The buildings around the Cœnaculum were not destroyed at the entrance of Saladin, A.D. 1187. Willibrand of Oldenburg, A.D. 1219, found them inhabited by Syrians, who paid tribute to the conquerors; but in the thirteenth century they were in ruins. In 1336, in consequence of the treaty (A.D. 1333) concerning the restoration of the Holy Places to the Friars Minor, between the Sultan of Egypt on one side, and Robert King of Sicily and his wife Sancia on the other, it was agreed to re-establish the church and monastery on Sion. After a heavy expenditure this was done, and the Franciscans took up their quarters there; as is proved by a bull of Clement V., dated at Avignon, November 21, 1342. Queen Sancia erected a convent enclosing the Cœnaculum on Sion, and richly endowed it for the support of twelve monks and some lay brothers. An idea of it may be obtained from the present buildings, allowing for some modifications. Besides the church and the monks' cells, it included a large hospital, founded A.D. 1354, by a Florentine lady, Sophia degli Arcangeli. This was placed under the care of the Fathers by Pope Innocent in the following year[782]. They were unable to enjoy the advantages bestowed upon them, owing to the persecution of the Mohammedans, who not only plundered them by their heavy exactions, but also put them to death. Indeed, in 1368 all of them were massacred; in 1391, four out of the nine who had succeeded these martyrs; in 1432, one, John of Calabria; in 1537, all of them were seized, and part imprisoned in the Tower of the Pisans, while the rest were sent to Damascus[783]. I have already observed, that, at this time, the Latins being anxious to preserve certain articles, valuable both from their sacred nature and intrinsic worth, entrusted them to the Armenians, who afterwards refused to restore them. The possession of the Sanctuaries on Sion was confirmed to the Franciscans by several Sultans of Egypt and Constantinople; this, however, did not prevent their being driven from the place in 1561; under the twofold pretext, that Sion was fortified, and so might at any time aid the Christians in making themselves masters of Jerusalem, and also that it was unbecoming that infidels should possess the Tomb of David. The monks thereupon retired into a small house, until they purchased from the Georgians the Convent of the Column, as I have already mentioned[784]. The Mohammedan Santons occupied their place; and those who live there at the present time, according to an order of the Pasha, Governor of the city, countersigned by the Effendis of his Council, allow the Fathers, or certain pilgrim priests, to celebrate mass in the building; they also, for a small sum, permit pilgrims to see the Franciscan Church[785], with the upper part of the Tomb of David. This, however, probably only occupies a portion of the earlier church. Like its predecessors, it is divided into two floors; the lower of which is formed by the substructure of the ancient building, and consists of two chambers, one of which has a vaulted roof supported by two piers, and is called the Hall of the Washing the Feet; the other (and smaller) is also vaulted, and bears the name of the Tomb of David. The upper story is given on my Plan. The chamber on the east above the Tomb of David is not always opened to the Christians; this is shewn as the place of the Descent of the Holy Ghost: the other, on the west, is the Cœnaculum, a Gothic building in the style of the fourteenth century, erected by the Franciscans. It is divided down the middle by two granite columns, and half-columns project from the side walls to correspond with them. I conclude this subject by observing, that in the buildings on the south and on the west large pieces of masonry of the time of the Crusades still remain; and that the stables on the west are the work of Ibrahim Pasha, who, with his attendants, occupied the whole of the Cœnaculum.
Outside the building of Neby Daûd, and a little to the north, is the site of a house, where the Virgin Mary is said to have passed the last years of her life. Some large stones, on one of which a cross is carved, mark the spot, in which I have no great belief. Sanutus[786] thus speaks of it: "Near this spot, a stone's throw to the south, is the place where the blessed Virgin dwelt after her Son's Ascension into heaven, and the cell wherein she departed this life." In the neighbourhood was a chapel dedicated to S. John the Evangelist, which was seen by Sanutus, who goes on to say, "There also is the Church of the Blessed John the Evangelist, which was, as it is said, the first of all the churches; in it this Apostle was wont to offer mass to that most blessed Queen while he lived in this world."
We have now only to visit the walled enclosure to the south of the Sion Gate. This is a small Armenian convent, which is said to occupy the site of the house of Caiaphas: the tradition dates from the fourth century. I have already said that the Pilgrim of Bordeaux mentions it, without however stating that a church stood there. We find in the writings of Nicephorus Callistus[787], that S. Helena built a church there, and dedicated it to S. Peter; but this is not confirmed by any one besides. None of the authors, contemporary with or posterior to S. Helena, allude to it; and we cannot suppose that this Sanctuary would be omitted in the Itinerary of S. Paula, which names all the others that were then in existence. It was unknown at the time of the Crusades, as it is not recorded by Edrisi, who wrote A.D. 1151, nor by Phocas, in his journey in Palestine, A.D. 1185. Marinus Sanutus, in the fourteenth century, is the first writer who mentions it. He calls it the Church of S. Saviour; the name it still bears[788]. Hence I infer that the church and the convent adjoining were erected at the end of the thirteenth century, or at the beginning of the fourteenth. Although the tradition concerning the House of Caiaphas goes back as far as the fourth century, I believe it would be difficult to maintain its correctness, as we have no data whatever from the Bible to assist us in fixing the position of the High-priest's dwelling. The entrance is by a small door on the north, near the north-west corner. The church is oblong in plan (50 feet long by 25 wide), without any architectural features worthy of notice. The pictures on the walls are ugly and grotesque. In the central altar at the east end two large pieces of stone are exhibited, which are said to have formed part of the mass that closed the door of the Sepulchre of Christ. Their genuineness would be difficult to establish; but, be that as it may, the Armenians ought to be ashamed of shewing them, as they were entrusted to them by the Franciscans in 1570, at the time of the war with Cyprus, and afterwards dishonourably appropriated. There is neither history nor tradition to support the claims of these stones, and the Latin Fathers suffer their loss with patience, since their thickness would not correspond with the size mentioned by the Evangelist[789], and the little that can be seen of them is enough to shew that they cannot have belonged to a stone of the right shape. On the south of the altar is a very small square-headed door leading into a narrow chamber, in which two persons can scarcely stand. This is said to be the prison where Jesus was kept during the remainder of the night after he was brought to Caiaphas. The walls shew no signs of antiquity; the pavement rests upon a mass of rubbish; the tradition is unfounded, and the place perhaps was formerly only a closet. In the courts before the church they point out the spot on which S. Peter stood when he denied his Master, and where the cock crew! In the interior of the convent the Armenian Patriarchs and Bishops are buried. I must not forget to observe that a great number of stones are to be seen in the outer wall and on the ground, which have been used in monuments; on them are some ancient Armenian inscriptions. This is an easy way of employing tombstones, when they lie too close on the ground of a cemetery.
Before entering the city we descend the eastern slope of Sion by a foot-path leading to Siloam, and arrive at a small cave, surrounded by some ruins, which are the remains of the Church of S. Peter at the Cock-crow, destroyed since the thirteenth century. Tradition reports that S. Peter retired to this spot to lament his sin after denying his Redeemer. The church was standing in the ninth century; for Bernard the Wise writes: "Towards the east is a church in honour of S. Peter, on the spot where he denied his Lord[790]." John of Würtzburg informs us that it belonged to the Greeks in the twelfth century. We read in La Citez de Jherusalem[791]: "There was a church called S. Peter at the Cock-crow. In this church was a deep ditch, wherein S. Peter hid himself when he had denied Jesus Christ, and there he heard the cock crow, and bewailed his sin." We read also in Edrisi[792]: "From the Sion Gate the road descends into a ravine called the Valley of Hell, at the end of which is a church in honour of S. Peter." A few yards to the east of this is a small Jewish cemetery, now abandoned. Turning back northward from this, we reach the road which, passing along under the city-wall, leads to the Sion Gate.
On entering this we see by the side of the wall to the east some poor dwellings, built on a level plot of ground, composed of stones and clay. These are the abodes of the lepers of Jerusalem, where these unhappy beings live until released by death from their misery. They are called by the Arabs Beiût el-Masakîm (Houses of the Unfortunate), and are occupied by men, women, and children. Most of them are Mohammedans, but there are some Christians among them. This leprosy is not white, like that described in the Bible[793], but is the kind called Elephantiasis. The skin of the afflicted persons assumes a violet or reddish-grey tint, and tumours are formed in it, which turn into ulcers of the most horrible appearance; little by little the extremities of the limbs drop off, leaving only shapeless stumps behind; the roof of the palate becomes inflamed and then ulcerates, so that the voice grows harsh, and at last guttural; and the face and limbs are swollen. This terrible calamity, which refuses to yield to the efforts of science, is not contagious, but hereditary. The lepers are not, however, so poor as they are usually supposed to be. We will not dwell further upon this miserable sight, but will continue our observations in another chapter.
FOOTNOTES:
[532] Plate XVII.
[533] Plate XLIX.
[534] Early Travels, Bohn's Ant. Lib. pp. 4, 19.