Chapter IV: , VII (139)

"It is estimated that about the middle of the present century,
American capital to the amount of seventeen million dollars
was invested in the whaling industry in the seas of Japan and
China. We thus see that it was not a mere outburst of French
enthusiasm when M. Michelet paid this high tribute to the
service of the whale to civilization: 'Who opened to men the
great distant navigation? Who revealed the ocean and marked
out its zones and its liquid highways? Who discovered the
secrets of the globe? The Whale and the Whaler.' … There
were causes other than the mere safety of whalers which led to
the inception of the American expedition to Japan. On the one
hand, the rise of industrial and commercial commonwealths on
the Pacific, the discovery of gold in California, the
increasing trade with China, the development of steam
navigation—necessitating coal depots and ports for shelter,
the opening of highways across the Isthmus of Central America,
the missionary enterprises on the Asiatic continent, the rise
of the Hawaiian Islands,—on the other hand, the knowledge of
foreign nations among the ruling class in Japan, the news of
the British victory in China, the progress of European
settlements in the Pacific, the dissemination of western
science among a progressive class of scholars, the advice from
the Dutch government to discontinue the antiquated policy of
exclusion—all these testified that the fulness of time for
Japan to turn a new page in her history was at hand. … About
this time, a newspaper article concerning some Japanese waifs
who had been picked up at sea by the barque Auckland—Captain
Jennings—and brought to San Francisco, attracted the
attention of Commodore Aulick. He submitted a proposal to the
government that it should take advantage of this incident to
open commercial relations with the Empire, or at least to
manifest the friendly feelings of the country. This proposal
was made on the 9th of May, 1851. Daniel Webster was then
Secretary of State, and in him Aulick found a ready friend.
… Clothed with full power to negotiate and sign treaties,
and furnished with a letter from President Fillmore to the
Emperor, Commodore Aulick was on the eve of departure when for
some reason he was prevented. Thus the project which began at
his suggestion was obstructed when it was about to be
accomplished, and another man, perhaps better fitted for the
undertaking, entered into his labors. … Commodore [Matthew
Calbraith] Perry shared the belief in the expediency of
sending a special mission for the purpose. When Commodore
Aulick was recalled, Perry proposed to the U. S. Government an
immediate expedition. The proposal was accepted, and an
expedition on the most liberal scale was resolved upon. He was
invested with extraordinary powers, naval and diplomatic. The
East India and China Seas and Japan were the official
designation of the field of service, but the real object in
view was the establishment of a coal depot in Japan. The
public announcement of the resolution was followed by
applications from all quarters of Christendom for permission
to accompany the expedition; all these were, however, refused
on prudential grounds. … Impatient of the delay caused by
the tardy preparations of his vessels, Perry sailed from
Norfolk on the 24th of November, 1852, with one ship, the
Mississippi, leaving the rest to follow as soon as ready. …
The Mississippi … touching at, several ports on her way,
reached Loo Choo in May, where the squadron united. … In the
afternoon of the 8th of July, 1853, the squadron entered the
Bay of Yedo in martial order, and about 5 o'clock in the
evening was anchored off the town of Uraga. No sooner had 'the
black ships of the evil mien' made their entry into the Bay,
than the signal guns were fired, followed by the discharge of
rockets; then were seen on the shore companies of soldiers
moving from garrison to garrison. The popular commotion in
Yedo at the news of 'a foreign invasion' was beyond
description. The whole city was in an uproar. In all
directions were seen mothers flying with children in their
arms, and men with mothers on their backs. Rumors of an
immediate action, exaggerated each time they were communicated
from mouth to mouth, added horror to the horror-stricken. …
As the squadron dropped anchor, it was surrounded by junks and
boats of all sorts, but there was no hostile sign shown. A
document in French was handed on board, which proved to be a
warning to any foreign vessel not to come nearer. The next day
was spent in informal conference between the local officials
of Uraga and the subordinate officers of the squadron. It was
Commodore Perry's policy to behave with as much reserve and
exclusiveness as the Japanese diplomats had done and would do.
He would neither see, nor talk with, any except the highest
dignitary of the realm. Meanwhile, the governor of Uraga came
on board and was received by captains and lieutenants. He
declared that the laws forbade any foreign communication to be
held elsewhere than Nagasaki; but to Nagasaki the squadron
would never go. The vexed governor would send to Yedo for
further instructions, and the 12th was fixed as a day for
another conference. Any exchange of thought was either in the
Dutch language, for which interpreters were provided on both
sides, or in Chinese, through Dr. S. Wells Williams, and
afterward in Japanese, through Manjiro Nakahama. … On the
12th, the Governor of Uraga again appeared on board and
insisted on the squadron's leaving the Yedo Bay for Nagasaki,
where the President's letter would be duly received through
the Dutch or the Chinese. This the Commodore firmly refused to
do. It was therefore decided at the court of Yedo that the
letter be received at Kurihama, a few miles from the town of
Uraga. This procedure was, in the language of the
commissioners, 'in opposition to the Japanese law;' but, on
the ground that 'the Admiral, in his quality as Ambassador of
the President, would be insulted by any other course,' the
original of Mr. Fillmore's letter to the Japanese Emperor,
enclosed in a golden box of one thousand dollars in value, was
delivered on the 14th of July to the commissioners appointed
by the Shogun. …
{1878}
Fortunately for Japan, the disturbed state of affairs in
China made it prudent for Perry to repair to the ports of that
country, which he did as though he had consulted solely the
diplomatic convenience of our country. He left word that he
would come the ensuing spring for our answer. … It was the
Taiping Rebellion which called for Perry's presence in China.
The American merchants had large interests at stake
there—their property in Shanghai alone amounting, it is said,
to $1,200,000. … While in China, Commodore Perry found that
the Russian and French admirals, who were staying in Shanghai,
contemplated a near visit to Japan. That he might not give any
advantage to them, he left Macao earlier than he had intended,
and, on the 13th of February, found himself again in the Bay
of Yedo, with a stately fleet of eight ships. As the place
where the conference had been held at the previous visit was
out of the reach of gun-shot from the anchorage, Perry
expressed a desire of holding negotiations in Yedo, a request
impossible for the Japanese to comply with. After some
hesitation, the suburb Kanagawa was mutually agreed upon as a
suitable site, and there a temporary building was accordingly
erected for the transaction of the business. On the 8th of
May, Commodore Perry, arrayed in the paraphernalia befitting
his rank, was ushered into the house. The reply of the Shogun
to the President's letter was now given—the purport of which
was, decidedly in word but reluctantly in spirit, in favor of
friendly intercourse. Conferences were repeated in the middle
and latter part of the month, and after many evasions and
equivocations, deliberations and delays, invitations to
banquets and exchanges of presents, at last, on Friday, the
31st of May, the formal treaty was signed; a synopsis of which
is here presented:

1. Peace and friendship.
2. Ports of Shimoda and Hakodate open to American ships,
and necessary provisions to be supplied them.
3. Relief to shipwrecked people; expenses thereof not to be
refunded.
4. Americans to be free as in other countries, but amenable to
just laws.
5. Americans at Shimoda and Hakodate not to be subject to
restrictions; free to go about within defined limits.
6. Careful deliberation in transacting business which affects
the welfare of either party.
7. Trade in open ports subject to local regulations.
8. Wood, water, provisions, coal, etc., to be procured through
Japanese officers only.
9. Most-favored nation clause.
10. U. S. ships restricted to ports of Shimoda and Hakodate,
except when forced by stress of weather.
11. U. S. Consuls or agents to reside at Shimoda.
12. Ratifications to be exchanged within eighteen months. …

His labors at an end, Perry bade the last farewell to Japan
and started on his home-bound voyage. This was in June, 1854.
… No sooner had Perry left, carrying off the trophy of
peaceful victory—the treaty (though the Yedo government was
in no enjoyment of peaceful rest), than the Russian Admiral
Pontiatine appeared in Nagasaki. He urged that the same
privileges be granted his country as were allowed the
Americans. … Soon, the English Rear Admiral, Sir James
Stirling, arrives at the same harbor, very kindly to notify
the government that there may be some fighting in Japanese
waters between Russians and his countrymen. … The British
convention was signed October 14, 1854, and followed, in 1858,
by the Elgin treaty. The treaty with Russia was signed January
26, 1855; Netherlands, 9th of November the same year; France,
October 9, 1858; Portugal, 3rd of August, 1860; German Customs
Union, 25th of January, 1861. The other nations which followed
the United States were Italy, Spain, Denmark, Belgium,
Switzerland, Austria-Hungary, Sweden and Norway, Peru, Hawaii,
China, Corea and Siam; lastly Mexico, with whom we concluded a
treaty on terms of perfect equality (November 30, 1888)."

_Inazo (Ota) Nitobe,
The Intercourse between the U. S. and Japan,
chapter 2._

ALSO IN:
_F. L. Hawks,
Narrative of the Expedition under Commander Perry._

_W. E. Griffis,
Matthew Calbraith Perry,
chapters 27-33._

JAPAN: A. D. 1869-1890.
Constitutional development.

"In 1869 was convened the Kogisho or 'Parliament,' as Sir
Harry Parkes translates it in his despatch to the Earl of
Clarendon. … The Kogisho was composed mostly of the
retainers of the Daimios, for the latter, having no experience
of the earnest business of life, 'were not eager to devote
themselves to the labors of an onerous and voluntary office.'
… The object of the Kogisho was to enable the government to
sound public opinion on the various topics of the day, and to
obtain the assistance of the country in the work of
legislation by ascertaining whether the projects of the
government were likely to be favorably received. The Kogisho,
like the Councils of Kuges and Daimios, was nothing but an
experiment, a mere germ of a deliberative assembly, which only
time and experience could bring to maturity. … It was a
quiet, peaceful, obedient debating society. It has left the
record of its abortive undertakings in the 'Kogisho Nishi' or
journal of 'Parliament.' The Kogisho was dissolved in the year
of its birth. And the indifference of the public about its
dissolution proves how small an influence it really had. But a
greater event than the dissolution of the Kogisho was pending
before the public gaze. This was the abolition of feudalism.
… The measure to abolish feudalism was much discussed in the
Kogisho before its dissolution. … In the following noted
memorial, after reviewing the political history of Japan
during the past few hundred years, these Daimios said: 'Now
the great Government has been newly restored and the Emperor
himself undertakes the direction of affairs. This is, indeed,
a rare and mighty event. We have the name (of an Imperial
Government), we must also have the fact. Our first duty is to
illustrate our faithfulness and to prove our loyalty. … The
place where we live is the Emperor's land and the food which
we eat is grown by the Emperor's men. How can we make it our
own? We now reverently offer up the list of our possessions
and men, with the prayer that the Emperor will take good
measures for rewarding those to whom reward is due and for
taking from those to whom punishment is due. Let the imperial
orders be issued for altering and remodelling the territories
of the various clans. Let the civil and penal codes, the
military laws down to the rules for uniform and the
construction of engines of war, all proceed from the Emperor;
let all the affairs of the empire, great and small, be
referred to him.' This memorial was signed by the Daimios of
Kago, Hizen, Satsuma, Choshiu, Tosa, and some other Daimios of
the west.
{1879}
But the real author of the memorial is believed to have been
Kido, the brain of the Restoration. Thus were the fiefs of the
most powerful and most wealthy Daimios voluntarily offered to
the Emperor. The other Daimios soon followed the example of
their colleagues. And the feudalism which had existed in Japan
for over eight centuries was abolished by the following
laconic imperial decree of August, 1871: 'The clans are
abolished, and prefectures are established in their places.'
… While the government at home was thus tearing down the old
framework of state, the Iwakura Embassy in foreign lands was
gathering materials for the new. This was significant,
inasmuch as five of the best statesmen of the time, with their
staff of forty-four able men, came into association for over a
year with western peoples, and beheld in operation their
social, political and religious institutions. … In 1873,
Count Itagaki with his friends had sent in a memorial to the
government praying for the establishment of a representative
assembly, but they had not been heeded by the government. In
July, 1877, Count Itagaki with his Ri-shi-sha again addressed
a memorial to the Emperor, 'praying for a change in the form
of government, and setting forth the reasons which, in the
opinion of the members of the society, rendered such a change
necessary.' These reasons were nine in number and were
developed at great length. … The civil war being ended, in
1878, the year which marks a decade from the establishment of
the new regime, the government, persuaded that the time for
popular institutions was fast approaching, not alone through
representations of the Tosa memorialists, but through many
other signs of the times, decided to take a step in the
direction of establishing a national assembly. But the
government acted cautiously. Thinking that to bring together
hundreds of members unaccustomed to parliamentary debate and
its excitement, and to allow them a hand in the administration
of affairs of the state, might be attended with serious
dangers, as a preparation for the national assembly the
government established first local assemblies. Certainly this
was a wise course. These local assemblies have not only been
good training schools for popular government, but also proved
reasonably successful. … The qualifications for electors
(males only) are: an age of twenty years, registration, and
payment of a land tax of $5. Voting is by ballot, but the
names of the voters are to be written by themselves on the
voting papers. There are now 2,172 members who sit in these
local assemblies. … The gulf between absolute government and
popular government was thus widened more and more by the
institution of local government. The popular tide raised by
these local assemblies was swelling in volume year by year.
New waves were set in motion by the younger generation of
thinkers. Toward the close of the year 1881 the flood rose so
high that the government thought it wise not to resist longer.
His Imperial Majesty, hearing the petitions of the people,
graciously confirmed and expanded his promise of 1868 by the
famous proclamation of October 12, 1881: 'We have long had it
in view to gradually establish a constitutional form of
government. … It was with this object in view that in the
eighth year of Meiji (1875) we established the Senate, and in
the eleventh year of Meiji (1878) authorized the formation of
local assemblies. … We therefore hereby declare that we
shall, in the twenty-third year of Meiji (1890) establish a
parliament, in order to carry into full effect the
determination we have announced; and we charge our faithful
subjects bearing our commissions to make, in the meantime, all
necessary preparations to that end.'"

_T. Iyenaga,
The Constitutional Development of Japan, 1853-1881
(Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th Series, number 9)._

See CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN.

JAPAN: A. D. 1871-1872.

Organization of National Education.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: ASIA.

----------JAPAN: End----------

JAQUELINE OF HOLLAND AND HAINAULT,
The Despoiling of.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1417-1430.

JAQUES-GILMORE PEACE MISSION.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JULY).

JARL.

See EARL; and ETHEL.

JARNAC, Battle of (1569).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

JASPER, Sergeant, The exploit of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JUNE).

JASSY, Treaty of (1792).

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

JATTS OR JAUTS.

See GYPSIES.

JAVA: A. D. 1811-1813.
Taken from the Dutch by the English.
Restored to Holland.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

JAVAN.

The Hebrew form of the Greek race-name Ionian; "but in the Old
Testament it is generally applied to the island of Cyprus,
which is called the Island of Yavnan, or the Ionians, on the
Assyrian monuments."

_A. H. Sayce,
Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
chapter 2._

JAXARTES, The.

The ancient name of the river now called the Sir, or Sihun,
which empties into the Sea of Aral.

JAY, John,
In the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1774 (SEPTEMBER); and NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.

In diplomatic service.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

And the adoption of the Federal Constitution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

Chief justice of the Supreme Court.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

And the second Treaty with Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794-1795.

JAYHAWKERS AND RED LEGS.

During the conflict of 1854-1859 in Kansas, certain
"Free-state men in the Southeast, comparatively isolated,
having little communication with [the town of] Lawrence, and
consequently almost wholly without check, developed a
successful if not very praiseworthy system of retaliation.
Confederated at first for defense against pro-slavery
outrages, but ultimately falling more or less completely into
the vocation of robbers and assassins, they have received the
name—whatever its origin may be—of jayhawkers."

_L. W. Spring,
Kansas, page 240._

"The complaints in former years of Border Ruffian forays from
Missouri into Kansas [see KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859], were, as
soon as the civil war began, paid with interest by a continual
accusation of incursions of Kansas 'Jayhawkers' and 'Red Legs'
into Missouri."

_J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
Abraham Lincoln,
volume 6, page 370._

JAYME.

See JAMES.

{1880}

JAZYGES, OR IAZYGES.

See LIMIGANTES.

JEAN.

See JOHN.

JEANNE I., Queen of Navarre, A. D. 1274-1305.

Jeanne II., Queen of Navarre, 1328-1349.

Jeanne D'Albret, Queen of Navarre, and the Reformation in
France.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.

JEBUSITES, The.

The Canaanite inhabitants of the city of Jebus, or ancient
Jerusalem, which they held against the Israelites until David
took the place by storm and made it the capital of his
kingdom.

_H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 3, section 1 (volume 3)._

See JERUSALEM.

JECKER CLAIMS, The.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

JEFFERSON, Thomas:
Authorship of the Declaration of Independence.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

In the Cabinet of President Washington.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792; 1793.

Leadership of the Anti-Federalist or Republican Party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792; and 1798.

Presidential administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800, to 1806-1807.

JEFFERSON, Provisional Territory of.

See COLORADO: A. D.1806-1876.

JEFFREYS, and the "Bloody Assizes."

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685.

JEHAD.

See DAR-UL-ISLAM.

JELLALABAD, Defense of (1842).

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842.

JEM, OR DJEM, Prince, The story of.

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

JEMAPPES, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

JEMMINGEN, Battle of (1568).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.

JENA, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER).

JENGIS KHAN, Conquests of.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

JENKINS' EAR, The War of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

JENKINS' FERRY, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS—MISSOURI).

JENNY GEDDES' STOOL.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637.

JERBA, OR GELVES, The disaster at.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

JERSEY AND GUERNSEY, The Isles of.

"Jersey, Guernsey, and their fellows are simply that part of
the Norman duchy which clave to its dukes when the rest fell
away. Their people are those Normans who remained Normans
while the rest stooped to become Frenchmen. The Queen of Great
Britain has a perfect right, if she will, to call herself
Duchess of the Normans, a title which, in my ears at least,
sounds better than that of Empress of India."

_E. A. Freeman,
Practical Bearings of General European History
(Lectures to American Audiences), lecture 4._

ALSO IN:
_D. T. Ansted and R. G. Latham,
The Channel Islands._

JERSEY PRISON SHIP, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.
PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.

JERSEYS, The.
East and West New Jersey.

See NEW JERSEY.

----------JERUSALEM: Start----------

JERUSALEM:
Early history.

"The first site of Jerusalem was the hill now erroneously
called Sion, and which we shall designate … as Pseudo-Sion,
the plateau of rock at the southwest, surrounded on all sides
by ravines, viz., by the Valley of Hinnom on the west and
south, and by the Tyropœon, or Cheesemakers' Valley, on the
north and east. Parallel to this lay the real Sion, the less
elevated eastern hill, shut in on the west by the Tyropœon
Valley, which divided it from Pseudo-Sion, and on the east by
the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and ending southward in a
wedge-like point opposite to the south-east corner of
Pseudo-Sion. The town on the western-most of these two ridges
was known first as Jebus, and afterwards as the High Town, or
Upper Market; and the accretion to it on the eastern hill was
anciently called Salem, and subsequently the Low Town and
Acra. In the days of lawless violence, the first object was
safety; and, as the eastern hill was by nature exposed on the
north, it was there protected artificially by a citadel and
fosse. The High Town and Low Town were originally two distinct
cities, occupied by the Amorites and Hittites, whence the
taunt of the prophet to Jerusalem: 'Thy birth and thy nativity
is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite and thy
mother a Hittite.' Hence, also, the dualistic form of the name
Jerusalem in Hebrew, signifying 'Twin-Jerusalem.' Indeed the
opinion has been broached that Jerusalem is the compound of
the two names, Jebus and Salem, softened 'euphoniæ gratiâ'
into Jerusalem. It is remarkable that to the very last the
quarter lying between the High Town and Low Town, though in
the very heart of the city when the different parts were
united into one compact body, was called the Suburb. The first
notice of Jerusalem is in the time of Abraham. The king of
Shinar and his confederates captured Sodom and Gomorrah, and
carried away Lot, Abraham's brother's son; when Abraham,
collecting his trainbands, followed after the enemy and
rescued Lot; and on his return 'at the valley of Shaveh, which
is the king's vale, Melchizedek, king of Salem—the priest of
the Most High God—blessed Abram.' The king's vale was the
Valley of Jehoshaphat: and Salem was identical with the
eastern hill, the real Zion as we learn from the Psalms, 'In
Salem is his tabernacle, and his dwelling-place in Zion;'
where Salem and Zion are evidently used as synonymous. Whether
Moriah, on which Abram offered his sacrifice, was the very
mount on which the Temple was afterwards built, must be left
to conjecture. But when the Second Book of Chronicles was
written, the Jews had at least a tradition to that effect, for
we read that 'Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at
Jerusalem in Mount Moriah.' On the exodus of the Israelites
from Egypt, we find distinct mention made of Jerusalem by that
very name; for after Joshua's death, 'the children of Judah
fought against Jerusalem, and took it … and set the city on
fire.' But Josephus is probably right in understanding this to
apply to the Low Town only, i. e., the eastern hill, or Sion,
as opposed to the western hill, the High Town, or Pseudo-Sion.
The men of Judah had only a temporary occupation even of the
Low Town, for it was not until the time of David that
Jerusalem was brought permanently under the dominion of the
Israelites."

_T. Lewin,
Jerusalem,
chapter 1._

{1881}

JERUSALEM:
Conquest and occupation by David.

"David had reigned seven years and a half in Hebron over the
tribe of Judah alone.

See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.

He was now solemnly installed as king by the elders of all
Israel, and 'made a league with them before Jehovah in
Hebron.' This was equivalent to what we now call a 'coronation
oath,' and denoted that he was a constitutional, not an
arbitrary monarch. The Israelites had no intention to resign
their liberties, but in the sequel it will appear, that, with
paid foreign troops at his side, even a most religious king
could be nothing but a despot. Concerning David's military
proceedings during his reign at Hebron, we know nothing in
detail, though we read of Joab bringing in a large spoil,
probably from his old enemies the Amalekites. David had an
army to feed, to exercise, and to keep out of mischief; but it
is probable that the war against Abner generally occupied it
sufficiently. Now however he determined to signalize his new
power by a great exploit. The strength of Jerusalem had been
sufficiently proved by the long secure dwelling of Jebusites
in it, surrounded by a Hebraized population. Hebron was no
longer a suitable place for the centre of David's
administration; but Jerusalem, on the frontier of Benjamin and
Judah, without separating him from his own tribe, gave him a
ready access to the plains of Jericho below, and thereby to
the eastern districts; and although by no means a central
position, it was less remote from Ephraim than Hebron. Of this
Jebusite town he therefore determined to possess himself. …
The Jebusites were so confident of their safety, as to send to
David an enigmatical message of defiance; which may be
explained,—that a lame and blind garrison was sufficient to
defend the place. David saw in this an opportunity of
displacing Joab from his office of chief captain,—if indeed
Joab formally held that office as yet, and had not merely
assumed authority as David's eldest nephew and old comrade in
arms. The king however now declared, that whoever should first
scale the wall and drive off its defenders, should be made
chief captain; but his hopes were signally disappointed. His
impetuous nephew resolved not to be outdone, and triumphantly
mounting the wall, was the immediate means of the capture of
the town. … Jerusalem is henceforth its name in … history;
in poetry only, and not before the times of king Hezekiah, is
it entitled Salem, or peace; identifying it with the city of
the legendary Melchisedek. David's first care was to provide
for the security of his intended capital, by suitable
fortifications. Immediately to the north of Mount Zion, and
separated from it by a slighter depression which we have
named, was another hill, called Millo in the Hebrew. … In
ancient times this seems to have been much loftier than now;
for it has been artificially lowered. David made no attempt to
include Millo (or Acra) in his city, but fortified Mount Zion
separately; whence it was afterwards called, The city of
David."

_F. W. Newman,
A History of the Hebrew Monarchy,
chapter 3._

"The Jebusite city was composed of the fortress of Sion, which
must have been situated where the mosque of El Akasa now
stands, and of a lower town (Ophel) which runs down from there
to the well which they called Gihon. David took the fortress
of Sion, and gave the greater portion of the neighbouring
lands to Joab, and probably left the lower town to the
Jebusites. That population, reduced to an inferior situation,
lost all energy, thanks to the new Israelitish influx, and
played no important part in the history of Jerusalem. David
rebuilt the upper town of Sion, the citadel or millo, and all
the neighbouring quarters. This is what they called the city
of David. … David in reality created Jerusalem."

_E. Renan,
History of the People of Israel,
book 2, chapter 18 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN:
_H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 2, section 1, B._

JERUSALEM:
Early sieges.

Jerusalem, the ancient stronghold of the Jebusites, which
remained in the hands of that Canaanite people until David
reduced it and made it the capital of his kingdom, was the
object of many sieges in its subsequent history and suffered
at the hands of many ruthless conquerors. It was taken, with
no apparent resistance, by Shishak, of Egypt, in the reign of
Rehoboam, and Solomon's temple plundered. Again, in the reign
of Amaziah, it was entered by the armies of the rival kingdom
of Israel and a great part of its walls thrown down. It was
besieged without success by the tartan or general of
Sennacherib, and captured a little later by Pharaoh Necho. In
B. C. 586 the great calamity of its conquest and destruction
by Nebuchadnezzar befell, when the survivors of its chief
inhabitants were taken captive to Babylon. Rebuilt at the
return from captivity, it enjoyed peace under the Persians;
but in the troubled times which followed the dissolution of
Alexander's Empire, Jerusalem was repeatedly pillaged and
abused by the Greeks of Egypt and the Greeks of Syria. Its
walls were demolished by Ptolemy I. (B. C. 320) and again by
Autiochus Epiphanes (B. C. 168), when a great part of the city
was likewise burned.

_Josephus,
Antiquity of the Jews._

ALSO IN:
_H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews._

See, also, JEWS.

JERUSALEM: B. C. 171-169.
Sack and massacre by Antiochus Epiphanes.

See JEWS: B. C. 332-167.

JERUSALEM: B. C. 63.
Siege and capture by Pompeius.

See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

JERUSALEM: B. C. 40.
Surrendered to the Parthians.

See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

JERUSALEM: B. C. 37.
Siege by Herod and the Romans.

See Jews: B. C. 40—A. D. 44.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 33-100.
Rise of the Christian Church.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 70.-Siege and destruction by Titus.

See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.
THE GREAT REVOLT.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 130-134.
Rebuilt by Hadrian.
Change of name.
The revolt of Bar-Kokheba.

See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.
Siege, sack and massacre by the Persians.

In the last of the wars of the Persians with the Romans, while
Heraclius occupied the throne of the Empire, at
Constantinople, and Chosroës II. filled that of the
Sassanides, the latter (A. D. 614) "sent his general,
Shahr-Barz, into the region east of the Antilibanus and took
the ancient and famous city of Damascus. From Damascus, in the
ensuing year, Shahr-Barz advanced against Palestine, and,
summoning the Jews to his aid, proclaimed a Holy War against
the Christian misbelievers, whom he threatened to enslave or
exterminate. Twenty-six thousand of these fanatics flocked to
his standard; and having occupied the Jordan region and
Galilee, Shahr-Barz in A. D. 615 invested Jerusalem, and after
a siege of eighteen days forced his way into the town and gave
it over to plunder and rapine.
{1882}
The cruel hostility of the Jews had free vent. The churches of
Helena, of Constantine, of the Holy Sepulchre, of the
Resurrection, and many others, were burnt or ruined; the
greater part of the city was destroyed; the sacred treasuries
were plundered; the relics scattered or carried off; and a
massacre of the inhabitants, in which the Jews took the chief
part, raged throughout the whole city for some days. As many
as 17,000, or, according to another account, 90,000, were
slain. Thirty-five thousand were made prisoners. Among them
was the aged patriarch, Zacharias, who was carried captive
into Persia, where he remained till his death. The Cross found
by Helena, and believed to be 'the True Cross,' was at the
same time transported to Ctesiphon; where it was preserved
with care and duly venerated by the Christian wife of
Chosroës."

_G. Rawlinson,
The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 24._

See, also, ROME: A. D. 565-628.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 637.
Surrender to the Moslems.

In the winter of 637, the Arabs, then masters of the greater
part of Syria, laid siege to Jerusalem. After four months of
vigorous attack and defense, the Christian Patriarch of
Jerusalem held a parley from the walls with the Arab general,
Abu Obeidah. "'Do you not know,' said he, 'that this city is
holy, and that whoever offers violence to it draws upon his
head the vengeance of heaven?' 'We know it,' replied Abu
Obeidah, 'to be the house of the prophets, where their bodies
lie interred; we know it to be the place whence our prophet
Mahomet made his nocturnal ascent to heaven; and we know that
we are more worthy of possessing it than you are, nor will we
raise the siege until Allah has delivered it into our hands,
as he has done many other places.' Seeing there was no further
hope, the patriarch consented to give up the city, on
condition that the Caliph would come in person to take
possession and sign the articles of surrender." This proposal
being communicated to Omar, the Caliph, he consented to make
the long journey from Medina to Jerusalem, and, in due time,
he entered the Holy City, not like a conqueror, but on foot,
with his staff in his hand and wearing his simple,
much-patched Arab garb. "The articles of surrender were drawn
up in writing by Omar, and served afterwards as a model for
the Moslem leaders in other conquests. The Christians were to
build no new churches in the surrendered territory. The church
doors were to be set open to travellers, and free ingress
permitted to Mahometans by day and night. The bells should
only toll, and not ring, and no crosses should be erected on
the churches, nor shown publicly in the streets. The
Christians should not teach the Koran to their children; nor
speak openly of their religion; nor attempt to make
proselytes; nor hinder their kinsfolk from embracing Islam.
They should not assume the Moslem dress, either caps,
slippers, or turbans, nor part their hair like Moslems, but
should always be distinguished by girdles. They should not use
the Arabian language in inscriptions on their signets, nor
salute after the Moslem manner, nor be called by Moslem
surnames. They should rise on the entrance of a Moslem, and
remain standing until he should be seated. They should
entertain every Moslem traveller three days gratis. They
should sell no wine, bear no arms, and use no saddle in
riding; neither should they have any domestic who had been in
Moslem service. … The Christians having agreed to surrender
on these terms, the Caliph gave them, under his own hand, an
assurance of protection in their lives and fortunes, the use
of their churches, and the exercise of their religion."

_W. Irving,
Mahomet and His Successors,
volume 2, chapter 18._

See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 908-1171.
In the Moslem civil wars.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST and EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1064-1076.
Great revival of pilgrimages from western Europe.

See CRUSADES: CAUSES, &c.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1076.
Taken by the Seljuk Turks.

See CRUSADES: CAUSES, &c.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1094.
Visit of Peter the Hermit.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094-1095.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099.
The Blood "Deliverance" of the Holy City by the Crusaders.

The armies of the First Crusade (see CRUSADES: A. D.
1096-1099)—the surviving remnant of them—reached Jerusalem
in June, A. D. 1099. They numbered, it is believed, but 20,000
fighting men, and an equal number of camp followers,—women,
children, non-militant priests, and the like. "Immediately
before the arrival of the Crusaders, the Mohammedans
deliberated whether they should slaughter all the Christians
in cold blood, or only fine them and expel them from the city.
It was decided to adopt the latter plan; and the Crusaders
were greeted on their arrival not only by the flying squadrons
of the enemy's cavalry, but also by exiled Christians telling
their piteous tales. Their houses had been pillaged, their
wives kept as hostages; immense sums were required for their
ransom; the churches were desecrated; and, even worse still,
the Infidels were contemplating the entire destruction of the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre. This last charge, at least, was
not true. But it added fuel to a fire which was already beyond
any control, and the chiefs gave a ready permission to their
men to carry the town, if they could, by assault." They were
repulsed with heavy loss, and driven to the operations of a
regular siege, for which their resources were limited in the
extreme. But overcoming all difficulties, and enduring much
suffering from lack of water, at the end of little more than a
month they drove the Moslems from the walls and entered the
city—on Friday, the 15th of July, A. D. 1099. "The city was
taken, and the massacre of its defenders began. The Christians
ran through the streets slaughtering as they went. At first
they spared none, neither man, woman, nor child, putting all
alike to the sword; but when resistance had ceased, and rage
was partly appeased, they began to bethink them of pillage,
and tortured those who remained alive to make them discover
their gold. As for the Jews within the city, they had fled to
their synagogue, which the Christians set on fire, and so
burned them all. The chroniclers relate, with savage joy, how
the streets were encumbered with heads and mangled bodies, and
how in the Haram Area, the sacred enclosure of the Temple, the
knights rode in blood up to the knees of their horses. Here
upwards of ten thousand were slaughtered, while the whole
number of killed amounted, according to various estimates, to
forty, seventy, and even a hundred thousand. …
{1883}
Evening fell, and the clamour ceased, for there were no more
enemies to kill, save a few whose lives had been promised by
Tancred. Then from their hiding-places in the city came out
the Christians who still remained in it. They had but one
thought, to seek out and welcome Peter the Hermit, whom they
proclaimed as their liberator. At the sight of these
Christians, a sudden revulsion of feeling seized the soldiers.
They remembered that the city they had taken was the city of
the Lord, and this impulsive soldiery, sheathing swords
reeking with blood, followed Godfrey to the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre, where they passed the night in tears and prayers
and services. In the morning the carnage began again. Those
who had escaped the first fury were the women and children. It
was now resolved to spare none. Even the three hundred to whom
Tancred had promised life were slaughtered in spite of him.
Raymond alone managed to save the lives of those who
capitulated to him from the tower of David. It took a week to
kill the Saracens, and to take away their dead bodies. Every
Crusader had a right to the first house he took possession of,
and the city found itself absolutely cleared of its old
inhabitants, and in the hands of a new population. The true
Cross, which had been hidden by the Christians during the
siege, was brought forth again, and carried in joyful
procession round the city, and for ten days the soldiers gave
themselves up to murder, plunder—and prayers! And the first
Crusade was finished."

_W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
Jerusalem,
chapter 6._

ALSO IN:
_C. Mills,
History of the Crusades,
volume 1, chapter 6._

_J. F. Michaud,
History of the Crusades,
book 4._

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.
The Founding of the Latin kingdom.

Eight days after their bloody conquest of the Holy City had
been achieved, "the Latin chiefs proceeded to the election of
a king, to guard and govern their conquests in Palestine. Hugh
the Great [count of Vermandois] and Stephen of Chartres had
retired with some loss of reputation, which they strove to
regain by a second crusade and an honourable death. Baldwin
was established at Edessa, and Bohemond at Antioch; and two
Roberts—the Duke of Normandy and the Count of Flanders—
preferred their fair inheritance in the West to a doubtful
competition or a barren sceptre. The jealousy and ambition of
Raymond [of Toulouse] were condemned by his own followers; and
the free, the just, the unanimous voice of the army proclaimed
Godfrey of Bouillon the first and most worthy of the champions
of Christendom. His magnanimity accepted a trust as full of
danger as of glory; but in the city where his Saviour had been
crowned with thorns the devout pilgrim rejected the name and
ensigns of royalty, and the founder of the kingdom of
Jerusalem contented himself with the modest title of Defender
and Baron of the Holy Sepulchre. His government of a single
year, too short for the public happiness, was interrupted in
the first fortnight by a summons to the field by the approach
of the vizir or sultan of Egypt, who had been too slow to
prevent, but who was impatient to avenge, the loss of
Jerusalem. His total overthrow in the battle of Ascalon sealed
the establishment of the Latins in Syria, and signalized the
valour of the French princes, who in this action bade a long
farewell to the holy wars. … After suspending before the
Holy sepulchre the sword and standard of the sultan, the new
king (he deserves the title) embraced his departing
companions, and could retain only, with the gallant Tancred,
300 knights and 2,000 foot soldiers, for the defence of
Palestine."

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 58._

Godfrey lived not quite a year after his election, and was
succeeded on the throne of Jerusalem by his brother Baldwin,
the prince of Edessa, who resigned that Mesopotamian lordship
to his cousin, Baldwin du Bourg, and made haste to secure the
more tempting sovereignty. Godfrey, during his short reign,
had permitted himself to be made almost a vassal and
subordinate of the patriarch of Jerusalem—one Daimbert, a
domineering prelate from Italy. But Baldwin matched the priest
in his own grasping qualities and soon established the
kingship on a more substantial footing. He reigned eighteen
years, and when he died, in 1118, the fortunate cousin,
Baldwin du Bourg, received his crown, surrendering the
principality of Edessa to another. This Baldwin II. died in
1131, and was succeeded by Fulk or Foulque, count of Anjou,
who had lately arrived in Palestine and married Baldwin's
daughter. "The Latin dominions in the East attained their
greatest extent in the reign of King Baldwin II. … The
entire sea-coast from Tarsus in Cilicia to El-Arish on the
confines of Egypt was, with the exception of Ascalon and Gaza,
in the possession of the Franks. In the north their dominions
extended inland to Edessa beyond the Euphrates; the mountains
of Lebanon and their kindred ranges bounded them on the east
as they ran southwards; and then the Jordan and the desert
formed their eastern limits. They were divided into four
states, namely, the kingdom of Jerusalem, the county of
Tripolis, the principality of Antioch, and the county of
Edessa; the rulers of the three last held as vassals under the
king." King Fulk died in 1143 or 1144, and was succeeded by
his son, Baldwin III. Edessa was lost in the following year.

_T. Keightley,
The Crusaders
chapter 2._

See, also,
CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1291.
The constitution of the kingdom.

"Godfrey was an elected king; and we have seen that his two
immediate successors owed their crowns rather to personal
merit and intrigue than to principles of hereditary
succession. But after the death of Baldwin du Bourg, the
foundation of the constitution appears to have been settled;
and the Latin state of Jerusalem may be regarded as a feudal
hereditary monarchy. There were two chief lords of the
kingdom, namely, the patriarch and the king, whose cognizance
extended over spiritual and temporal affairs. … The great
officers of the crown were the seneschal, the constable, the
marshal, and the chamberlain. … There were four chief
baronies of the kingdom, and many other lordships which had
the privileges of administering justice, coining money, and,
in short, most of those powers and prerogatives which the
great and independent nobility of Europe possessed. The first
great barony comprised the counties of Jaffa and Ascalon, and
the lordships of Ramula, Mirabel, and Ibelin. The second was
the principality of Galilee. The third included the lordships
of Sajetta, Cesarea, and Nazareth; and the fourth was the
county of Tripoli. …
{1884}
But the dignity of these four great barons is shewn by the
number of knights which they were obliged to furnish, compared
with the contributions of other nobles. Each of the three
first barons was compelled to aid the king with five hundred
knights. The service of Tripoli was performed by two hundred
knights; that of the other baronies by one hundred and
eighty-three Knights. Six hundred and sixty-six knights was
the total number furnished by the cities of Jerusalem,
Naplousa, Acre, and Tyre. The churches and the commercial
communities of every part of the kingdom provided five
thousand and seventy-five serjeants or serving men."

_C. Mills,
History of the Crusades,
volume 1, chapter 8._

ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 58.

See, also, ASSIZE OF JERUSALEM.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1147-1149.
The note of alarm and the Second Crusade.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.
Decline and fall of the kingdom.
The Rise of Saladin and his conquest of the Holy City.

King Fulk was succeeded in 1144 by his son, a boy of thirteen,
who took the title of Baldwin III. and with whom his mother
associated herself on the throne. It was early in this reign
of the boy-king that Edessa was taken by Zenghi, sultan of
Aleppo, and an appeal made to Europe which called out the
miserably abortive Second Crusade. The crusade "did nothing
towards the maintenance of the waning ascendency of the
Latins. Even victories brought with them no solid result, and
in not a few instances victory was misused with a folly
closely allied to madness. … The interminable series of
wars, or rather of forays and reprisals, went on; and amidst
such contests the life of Baldwin closed [A. D. 1162] in early
manhood. … He died childless, and although some opposition
was made to his choice, his brother Almeric [or Amaury] was
elected to fill his place. Almost at the beginning of his
reign the affairs of the Latin kingdom became complicated with
those of Egypt; and the Christians are seen fighting by the
side of one Mahomedan race, tribe, or faction against
another." The Fatimite caliphs of Egypt had become mere
puppets in the hands of their viziers, and when one grand
vizier, Shawer, deposed by a rival, Dargham, appealed to the
sultan of Aleppo (Noureddin, son of Zenghi), the latter
embraced eagerly the opportunity to stretch his strong hand
towards the Fatimite throne. Among his generals was Shiracouh,
a valiant Koord, and he sent Shiracouh to Egypt to restore
Shawer to power. With Shiracouh went a young nephew of the
Koordish soldier, named Salah-ud-deen—better known in history
as Saladin. Shawer, restored to authority, quickly quarrelled
with his protectors, and endeavored to get rid of them—which
proved not easy. He sought and obtained help from the Latin
king of Jerusalem, in whose mind, too, there was the ambition
to pluck this rotten-ripe plum on the Nile. After a war of
five years duration, in which king Almeric was encouraged and
but slightly helped by the Byzantine emperor, while Noureddin
was approved and supported by the caliph of Bagdad,
Noureddin's Koord general, Shiracouh, secured the prize. Grand
vizier Shawer was put to death, and the wretched Fatimite
caliph made young Saladin his vizier, fancying he had chosen a
young man too fond of pleasure to be dangerously ambitious. He
was speedily undeceived. Saladin needed only three years to
make himself master of Egypt, and the caliph, then dying, was
stripped of his title and his sovereignty. The bold Koord took
the throne in the name of the Abbasside Caliph, at Bagdad,
summarily ending the Fatimite schism. He was still nominally
the servant of the sultan of Aleppo; but when Noureddin died,
A. D. 1178, leaving his dominions to a young son, Saladin was
able, with little resistance, to displace the latter and to
become undisputed sovereign of Mahometan Syria, Egypt, and a
large part of Mesopotamia. He now resolved to expel the Latins
from Palestine and to restore the authority of the prophet
once more in the holy places of Jerusalem. King Almeric had
died in 1173, leaving his crown to a son, Baldwin IV., who was
an unfortunate leper. The leper prince died in 1185, and the
only makeshift for a king that Jerusalem found in this time of
serious peril was one Guy of Lusignan, a vile and despised
creature, who had married the last Baldwin's sister. The Holy
Land, the Holy City and the Holy Sepulchre had this pitiful
kinglet for their defender when the potent Saladin led his
Moslems against them. The decisive battle was fought in July,
A. D. 1187, near the city of Tiberias, and is known generally
in Christian history as the Battle of Tiberias, but was called
by Mahometan annalists the Battle of Hittin. The Christians
were defeated with great slaughter; the miserable King Guy was
taken prisoner—but soon released, to make trouble; the "true
cross," most precious of all Christian relics, fell into
Saladin's irreverent hands. Tiberias, Acre, Cæsarea, Jaffa,
Berytos, Ascalon, submitted to the victor. Jerusalem was at
his mercy; but he offered its defenders and inhabitants
permission to depart peacefully from the place, having no
wish, he said, to defile its hallowed soil with blood. When
his offer was rejected, he made a vow to enter the city with
his sword and to do as the Christians had done when they waded
to their knees in blood through its streets. But when, after a
short siege of fourteen days, Jerusalem was surrendered to
him, he forgot his angry oath, and forgot the vengeance which
might not have seemed strange in that age and that place. The
sword of the victor was sheathed. The inhabitants were
ransomed at a stipulated rate, and those for whom no ransom
was paid were held as slaves. The sick and the helpless were
permitted to remain in the city for a year, with the Knights
of the Hospital—conspicuous among the enemies of Saladin and
his faith—to attend upon them. The Crescent shone
Christian-like as it rose over Jerusalem again. The Cross—the
Crusaders' Cross—was shamed. The Latin kingdom of Jerusalem
was now nearly extinct; Tyre alone held out against Saladin
and constituted the most of the kingdom of King Guy of
Lusignan.

_G. W. Cox,
The Crusades,
chapter 6._

ALSO IN:
_W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
Jerusalem,
chapters 12-16._

_J. F. Michaud,
History of the Crusades,
book 7._

_Mrs. W. Busk,
Mediæval Popes, Emperors, Kings and Crusaders,
book 2, chapters 10-11 (volume 2)._

See, also,
SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1188-1192.
Attempted recovery.
The Third Crusade.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.

{1885}

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1192-1229.
The succession of nominal kings.