The present position of Calvary does not however rest upon the same indisputable evidence as that of the Sepulchre, as there are no marks of antiquity nor any other internal evidences to support its claim. The testimony of the Evangelists proves beyond question that it was near to the Sepulchre, but gives us no clue to its position relative to that place, nor tells us whether it was on a plain or a hill, on smooth ground or on rocky. It seems very probable to me that the Cross would be erected on a hill, in order to make it as conspicuous an object as possible. The present Chapel of the Calvary, wherein are shewn the hole in the rock made for the foot of the Cross, and (at the distance of three feet towards the south) the fissure caused by the earthquake, are indeed on higher ground than the Sepulchre; but we must presently examine whether this elevation is natural or artificial. I will now only remark that the hole is too small to admit a post large enough to support the weight of a man, and is perfectly round; though it is very unlikely that the executioners would have taken the trouble to make the shape so regular. The holes in which the crosses of the two thieves were planted are not visible, although the Greek monk in charge of the Calvary pretends to indicate their position. Abbé Mariti[391], who saw them before Oct. 12, 1808, writes as follows: "The Arabs call the penitent thief Leuss-el-Jemin, which means the thief on the right hand; the position of the cross of the impenitent thief is on the left. If then our Lord was crucified with His face to the north, the other two crosses would not have been in the same line with His; and the distance between the holes compels us to suppose that they were placed at right angles to it." The remark is correct, and I assert, in addition, that the present Calvary is not large enough for three crosses to stand upon, being about nine feet wide; therefore I regard the story, at any rate so far as concerns the two side crosses, as a mere fable. It is impossible to examine the rock cleft by the earthquake, as it is only visible at the bottom of an aperture about three inches wide and two feet deep; all the rest of it being encased in slabs of marble. Its shape therefore cannot be ascertained, but by examining the place we shall see how far it extends. It is difficult to say whether the level floor, raised about two feet above the pavement, on which are pointed out the hole that supported our Lord's Cross, the positions of those of the two thieves, and the fissure produced by the earthquake, is one entire block or not. As the bare rock is only visible at the hole of the Cross and the fissure, we should suppose that it extended over the whole plateau; but a close scrutiny gives rise to the suspicion that these blocks have been brought from some other position and placed here. The platform is only about nine feet from north to south, and five from east to west, so that it would not require a large mass. My opinion was confirmed by observing that two piers are built on the north and south of the platform, and that on the east there is a wall separating the Golgotha from some of the rooms of the Greek convent, and on the west the inlaid pavement of the chapel. This arrangement suggested to me that either the piers and wall rested upon the rock, or that it was altogether wanting beneath. In order to determine this point I examined the Chapel of Adam, situated under the Golgotha, and reached by a descending staircase on the west. Here it is not difficult to ascertain that the aforesaid piers and wall go down below the level of the floor, and that the vaulting is entirely constructed with masonry. The fissured rock, seen from above, is in the east wall; it is protected by a strong iron grating, which renders it impossible to see whether it goes down to the level of the floor, or how far it extends to the north and south. This however may be inferred without difficulty, for on the south there is a wall, and beyond that an apartment belonging to the Greeks, and on the north, another wall, and then the open space inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. On the west is the stone pavement below the wall supporting the grating, which is 3-1/2 feet above the floor. The rock is therefore concealed, but so far as we can see, it does not appear to descend to the floor. Hence the only direction in which it could extend is the east; but here, on the other side of the rock, which cannot be more than 5 feet thick, is a wall separating it from an ancient staircase, belonging to the Greeks, leading to Calvary. It seems then very improbable that after levelling all around so completely, they would have left, to exhibit the mark of the Cross, a fragment of rock which could not stand without the support of walls. I cannot believe this, and am therefore compelled to suppose that the rock is only a piece of the true Golgotha, brought and placed here for the veneration of the faithful, no doubt at the time of Constantine. A farther proof that this block is not in its natural position, but has been brought from another place, is that its mineral character differs from that of the native rock, preserved in its original roughness in the remains of an ancient cistern in the Chapel of the Invention of the Cross, a little to the east of Golgotha.
Far better would it have been had S. Helena and Constantine left the Sepulchre and Golgotha as they discovered them. Far more strongly would the rough rock and the unaltered scenes have spoken to the heart, than all the ornaments they lavished upon it, and those which now load and disfigure it! From a mistaken notion of reverence they wished to adapt the ground to the basilica, and not the basilica to the ground; thus laying the foundation of all the doubts and contests that have since arisen.
For my own part I am inclined to think that Golgotha was on the west of the Sepulchre, because we still see, at a little distance in that direction, some elevated rock in the Syrian chapel, whence it gradually rises westward up to the Christian bazaar, presenting the same mineral (calcareous) character as the block on Calvary. If it were in this direction, it would not only comply with the data of the Bible, and be more than fifty cubits from the walls, but also be on high ground, so that the execution could be seen from a large part of the city; whereas the present site is too near the wall and is in a low situation, so that even though we allow that the ground may now be somewhat lower than it used to be, it would be visible to a very small portion of the city. As there were no strong natural features to mark the spot, and as this side has frequently been devastated during the sieges of Jerusalem, one place may easily have been mistaken for another in the same neighbourhood, so that the tradition on this point is of little value. Therefore, although I do not positively assert that the present position of Golgotha is not the true one, I think that the evidence of the place itself is not sufficient to render its identity unquestionable.
Let us now resume the history of the Sepulchre. Chosroes II., king of Persia, A.D. 614, completely destroyed the magnificent buildings erected by Constantine, took captive the Patriarch, and carried off the wood of the Cross (kept as a relic at Calvary); but through the intercession of the conqueror's wife, a Christian and sister of Maurice, Emperor of the East, the faithful were allowed to rebuild the holy places. A monk, named Modestus, successor of the Patriarch Zacharias, was enabled, by the assistance of the Emperor Heraclius and John the Almsgiver, Patriarch of Alexandria, to erect again four churches in less than fifteen years; but they were much inferior to the originals. During this period Heraclius conquered the Persians, recovered the Cross, and replaced it in Calvary with his own hands. More than one description of the sanctuaries built by Modestus has come down to us; the most interesting is that of Arculf, who visited them; they were called the Church of the Resurrection, the Church of Calvary, the Church of the Invention of the Cross, and the Church of the Virgin[392]. These were respected by the Khalif Omar, A.D. 636, but, according to the Mohammedan chronicles, the conqueror took possession of the columns and other marble ornaments which were lying about in the ruins of Constantine's magnificent buildings, and ordered them to be worked into his new mosque es-Sakharah. He granted freedom of worship to the Christians, and his example was followed, if not surpassed, by Harûn er-Rashîd alone (A.D. 786-809), after whose death they suffered many persecutions; and their churches, especially that of the Resurrection, were plundered and greatly injured. The dome of that church was repaired by the Patriarch Thomas, in the reign of El-Mamûn, with timber brought from Cyprus[393]. Hakem Biamr-Illah, Fatimite Sovereign of Egypt and Syria, ascended the throne A.D. 996, and began an incessant persecution against the Christians. In the year 1010 he ordered the total destruction of the churches of Jerusalem. His barbarous decree was executed, and all the buildings erected by the Patriarch Modestus were ravaged and burnt[394]. A second time the persecution was arrested by a woman, Mary, the mother of Hakem, who obtained permission to rebuild the churches in the same year that they were destroyed. The work was commenced, but proceeded slowly for the want of funds; for when Daker or Daber, successor of Hakem (through the influence of Romanus Argirius), ordered that the injuries done to Jerusalem should be repaired, and that the wall should be restored by the inhabitants at their own expense; and assigned one quarter of the expense to be borne by the Christians, they were so heavily burdened by this additional demand, that the works at the churches were interrupted. It was not till A.D. 1048 that, with the help afforded by Constantine Monomachus, the sanctuaries were completed according to the plans of Modestus, in the reign of the Egyptian Khalif Maabad-Abutamin Mustansir-Billa. They are described by Sæwulf, who visited Jerusalem during the years A.D. 1102 and 1103[395].
The numerous pilgrimages, which were made annually to the Holy Sepulchre after A.D. 1048, kindled a wide-spread enthusiasm in Europe and a strong excitement against the Mohammedans, who had made themselves masters of the Christian Holy Places. These found their vent in the Crusades, and the soldiers of the Cross, who took possession of Jerusalem, acquired the sanctuaries in the condition in which they had been left by Constantine Monomachus; and it was not till A.D. 1130 that they united them under one roof, nearly as they are at the present time[396]. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was not altered by Saladin on his regaining the city, A.D. 1187. It was polluted and injured by the wild tribes, especially by the Kharismian hordes, A.D. 1244; but in 1555 when Father Bonifacius of Ragusa was Guardian of the Holy Land, the whole building was repaired and the great dome restored at the expense of Philip II., King of Spain; as appears from the testimony of some valuable documents preserved by the Commissary General of Madrid and the convent of S. Saviour at Jerusalem. About the year A.D. 1607, Sultan Ahmet I. ordered the whole church to be destroyed, and a mosque erected on its foundations, by a decree inflicting the punishment of death upon all who attempted to prevent its execution. One man alone had the courage to raise his voice against it, Girolamo Capello, Venetian Ambassador at Constantinople, whose nation, from its powerful navy, was more highly respected by the Sultan than any other. By his firmness and energy, he got the order revoked, and the punishment denounced against all who tried to carry it into effect, or inquire into the reason of its revocation. About a century later the great dome was again restored by help of contributions from Spain. The cost would appear incredible, if it were not established by authentic documents, and the chronicles of the Holy Land, still preserved in the convent of S. Saviour at Jerusalem. These state that, in order to obtain a firman from the Porte (which was opposed and retarded during 21 years by the Greeks, who hoped to procure it for themselves), and to complete the restoration 400,000 colonnati (about £92,000) were expended.
A firman was obtained from the Porte, A.D. 1757, by the Greeks, excluding the Latins, partly or wholly, from some of the sanctuaries, including even the Holy Sepulchre, which was sold to the Greeks by the Grand Vizier Regib Pasha. France had already proclaimed her intention of protecting her Church in the East, and the Chevalier de Vergennes was charged with maintaining the rights of the Latins at Constantinople; but, notwithstanding, the places then lost were never wholly recovered. On the 12th October, 1808, a great part of the church was consumed by a terrible fire, caused by the Armenians; and the Greeks obtained permission from the Porte to repair the damage. An ignorant architect, who has had the audacity to record his name, which however I will not help to perpetuate, completed the work of destruction, by pulling down, or covering up, the interesting remnants of Byzantine and Gothic architecture, which the flames had spared. The tombs of the Latin Kings of Jerusalem (of which I will speak presently) were demolished by the Greeks on this occasion; who however try to make us believe that they were destroyed by the fire.
I conclude this sketch of the history of the building, by stating that the great dome is in danger of falling in[397]. Year by year it becomes more and more dilapidated, and the large holes in it, caused by the want of a covering of lead[398], admit the wind and the rain, so that the floor below is sometimes flooded to a depth of five or six inches (as happened in 1857 and 1860), causing so much annoyance to the Priests, that the services have to be performed under umbrellas, and rendering it impossible for the congregation to remain without injury to their health. It has long been hoped that France, the official protector of the place, would put a stop to these trials, and undertake the work of repair: and in 1862, France, Russia, and the Porte, came to an agreement, and the works appeared to be on the point of commencing, as the architects of the three nations at Jerusalem had consulted together; but some disputes on the question of ownership arose between the Greeks and Latins, and the whole matter has been adjourned. While the question is slowly dragging on at Constantinople, it is far from improbable that the dome will fall, and it will be a very fortunate thing if this happen without loss of life.
I will now accompany the reader round the outside and inside of the church, and point out and remark upon the chief objects of interest connected with the building; referring him to the Plans and their description for those of less importance[399].
Before the façade of the church is an oblong open court[400] paved with large slabs of Palestine breccia, which are all cracked, apparently by the action of fire; no improbable cause, when we remember how many Christians have suffered martyrdom by burning on this spot[401]. On the south side is a number of bases of columns arranged symmetrically, shewing that an arcade, if not a porch, formerly stood here. A flight of three steps leads down from these, and the rest of the area is perceptibly lower than the ground on the south, west, and north, and very slightly than that on the east. I remark this to shew, that as the place is in a hollow, it might have been used for a garden, but not for public executions. Below the pavement is the rock, which lies at the same level under the interior of the church, and under the floors of the buildings on each side, east and west. The cistern at the south-east corner of the place is a stronger proof that it was not used for executions. The court is bounded on the west side by the chapels belonging to the Greek convent of S. Constantine; and at the north-west corner is the bell-tower, erected between the years A.D. 1160 and A.D. 1180, and mutilated A.D. 1187 by the loss of the lantern which originally surmounted it. The Greeks have made rooms in it, which are now occupied by the monks[402]. On the east side is the Greek convent of S. Abraham; on the ground-floor of which are two chapels, one belonging to the Armenians and the other to the Abyssinians: through the latter the roof of the chapel of S. Helena, on the east, can be reached. Inside the convent of S. Abraham the Greeks point out to the credulous the spot where Melchizedek planted the first olive; on which one of those trees is still growing. They also shew the spot where he made the first bread, and that on which Abraham offered up his son Isaac.
The architecture of the south façade of the church belongs to the twelfth century, and the work was evidently left unfinished. From what remains it is difficult to deduce the architect's original plan. The position of the bell-tower might lead us to suppose that there would be another corresponding with it on the opposite (eastern) side; but then the Chapel of the Agony, with its precious contents, would be covered over, together with the part below the Golgotha, which must of necessity have been mutilated, if, as would seem probable, other doors had been made into the church. Let us however examine the building which is still left to us. On the level of the ground are two doorways, and above them two windows with arches similarly pointed[403]. The arches of the doorways are composed of three archivolts finely carved, which spring from three columns of verd antique, placed in the re-entering angles of the piers of each door[404]. The capitals of these columns, which are skilfully executed, are a Byzantine imitation of the Corinthian order. The design of the cornice running along the top of the whole façade is also ancient. The bas-reliefs on the lintels of the tympana of the two doors are too well wrought to be the work of the twelfth century. The profiles of the figures on that above the western door are admirably executed, as well as their attitudes; they represent several scenes from the Gospels, as the entry into Jerusalem, the raising of Lazarus, and the Last Supper. The outlines of the leaves, flowers, fruit, birds, and men, on the other, are exquisite. The eastern doorway is built up; the other is the only entrance into the church, and consequently accidents frequently happen there during the Easter season[405].