Part 29

[30] Doubt has been cast on the view that a troubled conscience drove Louis to take the cross; and his action has been ascribed to simple religious zeal (cf. Lavisse, _Histoire de France_, iii. 12).

[31] We speak of First, Second and Third Crusades, but, more exactly, the Crusades were one continuous process. Scarcely a year passed in which new bands did not come to the Holy Land. We have already noticed the great if disastrous Crusade of 1100-1101, and the Venetian Crusade of 1123-1124; and we may also refer to the Crusade of Henry the Lion in 1172, and to that of Edward I. in 1271-1272--all famous Crusades, which are not reckoned in the usual numbering. Crusades appear to have been dignified by numbers when they followed some crushing disaster--the loss of Edessa in 1144, or the fall of Jerusalem in 1187--and were led by kings and emperors; or when, like the Fourth and Fifth Crusades, they achieved some conspicuous success or failure. But it is important to bear in mind the continuity of the Crusades--the constant flow of new forces eastward and back again westward; for this alone explains why the Crusades formed a great epoch in civilization, familiarizing, as they did, the West with the East.

[32] This body of crusaders ultimately reached the Holy Land, where it joined Conrad (who had lost his own original forces), and helped in the fruitless siege of Damascus. The services which it rendered to Portugal were repeated by later crusaders. Crusaders from the Low Countries, England and the Scandinavian north took the coast route round western Europe; and it was natural that, landing for provisions and water, they should be asked, and should consent, to lend their aid to the natives against the Moors. Such aid is recorded to have been given on the Third and the Fifth Crusades.

[33] Manuel was an ambitious sovereign, apparently aiming at a world-monarchy, such as was afterwards attempted from the other side by Henry VI. As Henry VI. had designs on Constantinople and the Eastern empire, so Manuel cherished the ambition of acquiring Italy and the Western empire, and he negotiated with Alexander III. to that end in 1167 and 1169: cf. the life of Alexander III. in Muratori, _S. R. I._ iii. 460.

[34] The prize was won by Raynald of Chatillon (q.v.).

[35] Nureddin, unlike his father, was definitely animated by a religious motive: he fought first and foremost against the Latins (and not, like his father, against Moslem states), and he did so as a matter of religious duty.

[36] Henry II., as an Angevin, was the natural heir of the kingdom of Jerusalem on the extinction of the line descended from Fulk of Anjou. This explains the part played by Richard I. in deciding the question of the succession during the Third Crusade.

[37] The taxation levied in the West was also attempted in the East, and in 1183 a universal tax was levied in the kingdom of Jerusalem, at the rate of 1% on movables and 2% on rents and revenues. Cf. Dr A. Cartellieri, _Philipp II. August_, ii. pp. 3-18 and p. 85.

[38] Stevenson argues (op. cit. p. 240) that this truce was already practically dissolved before Raynald struck, and that Raynald's "action may reasonably be viewed as the practical outcome of the feeling of a party."

[39] The "economic" motive for taking the cross was strengthened by the papal regulations in favour of debtors who joined the Crusade. Thousands must have joined the Third Crusade in order to escape paying either their taxes or the interest on their debts; and the atmosphere of the gold-digger's camp (or of the cave of Adullam) must have begun more than ever to characterize the crusading armies.

[40] The Crusades in their course established a number of new states or kingdoms. The First Crusade established the kingdom of Jerusalem (1100); the Third, the kingdom of Cyprus (1195); the Fourth, the Latin empire of Constantinople (1204); while the long Crusade of the Teutonic knights on the coast of the Baltic led to the rise of a new state east of the Vistula. The kingdom of Lesser Armenia, established in 1195, may also be regarded as a result of the Crusades. The history of the kingdom of Jerusalem is part of the history of the Crusades: the history of the other kingdoms or states touches the history of the Crusades less vitally. But the history of Cyprus is particularly important--and for two reasons. In the first place, Cyprus was a natural and excellent basis of operations; it sent provisions to the crusaders in 1191, and again at the siege of Damietta in 1219, while its advantages as a strategic basis were proved by the exploits of Peter of Cyprus in the 14th century. In the second place, as the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem fell, its institutions and assizes were transplanted bodily to Cyprus, where they survived until the island was conquered by the Ottoman Turks. But the monarchy was stronger in Cyprus than in Jerusalem: the fiefs were distributed by the monarch, and were smaller in extent; while the feudatories had neither the collective powers of the haute cour of Jerusalem, nor the individual privileges (such as jurisdiction over the bourgeoisie), which had been enjoyed by the feudatories of the old kingdom. Till 1489 the kingdom of Cyprus survived as an independent monarchy, and its capital, Famagusta, was an important centre of trade after the loss of the coast-towns in the kingdom of Jerusalem. In 1489 it was acquired by Venice, which claimed the island on the death of the last king, having adopted his widow (a Venetian lady named Catarina Cornaro) as a daughter of the republic. On the history of Cyprus, see Stubbs, _Lectures on Medieval and Modern History_, 156-208. The history of the kingdom of Armenia is closely connected with that of Cyprus. The Armenians in the south-east of Asia Minor borrowed feudal institutions from the Franks and the feudal vocabulary itself. The kingdom was involved in a struggle with Antioch in the early part of the 13th century. Later, it allied itself with the Mongols and fought against the Mamelukes, to whom, however, it finally succumbed in 1375.

[41] The kingdom of Jerusalem is thus from 1192 to its final fall a strip of coast, to which it is the object of kings and crusaders to annex Jerusalem and a line of communication connecting it with the coast. This was practically the aim of Richard I.'s negotiations; and this was what Frederick II. for a time secured.

[42] M. Luchaire, in the volume of his biography of Innocent III. called _La Question d'Orient_, shows how, in spite of the pope, the Fourth Crusade was in its very beginnings a lay enterprise. The crusading barons of France chose their own leader, and determined their own route, without consulting Innocent.

[43] As a matter of fact, there is some doubt whether Alexius arrived in Germany before the spring of 1202. But there seems to be little doubt of Philip's complicity in the diversion of the Fourth Crusade to Constantinople (cf. M. Luchaire, _La Question d'Orient_, pp. 84-86).

[44] It is true that in 1208 Venice received commercial concessions from the court of Cairo. But this _ex post facto_ argument is the sole proof of this view; and it is quite insufficient to prove the accusation. Venice is _not_ the primary agent in the deflection of the Fourth Crusade.

[45] Already under Innocent III. the benefits of the Crusade were promised to those who went to the assistance of the Latin empire of the East.

[46] In 1208 Innocent excommunicated Raymund VI. of Toulouse on account of the murder of a papal legate who was attempting to suppress Manichaeism, and offered all Catholics the right to occupy and guard his territories. Thus was begun the First Crusade against heresy. Raymund at once submitted to the pope, but the Crusade continued none the less, because, as Luchaire says, "the baronage of the north and centre of France had finished their preparations," and were resolved to annex the rich lands of the south. In this way land-hunger exploited the Albigensian, as political and commercial motives had helped to exploit the Fourth Crusade; and in the former, as in the latter, Innocent had reluctantly to consent to the results of the secular motives which had infected a spiritual enterprise. The Albigensian Crusades, however, belong to French history; and it can only be noted here that their ultimate result was the absorption of the fertile lands, and the extinction of the peculiar civilization, of southern France by the northern monarchy. (See the article ALBIGENSES.)

[47] A canon of the third Lateran council (1179) forbade traffic with the Saracens in munitions of war; and this canon had been renewed by Innocent in the beginning of his pontificate.

[48] He had promised the pope, at his coronation in 1220, to begin his Crusade in August 1221. But he declared himself exhausted by the expenses of his coronation; and Honorius III. consented to defer his Crusade until March 1222. The letter of the pope informing Pelagius of this delay is dated the 20th of June: it would probably reach his hands _after_ his departure from Damietta; and thus the Cardinal gave the signal for the march, when, as he thought, the emperor's coming was imminent.

[49] Joinville, ch. x.

[50] John of Brienne had only ruled in right of his wife Mary. On her death (1212) John might be regarded as only ruling "by the courtesy of the kingdom" until her daughter Isabella was married, when the husband would succeed. That, at any rate, was the view Frederick II. took.

[51] Amalric I. of Cyprus had done homage to Henry VI., from whom he had received the title of king (1195).

[52] It may be argued that the Crusade against a revolted Christian like Frederick II. was not misplaced, and that the pope had a true sense of religious values when he attacked Frederick. The answer is partly that men like St Louis _did_ think that the Crusade was misplaced, and partly that Frederick was really attacked _not_ as a revolted Christian, but as the would-be unifier of Italy, the enemy of the states of the church.

[53] The following table of the Ayyubite rulers serves to illustrate the text:--

Shadhy. | +----+----+ | | Shirguh. Ayyub (both generals in the army of the Atabegs of Mosul). | +---------+---------------+ | | Saladin Malik-al-Adil I. + 1193 + 1218. | +----------------+---+--------------+---------------------+ | | | | Malik-al-Kamil, Malik-al-Muazzam, Malik-al-Ashraf, Malik-al-Salih Isma'il Sultan of Egypt Sultan of Damascus ruler of Khelat, sultan of Damascus, + 1238. + 1227. and after 1227 1237-1244. From | | of Damascus, him Damascus passed | | + 1237. to Malik-al-Salih | Malik-al-Nasir Ayyub of Egypt at | of Kerak the battle of Gaza. | +--+--------------------+ | | Malik-al-Adil II. Malik-al-Salih Najm deposed 1240. al-din Ayyub, sultan of Egypt, and after 1244 of Damascus, + 1249. | +-----------+ | Turanshah, deposed 1250, and succeeded by the Mameluke Aibek.

[54] Though Europe indulged in dreams of Mongol aid, the eventual results of the extension of the Mongol Empire were prejudicial to the Latin East. The sultans of Egypt were stirred to fresh activity by the attacks of the Mongols; and as Syria became the battleground of the two, the Latin principalities of Syria were fated to fall as the prize of victory to one or other of the combatants.

[55] Of the four Latin principalities of the East, Edessa was the first to fall, being extinguished between 1144 and 1150. Antioch fell in 1268; Tripoli in 1289; and the kingdom itself may be said to end with the capture of Acre, 1291.

[56] Michael Palaeologus had actually appealed to Louis IX. against Charles of Anjou, who in 1270 had actively begun preparations for the attack on Constantinople.

[57] The dream of a Crusade to Jerusalem survived de Mezieres; a society which read "romaunts" of the Crusades, could not but dream the dream. Henry V., whose father had fought with the Teutonic knights on the Baltic, dreamed of a voyage to Jerusalem.

[58] The union of 1274, conceded by the Palaeologi at the council of Lyons in order to defeat the plans of Charles of Anjou, had only been temporary.

[59] Brehier, _L'Eglise el l'Orient_, p. 347.

[60] _Cambridge Modern History_, i. 11. It is perhaps worth remarking that something of the old crusading spirit seems still to linger in the movement of Russia towards Constantinople.

[61] While from this point of view the Crusades appear as a failure, it must not be forgotten that elsewhere than in the East Crusades did attain some success. A Crusade won for Christianity the coast of the eastern Baltic (see TEUTONIC ORDER); and the centuries of the Spanish Crusade ended in the conquest of the whole of Spain for Christianity.

[62] Authors like Heeren (_Versuch einer Entwickelung der Folgen der Kreuzzuge_) and Michaud (in the last volume of his _Histoire des croisades_) fall into the error of assigning all things to the Crusades. Even Prutz, in his _Kulturgeschichte der Kreuzzuge_, over-estimates the influence of the Crusades as a chapter in the history of civilization. He depreciates unduly the Western civilization of the early middle ages, and exalts the civilization of the Arabs; and starting from these two premises, he concludes that modern civilization is the offspring of the Crusades, which first brought East and West together.

[63] It is difficult to decide how far Arabic models influenced ecclesiastical architecture in the West as a result of the Crusades. Greater freedom of moulding and the use of trefoil and cinquefoil may be, but need not be, explained in this way. The pointed arch owes nothing to the Arabs; it is already used in England in early Norman work. Generally, one may say that Western architecture is independent of the East.

[64] His somewhat legendary treatise, _De liberatione civitatum Orientis_, was only composed about 1155.

[65] There is also an _Inventaire critique_ of these letters by the comte de Riant (Paris, 1880).

[66] Von Sybel's view must be modified by that of Kugler, to which a scholar like Hagenmeyer has to some extent given his adhesion (cf. his edition of the _Gesta_, pp. 62-68). Hagenmeyer inclines to believe in an original author, distinct from Albert the copyist; and he thinks that this original author (whether or no he was present during the Crusade) used the _Gesta_ and also Fulcher, though he had probably also "_eigene Notizen und Aufzeichnungen_."

[67] See Pigonneau, _Le Cycle de la croisade_, &c. (Paris, 1877); and Hagenmeyer, _Peter der Eremite_ (Leipzig, 1879).

[68] On the bibliography of the Second Crusade see Kugler, _Studien zur Geschichte des zweiten Kreuzzuges_ (Stuttgart, 1866).

[69] Of these writers see Archer's _Crusade of Richard I._, Appendix (in Nutt's series of Histories from Contemporary Writers).

[70] The bibliography of the Fourth Crusade is discussed in Klimke, _Die Quellen zur Geschichte des vierten Kreuzzuges_ (Breslau, 1875).

CRUSENSTOLPE, MAGNUS JAKOB (1795-1865), Swedish historian, early became famous both as a political and a historical writer. His first important work was a _History of the Early Years of the Life of King Gustavus IV. Adolphus_, which was followed by a series of monographs and by some politico-historical novels, of which _The House of Holstein-Gottorp in Sweden_ is considered the best. He obtained a great influence over King Charles XIV. (Bernadotte), who during the years 1830-1833 gave him his fullest confidence, and sanctioned the official character of Crusenstolpe's newspaper _Faderneslandet_. In the last-mentioned year, however, the historian suddenly became the king's bitterest enemy, and used his acrid pen on all occasions in attacking him. In 1838 he was condemned, for one of these angry utterances, to be imprisoned three years in the castle of Waxholm. He continued his literary labours until his death in 1865. Few Swedish writers have wielded so pure and so incisive a style as Crusenstolpe, but his historical work is vitiated by political and personal bias.

CRUSIUS, CHRISTIAN AUGUST (1715-1775), German philosopher and theologian, was born on the 10th of January 1715 at Lenau near Merseburg in Saxony. He was educated at Leipzig, and became professor of theology there in 1750, and principal of the university in 1773. He died on the 18th of October 1775. Crusius first came into notice as an opponent of the philosophy of Leibnitz and Wolff from the standpoint of religious orthodoxy. He attacked it mainly on the score of the moral evils that must flow from any system of determinism, and exerted himself in particular to vindicate the freedom of the will. The most important works of this period of his life are _Entwurf der nothwendigen Vernunftwahrheiten_ (1745), and _Weg zur Gewissheit und Zuverlassigkeit der menschlichen Erkenntniss_ (1747). Though diffusely written, and neither brilliant nor profound, Crusius' philosophical books had a great but short-lived popularity. His criticism of Wolff, which is generally based on sound sense, had much influence upon Kant at the time when his system was forming; and his ethical doctrines are mentioned with respect in the _Kritik of Practical Reason_. Crusius's later life was devoted to theology. In this capacity his sincere piety and amiable character gained him great influence, and he led the party in the university which became known as the "Crusianer" as opposed to the "Ernestianer," the followers of J. A. Ernesti. The two professors adopted opposite methods of exegesis. Ernesti wished to subject the Scripture to the same laws of exposition as are applied to other ancient books; Crusius held firmly to orthodox ecclesiastical tradition. Crusius's chief theological works are _Hypomnemata ad theologiam propheticam_ (1764-1778), and _Kurzer Entwurf der Moraltheologie_ (1772-1773). He sets his face against innovation in such matters as the accepted authorship of canonical writings, verbal inspiration, and the treatment of persons and events in the Old Testament as types of the New. His views, unscholarly and uncritical as they seem to us now, have had influence on later evangelical students of the Old Testament, such as E. W. Hengstenberg and F. Delitzsch.

There is a full notice of Crusius in Ersch and Gruber's _Allgemeine Encyclopadie_. Consult also J. E. Erdmann's _History of Philosophy_; A. Marquardt, _Kant und Crusius_; and art. in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklopadie_ (1898). (H. St.)

CRUSTACEA, a very large division of the animal kingdom, comprising the familiar crabs, lobsters, crayfish, shrimps and prawns, the sandhoppers and woodlice, the strangely modified barnacles and the minute water-fleas. Besides these the group also includes a multitude of related forms which, from their aquatic habits and generally inconspicuous size, and from the fact that they are commonly neither edible nor noxious, are little known except to naturalists and are undistinguished by any popular names. Collectively, they are ranked as one of the classes forming the sub-phylum ARTHROPODA, and their distinguishing characters are discussed under that heading. It will be sufficient here to define them as Arthropoda for the most part of aquatic habits, having typically two pairs of antenniform appendages in front of the mouth and at least three pairs of post-oral limbs acting as jaws.

As a matter of fact, however, the range of structural variation within the group is so wide, and the modifications due to parasitism and other causes are so profound, that it is almost impossible to frame a definition which shall be applicable to all the members of the class. In certain parasites, for instance, the adults have lost every trace not only of Crustacean but even of Arthropodous structure, and the only clue to their zoological position is that afforded by the study of their development. In point of size also the Crustacea vary within very wide limits. Certain water-fleas (Cladocera) fall short of one-hundredth of an inch in total length; the giant Japanese crab (_Macrocheira_) can span over 10 ft. between its outstretched claws.

The habits of the Crustacea are no less diversified than their structure. Most of them inhabit the sea, but representatives of all the chief groups are found in fresh water (though the Cirripedia have hardly gained a footing there), and this is the chief home of the primitive Phyllopoda. A terrestrial habitat is less common, but the widely-distributed land Isopoda or woodlice and the land-crabs of tropical regions have solved the problem of adaptation to a subaerial life.

Swimming is perhaps the commonest mode of locomotion, but numerous forms have taken to creeping or walking, and the robber-crab (_Birgus latro_) of the Indo-Pacific islands even climbs palm-trees. None has the power of flight, though certain pelagic Copepoda are said to leap from the surface of the sea like flying-fish. Apart from the numerous parasitic forms, the only Crustacea which have adopted a strictly sedentary habit of life are the Cirripedia, and here, as elsewhere, profound modifications of structure have resulted, leading ultimately to a partial assumption of the radial type of symmetry which is so often associated with a sedentary life.

Many, perhaps the majority, of the Crustacea are omnivorous or carrion-feeders, but many are actively predatory in their habits, and are provided with more or less complex and efficient instruments for capturing their prey, and there are also many plant-eaters. Besides the sedentary Cirripedia, numbers of the smaller forms, especially among the Entomostraca, subsist on floating particles of organic matter swept within reach of the jaws by the movements of the other limbs.