THE LATER HISTORY OF THE CONVENT

THE size of the caravans that plied between Sinai and Egypt were a source of wonder to the mediÆval pilgrim. This development of trade received a check in the sixteenth century, through the discovery of the sea-route to India by the Portuguese. Prince Henry of Portugal († 1460) brought the west coast of Africa within reach of his country. In the year 1487 Bartholomew Diaz sailed from Portugal to the Cape of Good Hope, which Vasco da Gama doubled ten years later, sailing on to Calicut. Every year a fleet now left Lisbon for India, where spicery was shipped direct for Portugal.

This trade detracted from the resources of the Sultan, and spelt ruin to the seaports of Italy. In 1503 the Sultan addressed a letter to the Pope in which he threatened destruction to the Holy Places, including the Holy Sepulchre and the convent of Sinai, if the Portuguese were not interfered with. But King Manuel of Portugal induced the Pope to ignore the letter, and, on his side, offered spicery free of duty to the Venetians, if they fetched it at Lisbon, instead of Alexandria. But the Venetians, averse to the change, persuaded the Sultan to set up a direct communication by boat between Suez and India, and a tower was accordingly built to fortify Suez. Tur was passed over; its days as a port on the way to India were drawing to a close, for the Portuguese were determined to monopolise the trade with India. They seized a boat coming from Egypt with the 24,000 ducats it contained. They fitted out a war fleet (1504) which enforced their superior claims in India, and attacked all other shipping. In 1509 they entered the Red Sea with their war fleet, and interfered with the pilgrims to Mecca. It was in vain that the Venetians, whose annual turn-over at Alexandria fell from 600,000 to 100,000 ducats in 1511, pleaded with the Sultan to diminish the tax on Eastern goods, so as to enable them to compete with the Portuguese. The Sultanate was at the mercy of short-sighted and intriguing emirs, and was weakening. The conquering Ottoman Turk was steadily gaining ground. There had been rejoicing at Cairo when Constantinople, in 1453, fell to the power of Islam, but the struggle for supremacy soon afterwards began between the Egyptian and the Ottoman Sultanate. In 1516 the Ottoman Sultan Selim († 1520) occupied Damascus, and in the following year he advanced along the road of El Arish with wheeled transport. After defeating the Mameluks at Radunieh in 1517, he led his disciplined janissaries into Cairo, where he appropriated the sacred banner of Islam and the relics, which he removed to Constantinople.

In the meantime the shipping languished even at Suez. Odoardo Barbosa, who was sent to Egypt to report on matters of navigation to the merchants of Italy in 1516, mentioned Suez as the station for spicery, but added that the traffic had almost ceased.[283] Certainly the Ottoman Sultan, roused to the needs of the hour, made the attempt to facilitate the transit of Eastern goods by cutting through the isthmus of Suez. He also built a castle at Suez in order to defend himself against the Portuguese. But the centre of the Ottoman rule was no longer Cairo, but Constantinople, to which the wealthy more and more migrated. Egypt was placed under a pasha, who was appointed at Constantinople, and who was frequently changed so as to anticipate any scheme on his part of making himself into an independent ruler. Cairo retained its university and remained a centre of learning; its halcyon days as a centre of art and luxury were at an end.

The Suez canal was still in course of construction in 1529, but was never finished,[284] and no term was set on the advance of the Portuguese. In 1541 Dom John (JoÃo) de Castro, who bore the proud title of viceroy of India, sailed up the Red Sea with a fleet, intending to attack Suez, but when he espied the fort and the ships at anchor there, he turned back. In sailing up the Gulf of Suez, and again in sailing down, Dom John stopped at Tur, where he communed with a monk of Sinai, who told him that the convent was occupied by monks of the order of Montserrat (sic), and that the body of St. Katherine had been removed to Cairo. Another informant denied all knowledge of this fact. Dom John was a man of some pretensions, who identified Suez as HeroÖpolis, and Tur as Aelana of classic times. His observations were laid down in a Description of the Lands bordering on the Red Sea, which Sir Walter Raleigh considered of such importance, that he had it translated into English.[285]

Throughout this period we hear little of pilgrims and of the convent. The spirit of the Reformation was abroad, and the thought of St. Katherine was losing its hold on the imagination of Europe. Gregor, prior of the Carthusian house at Gaming, who came to the convent in 1507 together with Martin Baumgarten, stated that the monks were miserable owing to the clamorous Arabs, who occupied the mosque and kept their festival on the Mount of the Law as already related. In the estimation of Gregor, the monks of Sinai professed the order of St. Basil, but, he declared, they would be glad to be taken under the protection of Rome (p. 498). About the year 1546 the learned Belon of Mans, who travelled in the interest of science and archÆology, visited Sinai, which he mentioned in his Observations de certaines singularitÉs, etc., a work that reflects the spirit of the new age. Belon remarked on the Franciscan settlement at Gaza, the arsenal at Suez, and the canal of thirty miles’ length. In the convent he found about sixty monks.[286]

Of the bishops at this period we know very little. There was an interregnum of about thirty years before 1540, which may be connected with the rule of Sultan Selim. According to information preserved at the convent, he abstracted the original firmÂn which was supposed to have been given to the convent by Mohammad. Sultan Selim was responsible for the fortified stations along the route for pilgrims from Egypt to Mecca, of which one was built at Ajrud near Suez, the second at Nakhl, on the high desert, and the third at Akaba, which was situated east of the ancient Aila. These stations were reckoned about three days’ journey from one another, and the road continued in use till recent times. But whatever the reason, the bishop of Sinai at this time incurred the displeasure of the surrounding prelates. Marcus, the Cyprian, who was appointed in 1540, perhaps owing to some fault of his own (Nectarius called him ?????),[287] was deposed by a synod held in Egypt under the auspices of the patriarchs of Alexandria, of Cairo, and of Jerusalem, and the bishopric of Sinai was declared abrogated.[288]

But a new protector to the monks now arose in the Tsar of Muscovy, who, when Constantinople fell to the Turks, took it upon himself to protect the orthodox. In the year 1547 Gregorius, a monk of Sinai, visited Moscow, where he complained of the tax which the Turk levied on the convent. The Tsar at the time was Ivan the Terrible (1533-84), who forthwith arranged that Gennadius, archdeacon of St. Sophia, at Novgorod, together with the merchant Posniakow and another should visit the patriarch of Alexandria and the archbishop (sic) of Sinai, and present them with 1000 ducats each. At the convent, after praying at the shrine of St. Katherine, they spread over it a covering of gold brocade, a gift of the Tsar. Posniakow, to whom we owe an account of the embassy, looked upon the monks as connected with St. Basil, and described the mosque inside the convent as originally a church of St. Basil.[289]

The Muscovite further arranged that a caravan bearing food should be annually despatched from Cairo to the convent, at his expense, as we learn from the account of the German pilgrim Wormbser, who went from Egypt to the convent in the year 1561 (Reissbuch, 1609, p. 396 ff.). His companion, Count Loewenstein, on his return to Alexandria, there asked for an official attestation of having been the Long Pilgrimage, which he included in the account of his journey (Ibid., p. 393). These travellers in 1561 found between thirty and forty monks at the convent, but were told that these sometimes left the place altogether because of the clamorous Arabs (Loewenstein, p. 369). It had recently stood empty four or five years (Ibid., p. 369). Another party of Germans, who reached the convent in 1565, actually found it empty and its gates walled up. They were met outside by a monk who, apprized of their coming, hurried over from Tur to act as their guide. From the height of the Mount of the Law they looked down on the empty convent with its deserted garden (Ibid., Helfferich, p. 726).

Owing to Muscovite influence a change was effected. A letter is extant drafted by Jeremiah II, patriarch of Constantinople (1572-78), which bears the signature of the patriarch of Antioch, the patriarch of Jerusalem, and others by which the bishopric of Sinai was restored.[290] The decision was based on the decree of Justinian which is dated to the year 551 and is preserved at the convent, but which is looked upon as a forgery. Anyhow, a prelate was reinstated in the person of Eugenius (1565-83), who, in the capacity of “bishop of Sinai and Raithou,” wrote to Emperor Maximilian II (1564-76), declaring that the monks were called upon to pay 5000 ducats to the Turkish Sultan, which were they unable to raise. The outcome of the appeal is not recorded. They probably made an appeal also to King Henri III of France (1574-89).[291] In the year 1579 Eugenius of Sinai was in Jerusalem, where the patriarch Germanus abdicated because of old age.[292]

Direct intercourse with Russia continued. We hear of one KorobeÏnikoff who was in Sinai in 1583, and again in 1593. It was, perhaps, with the help of the Muscovite that Bishop Anastasius I (1583-92) laid down the mosaic pavement in the convent church, which had been destroyed by Arab treasure-seekers. Anastasius was succeeded by Laurentius (1592-1617), but Melitos, patriarch of Alexandria, objected to his appointment, whereupon he appealed to Sophronios VI, patriarch of Jerusalem (1579-1606), who ratified his appointment.[293] Perhaps the gates of the convent were walled up in connection with these difficulties, and anyone wishing to enter was now hauled up by means of a rope and a pulley. Henri Castale who visited Sinai in 1600, was the first to describe the arrangement, which continued till the British occupation of Egypt. Castale, in the account of his journey, enlarged on the starving men and women in the desert. He found one starving monk in the convent.[294]

But things now improved under Bishop Joasaph, who ruled from 1617 to 1658, and travellers gave a better account of the convent.

The thought of the “inscriptions of the children of Israel” brought Neitzschitz into the desert about the year 1639. He was a Lutheran to whom “many of the stories were fables.” He was received by the “archbishop Joasaph” and found twenty-three monks at the convent, who distributed food daily to between fifty and a hundred Arabs.[295] The thought of the inscription was prominent also in the mind of Balthazar de Monconys, who, in 1647, visited the convent. Here he remarked on the tunic of gold brocade embroidered with pearls and on the splendid tiaras, presents of the Muscovite, that were worn by Joasaph.[296] Again, ThÉvenot came to the convent in 1658, and saw a silver chest, a gift from the empress Anna of Russia, in which the relics of St. Katherine were now enshrined. ThÉvenot related that on some days as many as 150 Arabs, on others as many as 400, clamouring for food, assembled outside the convent. He also related that the Turks had destroyed the church which the monks owned at Tur (perhaps that of St. John the Baptist), in order to make room for a fort where an aga was stationed, who had the command of cannon.[297]

A papal bull, apparently the last, was granted to the convent by Pope Urban VIII (1623-37). It confirmed the monks in their various possessions, and has the additional interest that it enumerated the popes who previously granted bulls to the monks. They were Honorius III (1216-27), Gregory IX (1227-41), Paul II (1458-64), Innocent VIII (1484-92), Julius II (1503-13), Leo IX (1513-19), and Paul III (1534-50).

During the rule of Joasaph, Nectarius, a Cretan by birth and a man of considerable ability, came to the convent, the interests of which he furthered in various ways. The Vaivode Basil (1634-61), of Moldavia, was encouraging the establishment of Greek schools in his dominion. Nectarius visited Athens, Bukarest, and Jassy, where the monks of Sinai now built priories and secured a lasting foothold. It was probably Nectarius who definitely secured the title and standing of an archbishop to the ruler of Sinai. The title had been applied to Simeon as early as 1211 by the doge of Venice in connection with the property which the convent held in Crete, but the rulers continued to style themselves bishop. However, the title once claimed was retrospectively applied. Nectarius, after his return to the convent, compiled an Epitome of history from the earliest times, with special chapters on the convent and a list of its rulers. They are all designated as archbishops. It was probably due to Nectarius, also, that many MSS. were brought from Crete and elsewhere and added to the convent library. At the convent itself literary activity was resumed, and we hear of a gift of paper to the monks that was conveyed there on camel-back.[298]

At the death of Joasaph, Nectarius was chosen as his successor. He was in Gaza on his way to Jerusalem to seek confirmation of his appointment at the hands of the patriarch PaÏsios, when he was met by delegates from Jerusalem, bearing the news that PaÏsios was dead, and that Nectarius was chosen patriarch. As Joasaph died in 1658, and the meeting happened in April 1660, the intercourse between the sees seems to have been attended with difficulty. The rule at the convent therefore devolved on Ananias (1658-68), who was followed by Joannicus (1668-1703).

According to Lacroix, the Muscovite fell out with the patriarch of Constantinople in 1671, and summoned to Moscow several prelates, among them “Antoninus, bishop of Sinai.” He dared not refuse, and was kept in Moscow for over a year.[299] But no prelate of this name appears in the list of the bishops.

About this time the Papacy made renewed efforts at propaganda, with the help of the Franciscans. Pope Innocent XI (1675-89) entered into correspondence with the patriarch of Cairo with a view to winning over the Copts of Egypt to the Roman Catholic faith, and Francesco Maria of Salerno spent several years in Cairo where he established a school. He also visited Sinai, but the Copts found it impossible to accept the declaration of faith that was submitted to them, and nothing came of it.[300]

Joannicus, in 1672, was in Bethlehem where he subscribed to a declaration against Calvin, in which the Maronites, the Copts and the Armenian Christians joined. In 1675 he went on an embassy to Turkey. He also engaged in correspondence with Ignatius, archbishop of Ochrida in Serbia, on the firmÂn which had been granted to the monks of Sinai by the emperor Justinian. A visit to Moldavia resulted in the gift of the property called Rimineke to the monks of Sinai by Vaivode Brancovan († 1719). The traveller Poncet, who visited the convent about the year 1699, coming from Sherm, was received by Joannicus, who was in his ninety-third year and paralytic. Like other travellers Poncet was hauled into the convent by means of the seat attached to a rope. He was treated to some of the liqueur called arac, which was made by the monks out of the fermented juice of the date.[301]

The prelate in succession to Joannicus was Cosmas I of Chalcedon, who became patriarch of Constantinople within a year of his election, but he soon abdicated and returned to the convent where he spent the rest of his days under Athanasius II of Bari (1706-18). The next prelate was Joannicus II of Mytilene (1718-22), during the term of whose rule Jeremiah, patriarch of Constantinople, was deposed by the vizier and exiled to Sinai. He was staying there at the time of Bishop Pococke’s visit (i. 150).

It was probably Athanasius of Bari who received the Franciscan prefect Claude Sicard of the mission De Propaganda Fide, wearing an exquisite crown. The Franciscan prefect wrote a short account of his visit which attracted the attention of Bishop Pococke and was translated into English by Bishop Clayton in 1753. This translation was addressed to the Society of Antiquaries in London, and Bishop Clayton offered the sum of £500, spread over five years, to assist in an exploration of Mount Sinai. But no definite step was taken in the matter, its chief result being to add to the Biblical explorers of the peninsula.

Chief among these was Bishop Pococke, whose Description of the East, first published in 1743, attained considerable celebrity. Several chapters were devoted to an account of Sinai and the progress of the Israelites. It contains a careful description of the monastic buildings with several plans. Bishop Pococke, like other travellers before and since, accepted the sites pointed out by the monks as the actual spots mentioned in the Biblical narrative, regardless of the impossibilities implied. He only questioned the spot where Dathan and Abiram were swallowed, remarking that when this happened they had left the desert of Sinai (i. 145).

Owing to the difficulties of dealing with the claims of the Bedawyn, the prelates of Sinai now found it preferable to take up their residence in one of the dependencies of the convent.

Nicephorus Mortales, surnamed Glaukos (1729-49), was from Crete, to which he returned and where he died. His body was conveyed to the convent for interment. The next prelate was Constantius (1749-59), who resided for the most part in Moldavia under Vaivode Michael, paying an occasional visit to Sinai. On one occasion he was accompanied by Khalil Sabag, who wrote an account of his visit. The next prelate Cyrillus II (1759-90) dwelt in Smyrna, Jerusalem and Moldavia. He was in contact with Carsten Niebuhr, who visited Sinai in 1762, where he was the first European to visit and describe the great ravines at Serabit. Cyrillus was in relation also with the traveller Volney, who visited the convent in 1783, where he found fifty monks.

It was owing to the efforts of Cyrillus II that the standing of the convent of Sinai as an independent centre was definitely established. A synod met in Constantinople in 1782, which declared in favour of its autonomy. The archbishop is elected by a council of the monks, who manage the affairs of the convent in Sinai and its branch establishment in Cairo. The archbishop is always selected from the priests of the monastery. He is consecrated as bishop by the patriarch of Jerusalem in consequence of the ancient connection, and he becomes one of the four independent archbishops of the Greek Church, the others being at Cyprus, Moscow and Ochrida.[302]

Cyrillus II was the last prelate who paid a visit to the convent for over a hundred years. The reason was that large sums and gifts had to be presented to the Arabs by the new prelate on his installation. These were so considerable that the monks, in their impoverished state, were unable to raise them. Perhaps owing to this difficulty, there was an interregnum of four years, between the death of Cyrillus in 1790 and the establishment as prelate of Dorotheus of Byzantium (1794-96), after whose death there was again an interregnum of eight years.