and magnificent princes,
whence
we should expect to hear something of their palaces,
since
wonderful things are told us of those belonging to the
Caliphs
of
Baghdad and
Cairo. Our curiosity in this matter
is
not adequately gratified, though occasionally there is a
notice to the effect that some mosque or other edifice occupies
part of the ground at one time covered by an Umayyad
palace. Of that built by the founder of the dynasty, Muawiyah,
whose reputation was rather for gluttony and cunning
than
magnificence, though in some tales he is represented
as
boasting that he had enjoyed all that the world could
give, we
have an anecdote which suggests anything but
splendour. When
this prince, who at first held the office of
governor only,
built himself a palace of baked brick, he had
occasion to
receive a Byzantine envoy, whose opinion he
asked about the
structure. “The upper part,” replied the
Greek, “will do for
birds, and the lower for rats.” Muawiyah
had the house pulled
down and rebuilt of stone. It was purchased
afterwards by
Abdal-Malik, the other great sovereign
of this line, from a
descendant of its founder, for the sum of
40,000 dinars and
four estates; but this need not imply that
it was on a grand
scale, since it was the fashion at the time
(1) SYRIAN TILE, OF THE XVIIIth CENTURY, FROM A
DAMASCUS MOSQUE. (2) SYRIAN TILE, XVIth or XVIIth
CENTURY, FROM A DAMASCUS MOSQUE.
to pay huge sums for
any dwelling that had ever been occupied
by one of the early
heroes of Islam. Fabulous prices
are recorded as having been
given for dwellings of this sort
at Meccah, which we cannot
believe to have been very
gorgeous. The list of show-houses at
Damascus given by the
author of the
Description consists almost entirely of buildings
that enjoyed such a reputation. Part of the Coppersmiths’
Bazaar, stretching as far as the Bazaar of the Bootmakers,
was said to have been the site of the residence of a
son of Utbah Ibn Rabi'ah, an eminent contemporary of the
Prophet. Inside the Gate of Thomas was the house of the
conqueror Khalid with his oratory. The house of Auf Ibn
Malik, another hero of the early days of Islam, was shown
near the old Thread-market. Inside the eastern gate to the
right was the house of Malik Ibn Hubairah, Muawiyah's
general, etc.
A rather more important mansion was that of the celebrated
Hajjaj, viceroy of Abd al-Malik, notorious in eastern
history for his ruthless severity, but celebrated for his
magnificence
also. A whole quarter of Damascus was
called
after his palace, and the name is not yet obsolete;
but no
traces of the building have been discovered. In 1237-8
the
whole of this region was burned down, and the remains
of
the palace, which had probably been a ruin long before,
are
likely to have perished then.
In most descriptions of Damascus, whether ancient or
modern, every religious building appears to be dwarfed by
the Great Umayyad Mosque, which we shall leave to the
end. The
rulers of Damascus were no less liberal founders of
religious
edifices than were other Sultans and governors; and
the
Description enumerates no fewer than 241 mosques for
public
worship, afterwards supplemented by lists which bring
the
number up to 572, though this figure includes some that
were
outside the walls. The same work gives eleven other
lists of buildings in
which provision was made for religious
service, unless (which
is unlikely) the medical schools were an
exception. In the
time of the traveller Ibn Jubair—i.e. the
late twelfth
century—there were, besides these, two hospitals,
the old and
the new, of which the latter was probably the
institution
founded by Nur al-din, to which reference has
already been
made; it had an endowment of fifteen dinars
daily. Doctors
visited it every morning to prescribe for the
patients, of
whom lists were kept. There was special treatment
for the
insane, who were chained. The medical schools
of the
Description are all of a later period than the hospitals.
The
first was called the Dakhwariyyah “in the old Bazaar
of the
Goldsmiths” south of the Great Mosque, founded in
in the year
1250 by a physician, who, for his successful treatment
of
maladies suffered by the Ayyubid princes, was given
the title
Chief of the Physicians of the Two Zones (
Syria and
Egypt). It appears that a successful medical
career was a
road to fortune in those days as in these; this
person received
as fees for special cures the sums of 7,000
and 12,000 dinars,
and al-Ashraf settled on him estates which
brought in 1,500
dinars annually, when he gave him the post of
court-physician.
The building left by him to the city as
medical
school had been his own house. Two other houses
were devoted
to the same object within the next sixty years,
but one
of these was afterwards turned into a mosque, whereas
the
other went to ruin
The traveller Ibn Jubair was greatly struck by the monasteries
or hospices, of which the number at the time of the
Description had risen to about twenty-nine. The friendly
disposition of the Ayyubids towards the Sufis has already
been noticed; and according to the Spanish visitor these
ascetics had things very much their own way at Damascus.
Their hospices, he says, are splendidly decorated palaces,
in
all of which there is running water, beautifully
conducted.
MINARET OF THE BRIDE, DAMASCUS.
"The Sufis
are kings in this city, for God has spared them
the trouble
of worldly employment, has rendered it possible for
them to
devote their minds to His service, and has housed
them in
mansions, such as must ever remind them of the
mansions of
Paradise; to those of them who are saved the
pleasures of
both this world and the next have been given.
Very admirable
are the practices and orders of these brotherhoods,
especially the arrangement by which different members undertake different
departments of service. Beautiful
are their gatherings to
hear thrilling melodies, where not
unfrequently in the
intensity of their emotion some of them
pass away out of the
world. The most wonderful building belonging to them is a palace called by them
the Tower, which
rises high in the air, with dwellings at the
top, commanding
a glorious view; it is half a mile distant
from the city. To it
there is attached a vast garden, said to
have been the pleasure
ground of a Turkish sovereign. One
night he was amusing
himself by pouring some of the wine,
which was being
drunk in the palace, on the heads of Sufis
who passed by;
complaint was made to Nur al-din who did not
rest till he
had got the whole place as a gift from its
owner, which he
then proceeded to settle on the Sufis in
perpetuity." In the
siege of Damascus of the year
1228 several of these hospices
were pillaged and ruined.
A considerable number of schools still exist in Damascus,
but many edifices which were originally designed for this
purpose have been turned into private houses; von Kremer
identified a number which had experienced this change in
the street which leads northwards from Bab al-Barid to the
Tomb of Baibars, and a number more in the quarter between
Suk Bab al-Barid and Suk Jakmak. Still, several that are
mentioned in the Description appear to be in existence,
and
several have been built since. Some of those which were
intended
to be for advanced study have sunk to the level
of
infant schools.
Probably aspirants after the higher Moslem
education have for
many centuries gone to al-Azhar to seek
it, whereas
Constantinople attracts students of another kind.
Of schools that receive the attention of visitors there may
be mentioned that of the heroic Nur al-din, whose name
occurs in the history of Egypt also, in the Cloth Bazaar.
The building is said to have been originally part of the
palace of the Umayyad Hisham, son of Abd al-Malik, who
reigned from 724-743. The prince Nur al-din was at first
buried in the Citadel, but his body was afterwards
transferred
to this school; which the author of the
Description asserts
to have been built for him by his son,
al-Salih Isma'il,
although it would appear that this is
contradicted by inscriptions
on the school itself, which name
Nur al-din himself
as founder. A similar institution is that
called Raihaniyyah,
a little to the west of the Nuriyyah. Its
date is 1178-9;
its founder was a eunuch and freedman of Nur
al-din, who
entrusted to his charge the Citadel and prison of
Damascus,
in which posts he was confirmed by Saladdin,
whose cause
he espoused when the famous Sultan took Damascus.
An
inscription copied by M. Sauvaire still records the
lands
settled upon it. A school of some celebrity is the
Kaimariyyah,
founded 1266 by al-Kaimari, an Emir who at
the death
of Turanshah played a part of importance in
Syria. He is
said to have
spent 40,000 dirhems on a clock put up over
the door of his
school. Von Kremer describes it as a
moderate-sized building,
with a stone-paved court, cloistered
all round below, and with
open corridors above. The front
towards the street has three
cupolas.
Of more interest than these is the school of the Sultan
Baibars, between the gates Bab al-Faraj and Bab
al-Faradis,
north of the Umayyad Mosque. It had originally
been
the house of a certain Akiki, of whom Ayyub, father
of
Saladdin, purchased it; apparently Baibars himself
turned
DAMASCUS: MINARET OF JESUS.
it into a school and
mausoleum, but some ascribe this action
to his son Barakah
Khan. The foundations are said to have
been laid on Oct. 12,
1277. In the time of the author of the
Description it had been
turned into a private house.
Between the library of Baibars and the Umayyad Mosque
is the Tomb of Saladdin, side by side with that of one of his
ministers. The Description locates the tomb of the great
Sultan in the school of al-Aziz, west of the tomb of al-Ashraf,
north of the School of Tradition founded by the
“Excellent
Judge,” a man of great note of the time of
Saladdin,
especially as stylist and poet, and the collector of
a great
library in
Cairo. Planned by al-Afdal
(1186-1196)
it was finished by al-Aziz of Egypt, who had
the body of
the Sultan, first deposited in the Citadel,
transferred thither.
Prayers offered at this tomb are, the
author assures us,
answered: “the fact has been recounted by
the greatest and
most distinguished doctors, and admits of no
doubt.” An
epitaph by the “Excellent Judge” was inscribed on
the
grave, in which the wish was expressed that after so
many
cities had opened their gates to him, Paradise might
do the
same.
Damascus is otherwise famous for harbouring the ashes
of numerous persons of importance; the graveyard of the
Little Gate is said to contain those of Bilal, the Prophet's
Mueddin, an important person at the beginning of Islam,
and
two of the Prophet's wives. Outside the gate of the
Jarrah Mosque there is, or used to be, a
pile of stones
marking where the grave of the Caliph Yazid
once stood.
The stones were thrown by Persian visitors, with a
view of
expressing their abhorrence of the worst of the
Umayyads—the
Caliph under whom occurred the affair of
Kerbela,
when Husain, the Prophet's grandson, was killed,
to be
mourned, wherever Shiites are to be found, on the tenth
of
the month Muharram.
Most of the mausoleums described in the work translated
by M. Sauvaire belong to sovereigns and other persons of
eminence not later than the Ayyubid period. The author
dwells especially on those which contain the ashes of the
three princes, al-Adil, al-Ashraf and al-Kamil, whose
names
all figure in the history of Egypt. An interesting
personage
also occurring in this list is Ismat al-din
Khatun, wife of
Nur al-din and afterwards of Saladdin, highly
esteemed for
her piety and virtue, “who did no act without a
good intention.”
She founded in her husband's city a mosque,
which
was afterwards turned into a private dwelling, a
hospice,
and a mausoleum for herself on the Yazid Canal in
the
Salihiyyah, which some 150 years after her death
was
turned into a mosque, and after a somewhat longer
period
had elapsed, was, in the year 1568, yet further
enlarged and
endowed.
Leaving the abodes of the dead for those of the living,
we notice what has often been observed, that the outside
of
the houses is rarely of great magnificence. It is
inside that
the architects display their skill and the wealthy
their riches.
The rooms usually open out into a court and are
disconnected.
This practice is said to go back to
pre-Islamic
times. In the two houses which are usually
exhibited to
visitors there is an abundance of marbles and
mosaics, with
enamelled tiles and profusion of gold and
colouring.
Two other classes of buildings to which the visitor may
be taken are the Baths, of which that called the Queen's
Bath is perhaps the finest, and the Khans, or storehouses
for merchandise, among which that which bears the name
of As'ad Pasha is pre-eminent. It is supported on four
piers
with nine domes above them.
Of the number of actual mosques given above from the
Description, many must have become disused or been demolished
before the seventeenth century, when the figure
GENERAL VIEW OF DAMASCUS IN EARLY SPRING.
was 150. During
Ibrahim Pasha's government some further
transformation of
mosques took place. That of Yelbogha was
turned into a
biscuit-factory, and that of Tengiz into barracks,
and then
into a military college. The existing mosques that
attract the
notice of travellers are chiefly the following: that
of Sinan
Pasha (near the Jabiyah Gate), the minaret of which
is
conspicuous everywhere for the highly-glazed green tiles
with
which it is covered; the interior is decorated with marble
columns and a marble pavement. It was originally, we are
told,
called The Onion Mosque. In the year 1585, when Sinan
Pasha
was appointed governor of Damascus, he rebuilt it and
made it
suitable for Friday worship. Though the governorship
of this
Pasha lasted only six months, the building of his
Mosque
appears to have taken—probably intermittently—some
years,
since 1590 is given as the date of its completion.
To about
the same period belongs the Derwishiyyah Mosque,
which also
was a reconstruction of a similar building on a
smaller scale,
ordered by Derwish Pasha, governor from 1571
to 1574. Somewhat
earlier is the Mosque of the Sultan Selim
in the Salihiyyah.
It contains the tomb of the greatest of the
Sufi writers, Ibn
Arabi, whose works have often been condemned
for heresy, but
nevertheless whose reputation for
sanctity perhaps surpasses
that of any other Moslem saint.
The mosque was built by the
Sultan in the years 1517 and
1518 out of respect for the
memory of the saint. Previously,
we are told, the spot had
been marked by a ruined bath and
a pile of refuse. The Sultan
spent “incalculable sums” upon
it, and provided it with four
mueddins and thirty readers of
the Koran.
Another mosque built by an Ottoman Sultan is that called
after Sulaiman, who founded it in 1554, together with the
Tekiyyeh, or hospice, which also bears his name. They are
situated on the site of the famous palace of the Sultan
Baibars in the “Green Meidan.” The materials which
belonged
to the palace were
employed again for these buildings,
the erection of which took
six years. The author of the
supplement to the Description
declares the marble, the
cupolas, and the leaden work of the
buildings to be such as
“stupefy the spectator while rejoicing
his heart.” Special
attention is called to the basin in the
middle of the court, to
the pulpit and the mihrab. Only the
writer complains that
in accordance with a tradition current
among the architects
the minarets were placed east and west
instead of north and
south, whence the area in which the call
to prayer would be
heard was considerably reduced. The
architect was “the
most incomparable of great geniuses, the
noblest of the
children of Persia, our master Mulla Agha.” He
was also
set in charge of the administration, and followed, we
are
told, the unusual plan of giving the best places to
those who
injured him, and the worst to those who tried to do
him a
kindness.
We conclude with the great Umayyad Mosque. This is
the grandest of all Mohammedan buildings, and Arabic
writers
give full rein to their powers of description in
recounting
its magnificence and the riches lavished upon
its erection by
al-Walid, the whole revenue of
Syria
for
seven years, not counting eighteen shiploads of gold
and
silver from Cyprus and many rich gifts of precious
stones.
These latter enriched the mihrab and minbar but,
with the
600 golden lamps suspended by chains of the like
precious
metal, were soon diverted to other uses by a
following Caliph.
The leaden roof of the mosque is described
in as high terms
of admiration as the gold so lavishly spread
on the interior.
Every town had to furnish its quota, but so
difficult was it
to obtain sufficient that tombs were rifled.
From one sarcophagus
the body was taken from its leaden shell
and laid
on the ground; the head fell into a ravine and blood
burst
from the mouth. Terror-struck, the bystanders made
inquiry
till at last they were
told, “It is the tomb of King Talut
(Saul).” A prettier story
is that of a woman who refused to
sell some lead, needed to
complete one corner, save weight
for weight in gold. The
Caliph wrote that her demand should
be complied with, but then
the woman said, “It is my gift
to the mosque.” “You were too
avaricious to sell save weight
for weight, and now do you
offer a gift?” “I acted thus believing
that your lord played
the tyrant and exacted forced
labour. Now that I see he pays
punctually and weight for
weight, I acknowledge that in this
matter he wrongs no
one.” The commissioner reported these
words, and the Caliph
commanded that these sheets of lead
should be marked “For
Allah”; this was done by means of a
mould.
To return to figures, there was praying space for 20,000
men; as for the money expended, one item, viz., the cost
of
the cabbages eaten by the workmen is said to have
been
6,000 dinars ($2,500). When the wondrous work was
finished,
the Caliph would not look at the accounts
brought to him on
eighteen laden mules, but ordered that they
should be burnt
and thus addressed the crowd: “Men of
Damascus,you possess
four glories above other people; you are
proud of your
water, your air, your fruits, your baths; your
mosque shall
be your fifth glory.”
Like some other famous places of worship, this mosque
was once the site of a heathen temple, portions of which can
be traced in the porticoes. Theodosius built a church there
(A.D. 379) and dedicated it to St John the Baptist, to whom
there is still an imposing shrine. When the Moslems entered
Damascus (A.D. 635), by an amicable arrangement, the building
was shared between Christians and Mahommedans, but
in A.D. 708
al-Walid, sixth of the Umayyads, drove the Christians
out,
confirming them, however, in the possession of other
churches.
But to this day one of the three minarets is called
by the
name of Isa (Jesus), and above a gate, long since closed,
is the inscription,
“Thy kingdom, O Christ, is an everlasting
kingdom, and Thy
dominion endureth throughout all generations.”
Al-Walid summoned a fabulous number of craftsmen (one
writer says 200, another prefixes one and makes it 1,200, a
third adds a nought and reckons 12,000) from Constantinople,
and his magnificent mosque was, like other early Moslem
edifices, entirely Byzantine in style and rich with rare marbles
and fine mosaics; while in accordance with another
Moslem
custom, antique columns were plundered from many
Syrian towns.
Many of these remain in the interior but most
of those
described by the Arab geographer Mukkadisi as sustaining
the
arcade round the great court, have disappeared
and piers
covered with plaster have taken their place. It is
thought,
however, that many columns remain within these
piers of
masonry. The mosaics represented Meccah, Medinah
and Jerusalem
and other principal towns of the world, amid
groves of orange
and palm, while long inscribed scrolls and
wreaths of foliage
filled the interspaces; of these, fragments
can still be
traced and more are probably hidden under
plaster and
whitewash.
The two principal gates are at the west and east, they are
named Babal-Barid (Gate of the Post) and Bab Jairun after
a mythical conqueror. They had triple portals closed with
bronze-covered doors; one of these which remains at the
East Gate (Bab Jairun) bears a central band of inscription
with the name of the Sultan Abd al-Aziz, son of Barkuk
(1405) and a chalice, a device of the Mamlukes. The gates
and adjoining porticoes have retained more ancient work
both of construction and of ornament, such as inlay of
beautiful-coloured
marble, than the rest of the building.
There were originally towers at the four corners, those
at the south side remain; the Madanah Gharbiyyah (Western
Minaret) formerly inhabited by anchorites, also named
TRADITIONAL SITE WHERE ST. PAUL WAS LET DOWN IN A
BASKET, DAMASCUS.
after Kaietbai;
opposite it, i.e., at the south-east angle, is
the Madanat Isa
(Minaret of Jesus) or the White Minaret.
On the north side,
rather more than a third from the east
angle, stands the
Madanat al-Arus (Minaret of the Bride);
this was not as the
other towers, originally Byzantine, but
was built by al-Walid.
The Great Court is surrounded on three sides by spacious
corridors, now resting on piers, with round arches; the
upper
story retains at the east double arches separated by
a small
column; these have been replaced elsewhere by
commonplace
narrow windows.
Within the Court stand three small and beautiful cupolas,
at the west the Kubbat al-Khaznah (Dome of the Treasury),
for the mosque had great endowments. This building is,
however, no longer used, but is filled with ancient MSS.
jealously kept from view; it was only as a special favour
to
the Emperor Wilhelm that German scholars were
allowed
to handle them, and for a specified time only. The
Kubbat
al-Naufarah (Dome of the Fountain),in the centre of
the court,
serves for ablutions; it is also called Kafs al-Ma
(the Water
Cage), because a spout rises from a grating so that
people
drink from the side. The building stands on arches
upheld by
four thick and as many slender columns, an upper
room has
wooden supports only and a flattish broad leaden roof
with
a little cupola in the middle. The third, Kubbat
al-Sa'
at (Dome of the Hours) stands at the east of the
Court.
The whole of the south side of the Court is occupied by
the mosque, with its three great aisles divided by columns
twenty-three feet high; its interior measurements are 429
feet by 124. The whole floor is covered by more carpets
than
we could count, about eight abreast, and many of them
fine.
The clerestory has round arches. The chief entrance
is in the
middle of the north side, i.e., from the Court; it
leads under
wide transepts to the mihrab and chief pulpit in
the southern
wall; there are three
other mihrabs for the other Schools of
Law. Over the centre,
where the transepts cross the aisles,
is the great dome,
nearly fifty feet in diameter and above
120 in height; it is
called Kubbat al-Nasr (the Vulture
Dome) itself counting as
the head, the aisle below as the
breast and the lofty transept
roofs, high above the other
roofs, being likened to outspread
wings. “From whatever
quarter you approach the city, you see
the dome high above
all else, as though suspended in the air.”
The Mosque has suffered repeatedly from fires, especially
in 1069, owing to riots between the Fatimides and Shiahs;
in 1400, when Timur-Lenk took the town; lastly, and very
severely, in 1894, since when plaster and whitewash have
taken the place of the gold and coloured brilliance of
old.
[Back to top]
APPENDIX
The Massacre of 1860
From a Work called The Unveiling of the Troubles of
Syria
THERE was at this time in Damascus a governor
named
Ahmad Pasha, who had been given control of both
the
administration and the army. The whole history of
Turkey
offers no example of a baser, more mischievous or
more
cunning scoundrel. He made it his chief business to
stir up angry
passions and prepare the way for a massacre. The
massacres of
Hasibiyya and Rashiyya were by his orders and
under his direction,
and the Turkish soldiers who carried them
out were his
servants. Circumstances helped him to stir up bad
blood, especially
the rescript in which the Sultan proclaimed
equality between
his subjects in accordance with the Treaty of
Paris. When the
Moslems perceived that their power of lording
it over the Christians
was gone, that all communities were now
equal, and that
no sooner had the Christians been enfranchized
than they had begun
to surpass the Moslems in wealth, honour,
knowledge and
everything else, the latter resented this and
harboured mischievous
designs. Now one of the articles of the
Treaty of Paris was
that soldiers should be drawn from the
Christian no less than from
the Moslem part of the population;
the Government, however,
did not observe this article for
reasons that are well known, and
in lieu of military service
levied a heavy contribution on the
Christians, $50 a head.
This sum being more than they were able
to pay, they made
repeated complaints and begged the Government
to reduce the
amount or else permit Christians to serve in
the army. The
Government would not listen to these appeals, and
in the year
1860 insisted on the payment of all arrears. The Orthodox
Greek Patriarch at that time was a Greek unacquainted with
the
language and character of the people. When his flock thronged
round him and encompassed his residence, begging his mediation
in this matter, he wished to disperse them with the aid of the
soldiers; he therefore wrote to the Governor informing him that
the Christians were in
a turbulent and excited state in consequence
of the imposition
of the heavy military tax, and expressed
the hope that the
Governor would disperse them, as they were
crowding round his
house. The Governor was delighted with this
communication and
kept the letter in his pocket to serve as his
justification,
if necessary, for the massacre that he meant to bring
about;
for in answer to any question he could produce the letter
of
the Patriarch, attesting the fact that the Christians were starting
a riot, which he had been compelled to repress by force
of arms.
By the secret instigations of Ahmad Pasha the excitement of
the Moslems in Damascus increased daily, and presently
they
heard with delight of the massacres in Hasibiyya,
Rashiyya,
Zahlah and Dair al-Kamar. With the heroes of
Zahlah they had a
long account to settle, and when they
received the news of the
fall of Zahlah and the massacre of
its defenders, they decorated
Damascus and instituted public
rejoicings. The Christians looked
on but durst not interfere;
only some of the more distinguished
and virtuous of the
Moslems were displeased with this proceeding
and extinguished
the illuminations, and besides went round and
urged their
co-religionists to be sensible and calm. Their laudable
efforts had little effect; they were overcome by the Government
and the mob. At the end of this chapter we shall record the names
of the noble-minded men, in order that their memory and
the
memory of their services may endure in history. As we
said, the
excitement of the Moslems kept increasing daily,
whilst the
Christians had to suffer contempt and insult and
contumely of
every sort. Complaint brought no redress and they
found that
application to the Government was useless. Most of
them remained
shut up in their houses; merchants and employés
durst
not go out to their business, but passed the time in
prayer, meditation
and deliberation. Meanwhile the feeling of
the Moslems
grew worse and worse, and the Christians saw death
approaching.
The Consuls, perceiving the state of affairs, kept sending reports
to their Governments, and when matters came to a crisis a
meeting was held in the house of the British Consul, in
accordance
with his request, at
which they all attended. After considering
what measures they
could take to prevent a massacre,
they agreed to open their
houses to refugees from murder or
pillage; and determined to
warn the Governor of the consequences
of negligence. The Greek
Consul was selected to convey their
message to the Governor,
this Consul being skilled in Turkish.
He did his utmost to
impress on the Governor the necessity of
calming the
excitement, but without effect; Ahmad Pasha at first
professed
absolute ignorance of the existence of any excitement,
maintaining that the city was perfectly quiet. When, however, as
the days passed, it became impossible for him to deny the fact,
he began to excuse himself on the plea that the soldiers whom
he
had were not sufficient to restrain the mob from
carrying out
their designs. He also began to make an
exhibition of surprise
and anxiety at the state of affairs,
but he did not issue a single
order to the effect that either
the soldiers or the mob should be
restrained from attacking
the Christians. When the debate became
hot between him and the
Consul who was commissioned
to converse with him, he would
declare that the Christians
had rebelled against the Porte and
endeavoured to shake
off their allegiance; “and this,” he
said, “I can prove by
the letters of their bishops and chief
ecclesiastical authorities.”
The Consuls then went in a body
to the palace of the Governor
and insisted that he must do
something to improve the state of
affairs. Finding he could no
longer refuse, he promised to do as
they wished, and issued an
order to the inhabitants and the army
that they should keep
quiet and not molest the Christians. This
order was partly
effective, and the Christians experienced a certain
amount of
relief; orders were presently sent by the Governor
to such of
them as were in the employ of the Government, bidding
them
have no fear, and return to their duties. Supposing the
excitement to have subsided they took courage, and people were
near imagining that the waters had returned to their channels.
Ahmad Pasha, however, had no idea of letting this tranquillity
continue, but continued his secret instigations, and the army
with
the mob became even more seriously excited than
before, whilst
the Christians were
again compelled to conceal themselves from
their enemies.
Every one perceived that something terrible was
about to
happen, although the Consuls of Great Britain and
Greece tried
to urge the distinguished Moslems to help them in
quieting the
excitement. A few of the best among the Damascenes
came to
their aid, but their efforts were unavailing; for the disturbance
kept increasing, and the ruffians began to thirst more
and more for blood. Hearing of this the Arabs and other
Moslem
neighbours of Damascus came to the city from all
quarters,
anxious to gratify their resentments by the
murder of Christians
and plunder of Christian goods. Most
unfortunately those who
had escaped from the massacre of
Hasibiyya arrived in Damascus
at that time, bringing with
them, as it were, the infection of
massacre. The ruffians
could wait no longer, and the Druzes from
the outside and the
Moslems from the inside kept urging the
Government to issue a
rescript giving them leave to commence
slaying, violating
women, plundering goods and burning houses.
Ahmad Pasha saw
that the time had come for the execution of
his purpose, and
fanned the flame by circulating a rumour that
the Christians
were planning a night attack on the Moslem
quarters, with a
general assault, notwithstanding that the Christians
of
Damascus were the weakest of God's creatures, not one
of whom
could handle a weapon, and whose only expedient for
self-defence was imploring mercy or hiding. The wicked Governor,
whenever he went to public prayer, had the troops ranged round
the mosque, on the pretence that the Christians were
meditating
an assault on his person. By means of these
rumours and slanders
the wrath of the Moslems was roused to
such a pitch that the continuance
of quiet was impossible.
Presently the Governor removed
his family to the Citadel which
he protected with guns, and this
served as a signal to the
Damascenes that the time was come, and
they commenced making
preparations for the absolute annihilation
of the Christians
of the city. The excitement grew fiercer and
fiercer, the
preparations for a massacre were completed, and the
Christians
despaired of deliverance.
The Governor now sent a regiment of soldiers to the Bab
Tuma,
where is the Christian
quarter, to protect the Christians, who,
however, had heard of
the sort of protection accorded by these
Turks at the other
massacres in
Syria, and were convinced
that
one was about to commence. They supposed the soldiers
had
been sent to attack them, and their terror was vastly
increased
when they learned from the Hasibiyya refugees
that this was the
very regiment that had been in Hasibiyya and
assisted in the
massacre there, and having got some practice
in such proceedings
had come on to Damascus to repeat the
scenes of Hasibiyya. And,
indeed, the intentions of these
soldiers were apparent on their
countenances. The Christians,
in despair, committed their future
to God, some of them indeed
trying to take refuge in the houses
of the more virtuous
Moslems or to leave the city secretly when not
prevented by
the soldiers, while others tried to soften the soldiers and
officers by presents of money. Indeed, these were so lavishly bestowed
that the poorest of these Turkish soldiers became richer
than the most eminent of the Christians, the wealth of the
unfortunate
Christians being transferred to these savages,
who,
having been sent to protect their lives, attacked
them in contravention
of the law of God, the law of Islam and
the law of manhood.
When Ahmad Pasha perceived that further delay would be
harmful rather than profitable, and that all that was now
wanted
was a signal, he began to search for something that
would excite
the Moslems to such a pitch that they would of
their own accord
start on a massacre without instructions from
the Government.
He found an expedient directly.
The Moslems, especially the Turks, had at that time repeatedly
insulted the Christian religion, and complaints about this
had repeatedly
been made to the Governor. When he wished the
massacre
to commence, he ordered the arrest of three
Moslem lads who
had openly insulted the Cross, and sent them
bound and escorted
to the Christian quarter, with orders to
sweep its streets as a
punishment for their conduct. The
Moslems, seeing them in this
state, and being told by the
Turks that they were going to act as
slaves to the Christians
because they had insulted the Cross,
stopped them at the
entrance of the Umayyad Mosque, and
loosed their bonds without
opposition from the soldiers. Entering
the Mosque they
deliberated for a short time, after which they left
the
building, one of them shouting at the top of his voice, “Help,
help, Mohammed's Religion; the Cause of the Faith; the Cause
of God against the Unbelieving Nazarenes!” The cry went from
mouth to mouth, the people became infuriated, and the Moslem
rabble rushed from every quarter upon the Christian quarter like
ravening wolves, eager to slake their fury by spilling Christian
blood. This, then, was the beginning of the terrible
massacre.
While rushing upon the Christian quarter the rioters said to
each other, “Fear not that the Government will intervene or
that
the soldiers will oppose our holy enterprise, but
slaughter the
Christians to a man this day; make their homes
the food of the
flame, and let their women taste the
bitterness of dishonour; rid
yourselves after such long
endurance of these Nazarene unbelievers.
“By order of the
Governor a blank discharge was fired at the
Greek Orthodox
Church; it set some matting alight, and when the
rioters saw
the flame they began to kindle fires on all sides of the
Christian quarter, and entering the houses began to slay and pillage.
The Turkish soldiers opened the doors to the invaders and
prevented the Christians from escaping; before midday the
whole
quarter was a sheet of flame, and in the following
night its appearance
might have whitened an infant's hair.
There were
wretched creatures trying to escape from the jaws
of the fire,
when the walls fell down with them, and they were
left to die in
indescribable torment. When day dawned and the
rioters saw
that there was nothing left to plunder, they
employed their
weapons upon all who had escaped from the fire,
slaughtering
every Christian whom they could find, sparing
neither young nor
old; they cut down the mothers and violated
the daughters; they
committed every form of atrocity. The
blood of the victims
flowed in the streets in rills.
Destruction was everywhere; nothing
could be seen in the
Christian quarter except heads on
which bullets were raining
from the Turkish rifles, chests trampled
by horse-hoofs,
corpses partly devoured by flames and turned
into ashes or charcoal
blacker than night. The cry of women and
children rose to
heaven and the blood of the slain flowed in the
streets
imploring succour. To the spectator it seemed as though
not a
Christian soul remained alive except some who had been
spared
by some of the ruffians for evil purposes, and who were
begging for death, and welcomed it after the terrors that they
had witnessed. Six thousand innocent persons perished after enduring
unspeakable agonies.
Still, even in that gloomy time there were not wanting noble
men, a remnant of whom are always to be found surviving,
however
savage the majority may be. Among the savage
murderers
there was found a man of high station, noble
worth, lofty aspirations
and attachment to Islamic virtues,
high-born and of high
repute, a master with the sword and a
master with the pen, a hero
and a champion, familiar with war
and its terrors, wherein he
had played the man. In the days of
his power his enemies had
been Christians, whom he had fought
courageously; when fortune
had played him false and his
sovereignty had come to an
end, he had resolved on retiring to
Damascus, there to pass the
remainder of his days in such
courses as pleased God. He detested
the treacherous murder of
the weak, and tried to restrain others
from such acts as are
forbidden by the Moslem religion. Among
these debased mobs he
shone like a gem in dull, black stone; his
spirit rose
superior to the intrigues of the Turks and the machinations
of
the mischief-makers, and the deeds of the savages.
This person
was the unique Emir Abd al-Kadir of Algiers, whose
memory God
render fragrant, and on whom may He confer a
thousand mercies;
and may He make many like to him among
the sons of Adam. He it
was who showed himself brave and
manly among the herd of
evil-doers, cowards, dastards, villains
and traitors.
Having perceived on men's faces the signs of unholy intentions,
and inferring from the negligence of the authorities in
repressing
the rioters that the authorities either had a
hand in
the business themselves or were actually the
instigators of the
atrocities, when one day he met a number of
the chief Moslems
in the presence of
Ahmad Pasha, after a long discussion he persuaded
them that
such treachery towards a feeble community that
did not amount
to a tenth of the population of Damascus—exclusive
of the
army, and exclusive of the fact that the Christians
were
utterly unaccustomed to fighting—could only be regarded
as an
infamous piece of cowardice, bringing disgrace on him who
was
guilty of it; and that an attack on “the people of the Covenant”—the
legal name for tolerated sects living under Moslem
rule—so long as they remained obedient to the Moslem
government,
was a violation of the Sacred Code, and was
not permitted
by any religious system. The Governor, being
unable to refuse his
assent to these propositions, agreed to
take joint steps to allay
the excitement and to protect the
Christians. Hence, when Abd
al-Kadir learned of the despatch
of the regiment to the Christian
quarter shortly before the
butchery, his apprehensions
were appeased, and he supposed
that he had done his duty
and succeeded in carrying out his
noble purpose. The Turkish
Governor, however, and his
satellites had no thought
about honour nor about any code save
that of their passion
for blood and plunder, whence,
over-riding all laws, they perpetrated
those acts which have
been narrated. But when Abd al-Kadir
heard of this, he sent
his followers at night-time to every
quarter of Damascus to
search everywhere for Christians and
bring them, wherever
found, to the Emir's palace, protecting them
on the way from
the rioters. The whole of the night and the following
day Abd
al-Kadir kept gathering these poor wretches into
his house
where he provided them with food and drink at his
own expense
and did his best to console them, allay their fears
and
promise them an alleviation of their trials. No nobler conduct
has ever been heard of. Many a time he went out himself and
passed through the streets in which the butchery was going on,
and with his own hand kept the murderer off his prey. Going to
the booths, churches and consulates, where refugees were gathered
by the hundred and thousand, he took them under his
protection
and led them off to his own house, whence he
returned to deliver
a fresh batch. He also encouraged his own
servants to do the
same, and begged them
to exert themselves therein. Finally,
when he had got round
him 12,000 refugees, his palace was too
small to hold them,
and he requested the brutal Governor, Ahmad
Pasha, to order
that they should be received in the Citadel, after
having
obtained from the Turk the most solemn promise that he
would
do them no harm. The unfortunate people were in consequence
placed in the Citadel where they remained days and
weeks
without clothing, shelter or food, and where they endured
every kind of misery after the trials that they had undergone.
God alone knows the anguish of these refugees over the dear ones
whom they had lost; over their personal losses and over the
miserable plight to which they had come; especially as most of
them believed the Citadel was going to turn out a death-trap like
the Palace of Hasibiyya or Dair al-Kamar or Rashiyya, and
that
one day the Governor would open the gates and order
the Druzes
and Turks to massacre them to a man, as had
happened to their
brethren. This apprehension was strengthened
one day when an
officer was sent by the Governor with orders
to separate the women
from the men for a purpose that was not
then explained;
the refugees gave up all hope and made ready
for death, imploring
mercy for those whom they were preceding
to Eternity
and who had still some chance of abiding in the
vale of tears.
Fortunately this fear was not realized—chiefly
through the efforts
of the brave and philanthropic Abd
al-Kadir. The efforts of the
Consuls were of no avail, for the
authorities regarded them as
enemies and wished to attack them
with the rest.
When the number of refugees assembled in Abd al-Kadir's
house became very great—in addition to those who had been
sent
to the Citadel—the rioters wished to kill them also
to a man, and
resented the conduct of the Emir Abd al-Kadir in
helping the
Christians. Gathering round his house in masses
they began to
shout and cry and demand the immediate surrender
of the Christians,
failing which they threatened to burn his
house and destroy
him with his protégés; thinking that Abd
al-Kadir was a coward
like the rest, who would be moved by
threats and menaces.
Hearing this, the hero ordered his
followers to gather round his
castle; they were
picked champions, whose prowess had been
tried on
battlefields, as when under their heroic leader they had
won a
victory over the Sultan of Morocco at Mulaya, being 2,500
against 60,000. These troops maintained their allegiance to their
prince, and such of them as survived the wars had come with
him
to Damascus. When, therefore, he summoned them on
that
terrible day, they surrounded him on every side, and
the rioters
seeing their valiant appearance, took to their
heels; whereupon
the Emir advanced by himself into the middle
of the cowardly
rioters and addressed them to the following
effect: “Avaunt, ye
Moslem dogs, ye scum of mankind! Is it
thus that ye honour your
Prophet and obey his holy ordinances,
ye vilest of unbelievers?
Did God's Apostle bid ye deal thus
with the people of the Covenant
who were to be safe under your
shadow? Is it this which Arabian
courage nerves ye to do?
Plague on ye for cowardly traitors, who
murder the Christians
who are fewer and weaker than yourselves,
and reckon this to
be valour, when it is disgrace itself.
Go back at once or I
will not sheathe this sword till I have saturated
it with your
blood, and will command my men to fall upon
you, until not a
single coward remain to tell what has happened
to his
brethren. And be well assured that ye shall repent in dust
and
ashes when the Franks shall come to avenge these injured
Christians, and shall turn your mosques into churches, and make
of you an example to them that will be warned. Go back, cease
from your folly, or I will make this hour the last of your lives,
and will take retribution from you for the evil which you
have
committed.”
The mighty man's words terrified these hearts of the dastards,
and they went back dismayed, and so 12,000 lives were
saved
through the instrumentality of one hero. His name
shall last so
long as honour lasts or courage is remembered.
[There follows a list of other eminent Moslems who aided the
efforts of Abd al-Kadir.]
This is the substance of the terrible story. We narrate it here
and leave the reader to say to himself what he pleases. The
number
of the slain in Damascus and its suburbs was 6,000,
and of
those slain elsewhere
about the same. The whole of this happened
in the month of
June of the Black Year (1860). The number of
persons left
homeless and destitute was more than 150,000; the
number of
women and children that became widows and orphans
was not less
than 20,000; the number of houses belonging to innocent
Christians that were burned down was about 7,000; the number
of persons who died in this month of the effects of fright,
grief, anxiety and sudden poverty was not less than 14,000; and
the amount of money pillaged and looted was not less than
$3,000,000.
Consider these matters—God guard you—and pray God that
He will deliver the earth from the evil-doers.
