The following brief notice of the numerous sieges and attacks, that the celebrated fortress of Gibraltar has sustained, may possess some interest in the eyes of many of my readers. It is extracted principally from Don Ignacio Lopez de Ayala’s “Historia de Gibraltar,” which dates the first arrival of the Saracens, and occupation of the rocky promontory by Taric ben Zaide, A.D. 710, and attributes the erection of the Calahorra, or castle, to Abdul Malic, A.D. 742.
The Fortress (which in early days must have comprised little more than the enceinte of the present ruined castle,) appears to have remained in the undisturbed possession of the Mussulmans for six entire centuries. But Ferdinand the Fourth, at length, breaking through the mountain barrier that defended the diminished territory of the Moors, laid siege to Algesiras, and despatched a force under Don Alonzo Perez de Guzman to
1. attack Gibraltar, which very unexpectedly fell into his hands, A.D. 1309.
2. The Moslems, under Ishmael, King of Granada, failed in an attempt to recover it in 1315.
3. It fell, however, to the powerful army brought over from Africa by Abdul Malik (Aboumelic), son of the Emperor of Fez, who thenceforth assumed the title of King of Gibraltar, 1333.
4. It was besieged the same year by King Alphonso XI.; and again, with as little success, by the same heroic monarch,
5. who died of the plague under its walls, 1349.
It now again remained in the undisputed possession of the Moslems for a considerable period, though it was wrested from the
6. hands of the King of Fez by Jusef, King of Granada, 1411.
7. The Spaniards again ineffectually attempted to possess themselves of it, under Don Henrique de Guzman, Conde de Nicbla, 1436.
8. But it was finally taken from the Moors by Alonzo de Arcos, Alcayde of Tarifa, 1462.
9. From him it was taken by Don Juan de Guzman, Duke of Medina Sidonia, 1468.
It remained in the possession of the House of Guzman, until the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, who claimed it for the crown, but, on their demise, Don Juan de Guzman attempted again to
10. make himself master of it, 1516.
11. The town was sacked by a Turkish squadron, 1540;
12. and bombarded by the French, when affording shelter to an English fleet, 1693.
13. The fortress was captured by Sir George Rooke, 1704;
14. and besieged the same year, by a combined French and Spanish force, under the Conde de Villadarias and Monsieur de TessÉ. By the Treaty of Utrecht (1713), it was ceded to England, but, immediately on the renewal of the war, was
15. besieged by the Spaniards, under the Conde de las Torres, when the lines across the isthmus were constructed, 1727.
16. The last and most celebrated siege was undertaken by the Spaniards and French in 1779, and lasted until 1783.
B.
“Una estatua de San Josef, que por su corpulencia no se podia sacar oculta la extrajo un catolico llamado Josef Martin de Medina, colocado sobre un caballo À imitacion de una persona que lo montaba; la afianzÓ bien, la embozÓ con una capa i la cubriÓ con una montera. Otro montado À la gurupa ayudaba À sostener al Santo, i agregandose algunos combidados para mayor confusion i disimulo salieron por la calle real sin ser descubiertos.”
Ayala, Hist. de Gibraltar.
C.
I suspect the apes tempted Mr. Carter to jump to the conclusion that Carteia was the Tarshish of Sacred History. Nevertheless, few places have furnished more food for conjecture than this famed city: some antiquaries, indeed, not content with Tarshish as a mere port, or even country, maintaining that the vast continent of Africa was so called; whilst others, differing toto coelo, imagine that the word implies the wide or open ocean!
In spite of the great authorities arrayed against the vulgar opinion, that Tarshish is the self-same city as that situated on the southern coast of Asia Minor, and known in after ages as Tarsus, I cannot but subscribe to it. The difference in character between the Hebrew and Greek languages may, not unreasonably I think, be supposed to have led to the change in the mode of spelling and pronouncing the name of the place; (which in point of fact is not greater than between Dover and Douvres,) for most Jews of the present day would still pronounce Tarsus, Tarshish; whilst modern Greeks would as certainly call Tarshish, Tarsis.
That both were ports of the Mediterranean sea will hardly, I think, admit of dispute; since Jonah[242] embarked at Joppa (Jaffa,) to proceed to Tarshish; and Tarsus was the birth-place of St. Paul,[243] and must have been situated on the coast, but a short distance to the northward of Antioch.
The chief difficulty in determining what and where Tarshish was, arises from a discrepancy in the two accounts given of the building of Jehosaphat’s fleet, in the Books of Kings and Chronicles: the first stating, that the King of Judea “made ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold,”[244] which ships were destroyed at Ezion Geber on the Red Sea; the latter, mentioning that the ships were built at Ezion Geber to “go to Tarshish.”[245]
Josephus makes the matter still more perplexing by saying, that “these ships were built to sail to Pontus, and the traffic cities of Thrace,” but were destroyed from being so unwieldy, without mentioning where they were either built or destroyed; thus differing from the account in Kings, which says they were made to go to Ophir, and, by implication, from the account in the Book of Chronicles, which states that they were made on the shores of the Red Sea; since vessels to trade with Pontus and Thrace would certainly have been built at the ports of Syria.
Now it is quite evident, that two of these three accounts must be incorrect; and it is more natural to conclude that the mistake originated in careless writing than from ignorance; since, little as the Jews (being neither sailors nor travellers) may be supposed to have known of foreign countries, they could not, even with their limited knowledge of geography, have imagined that a fleet sailing from Tyre, in the Mediterranean, was destined to the same country as another fleet built on the shores of the Red Sea. And, if they were not destined to the same country, the two places to which they were proceeding would certainly have been distinguished by different names.
It is not, I think, unwarrantable therefore to suppose, that the Hebrew writers, in alluding to a fleet which all accounts agree was destroyed at the very port where it was built, may (supposing always our translations to be perfectly correct,) have fallen into a mistake in stating the destination of that fleet, and hence that, in the Book of Chronicles, Tarshish has been written for Ophir. This appears the more likely when we bear in mind that the Jews, after the destruction of Jehosaphat’s fleet, do not appear to have ever again engaged in any naval enterprises, and consequently were careless, or had no opportunity, of correcting this mistake in their histories. In support of this supposition, it may be farther observed that, throughout the Scriptures, wherever the commodities brought by the fleets from Tarshish and Ophir are mentioned, the former is stated to have come laden with the productions of Europe and Northern Africa; whilst the latter brought only gold and precious stones, and algum trees.
On the discrepancy above pointed out—where there is evidently a mistake—is grounded, however, the hypothesis, that in early ages two cities or countries bore the name of Tarshish; for such a supposition is not at all borne out by the accounts previously given in the same Books of Kings and Chronicles of the fleets built by Solomon; it being particularly specified in both[246] that that king made (or more properly, perhaps, launched) a navy of ships at Ezion Geber, on the Red Sea, which, piloted by Tyrian sailors, proceeded to Ophir for gold. The mention which is afterwards made[247] of Tarshish, seems merely to have been introduced to account for the vast riches of Solomon; shewing that he had other sources whence he procured gold and other valuables, besides Ophir.
A slight discrepancy of a similar kind to that already noticed occurs, however, in the two accounts, in speaking of the voyage of Solomon’s fleet to Tarshish; the Book of Kings stating, that he “had at sea a navy of Tarshish with the navy of Hiram,”—the Book of Chronicles, that the King’s ships “went to Tarshish with the servants of Huram.”
The difference in this case is immaterial. The probability seems to be, that Solomon built a fleet on the Red Sea to go to Ophir, because he could not otherwise procure one: but that he hired vessels to trade in the Mediterranean; which vessels, placed under the charge of Tyrian pilots, proceeded with his own servants (or supercargoes) to Tarshish, or Tarsus, on the coast of Cilicia, whither, once in three years, returned the fleet of that port,[248] bearing the produce of the more distant countries—Spain, Barbary, the Cassiterides, and England.
And Tarsus, we may suppose, was chosen as the entrepÔt for the produce of those countries, in preference to Tyre—firstly, on account of its being a more commodious port; and, secondly, as being better situated for the inland trade of Asia Minor.
END OF VOL. I.
LONDON:
F. SHOBERL, JUN. 51, RUPERT STREET, HAYMARKET.
FOOTNOTES:
