vii. It cannot be doubted that the leaders caused this procession to be

made round Jerusalem, in order that the sight of so many places should arouse the enthusiasm of the Crusaders. We must regret that Tasso, who speaks of this procession, has scarcely said anything of the places the Christians visited; these details would have furnished poetical beauties, without in anything departing from the exactitude of history.

[169] Raymond d’Agiles says that Godfrey’s tower was transplanted by night a mile from the spot where it had been constructed; which leads us to believe that the principal attack was directed near the gate of Cedar, towards the entrance of the Valley of Jehoshaphat. For the rest, we must regret that M. de Chateaubriand, who has written a very interesting dissertation upon the military positions of Tasso, has not thrown light upon the obscurities of the historians which present themselves in this portion of their accounts of the siege.

[170] This circumstance is thus related by Abbot Guibert:—Est etiam mihi non inferiori relatione compertum, Robertum Normandiæ comitem Robertumque alterum Flandriarum principem, junctis pariter convenisse mœroribus, et se cum fletibus uberrimis conclamasse miserrimos, quos suæ adoratione crucis, et visione, immo veneratione sepulchri, tantoperè Jesus Dominus judicaret indignos.—Lib. vii. cap. 6.

[171] As Tasso often employs magic, we have sought with care for all that relates to this species of the marvellous in the contemporary historians. That which we have just quoted from William of Tyre, is the only instance we have been able to find. Some historians likewise have said that the mother of Kerboghâ was a sorceress, and that she had foretold to her son the defeat of Antioch. It is in vain to seek for similar incidents in the history of the first crusade. We ought to add that magic was much less in vogue in the twelfth century than in that in which Tasso lived. The Crusaders were no doubt very superstitious, but their superstitions were not attached to little things; they were struck by the phenomena they saw in the heavens; they believed in the appearance of saints, and in revelations made by God himself, but not in magicians. Ideas of magic came to us a long time afterwards, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The chroniclers of that period, who speak of anterior facts, fill their recitals with whimsical and ridiculous fables, such as are not to be found in more ancient authors. We must not judge of the middle ages by the chronicles of Robert Gaguin, or by those of Archbishop Turpin, the work of a monk of the twelfth century; still less by the romances of the same period.

[172] We report this circumstance here, in order to give an idea of the fire which was launched against the Christians. Albert d’Aix expresses himself thus:—Qualiter ignis, aquâ inextinguibilis solo aceti liquore restingui valeat.—_Alb. Aq._ lib. vi. cap. 18.

[173] This is repeated by William of Tyre and some other writers. Raymond d’Agiles very naively says: Quis autem miles ille fuerit cognoscere non potuimus.—_Raym. d’Ag._ p. 171, Bongars.

[174] Matthew of Edessa says that Godfrey used in this assault the sword of Vespasian, which thus assisted, for the third time, in the destruction of Jerusalem. No Latin historian mentions it.

[175] Oderic Vital attributes to Reimbault Creton of Cambresis the glory of having first entered Jerusalem. Other historians only name him among those who followed most closely the steps of the brothers Lethalde and Engelbert of Tournai. This is the text of Orderic Vital:—Reimboldus Creton qui primus in expugnatione Jerusalem ingressus est, &c. The descendants of Reimbolt Creton bore indifferently up to the sixteenth century the names of Creton and Estourmel. This family preserved as its device these words, “_Vaillant sur la crête_;” and La Morliere, the historian of Picardy under Louis XIII., speaks of them in these terms: “It adds not a little to the lustre of this family, that it is acknowledged that they owe the origin of their arms to the first crusade which the Christians made for the recovery of the Holy Land, bestowed by the hand of Godfrey of Bouillon, king of Jerusalem, who, to do honour to the valour of the sieur d’Estourmel, whom he had seen bear himself so valiantly at the taking of that city, made him a present of a crenated cross of silver, in which was enchased a piece of the true cross.” This precious reliquary was passed down from generation to generation to the eldest sons of this house. In the reign of Louis XIII. the marquis d’Hautefort having espoused the only daughter of Antoine d’Estourmel, cordon bleu, and first equerry to madame la duchesse d’Orléans, pretended that this piece of the true cross made a part of the inheritance. This discussion was submitted to the arbitration of the president of Mesmes, who decided that the cross was to revert to the branch of the house of Estourmel, which possesses it to this day.

[176] The details of this assault are repeated by all contemporary historians, several describe it at length. Foulcher de Chartres, who without doubt distinguished himself there, is the one who says the least. Anna Comnena says that the Christians took Jerusalem in fifteen days, but gives no details.

[177] The Oriental authors give no details of the siege of Jerusalem. The manuscript history of Jerusalem and Hebron, which is in the Imperial Library, and of which M. Jourdain has been kind enough to translate several fragments for me, contains nothing but vague notices. The author contents himself with saying that the siege lasted more than forty days, and that the Christians killed a great number of Mussulmans. We may here make a general remark: when the Mussulmans experience reverses, the Arabian authors are very sparing of details, and satisfy themselves with telling things in a vague manner, adding, “_So God has willed it, may God curse the Christians_.” Aboul-Feda gives very few more details than the rest. He says that the massacre of the Mussulmans lasted during seven consecutive days, and that seventy thousand persons were killed in the mosque of Omar, which is evidently an exaggeration.

[178] _Raoul de Caen_, cap. 132 et 133.

[179] We shall content ourselves with repeating here the words of Raymond d’Agiles, Foulcher de Chartres, and Robert the Monk:—In eodem templo decem millia decollati sunt; pedites nostri usque ad bases cruore peremptorum tingebantur; nec fœminis nec parvulis pepercerunt.—_Ful. Caen. ap. Bong._ p. 398. Tantum enim ibi humani sanguinis effusum est, ut cæsorum corpora, undâ sanguinis impellente, volverentur per pavimentum, et brachia sive truncatæ manus super cruorem fluitabant.—_Rob. Mon._ lib. 9. In templo et porticu Solomonis equitabatur in sanguine usque ad genua et usque ad frænos equorum.—_Raym. d’Ag. Bong._ p. 179. These words of Raymond d’Agiles are evidently an hyperbole, and prove that the Latin historians exaggerated things they ought to have extenuated or concealed.... In a letter written to the pope, the bishops, and the faithful, by Daimbert, archbishop of Pisa, Godfrey of Bouillon, and Raymond de St. Gilles, is this remarkable passage: “If you desire to know,” say they, “what became of the enemies we found in Jerusalem, know that in the portico of Solomon and in the temple, our soldiers had the vile blood of the Saracens up to the knees of their horses.”—Si scire desideratis quid de hostibus ibi repertis factum fuerit, scitote quia in porticu Salomonis, et in templo nostri equitabant in sanguine fœdo Sarracenorum usque ad genua equorum.—See _Novus Thesaurus Anecdotorum_, tom. i. p. 282.

[180] Albert d’Aix names these three attendants _Baldric_, _Adelborde_, and _Stabulon_.

[181] Some historians say that the Christians did not go to the Holy Sepulchre until the day after the conquest. We here adopt the opinion of Albert d’Aix, which appears to us the most probable.

[182] Le P. Maimbourg, _Histoire des Croisades_.

[183] Albert d’Aix gives the sentence which emanated from the council of the leaders. This sentence is supported by the motives we have pointed out.

[184] We have already quoted some of these historians; others relate nearly the same details, and with the same _sang froid_. We will quote no other but Raymond d’Agiles, who expresses himself thus:—Alii namque illorum, QUOD LEVIUS ERAT, obtruncabantur capitibus; alii autem sagittati, de turribus SALTARE cogebantur; alii vero diutissimè torti et ignious adusti flammeriebantur ’_sic_). Videbantur per vicos et plateas civitatis AGGERES capitum et manuum atque pedum.—_Raym. de Ag._ p. 178.

[185] Tankredus miles gloriosus super hâc sibi illatâ injuriâ, vehementi irâ succensus est.—_Alb. Aq._ lib. vi. cap. 29.

[186] Comes Raymundus, avaritiâ corruptus, Sarracenos milites quos in turrim David elapsos obsederat, acceptâ ingenti pecuniâ, illæsos abire permisit.—_Alb. Aq._ lib. vi. cap. 28

[187] Robert the Monk expresses himself thus: “Flebant et extrahebant.”

[188] Properly speaking, this was a kind of lustre which the Arabians call _tradour_. The Mussulmans have them of so large a size that it is necessary to enlarge the doors of the mosques by a breach, in order to admit them.

[189] See, for this deliberation and this speech, the _History_ of Accolti lib. iv., and that of Yves Duchat.

[190] The English historian Brompton expresses himself thus whilst relating the misfortunes that Robert afterwards experienced:—Sic reddidit Dominus vicem pro vice duci Roberto, quia cum gloriosum in actibus Jerosolimitantis eum Dominus redderet, regnum Jerosolimitantum sibi oblatum renuit, magis eligens quieti et desidiæ in Normania deservire quam regi regum in sanctâ civitate militare. Damnavit igitur eum Deus desidiâ perenni et carcere sempiterno.—See the _Historiæ Anglicæ Scriptores_, tom. i. p. 1002.

[191] See _Abbot Guibert_, lib. vii. cap. 12.

[192] Albert d’Aix, who relates these two visions at length, terminates thus:—Horum somniorum præsignatione ex Dei ordinatione, populi Christiani benevolentiâ, Godefrido in solio regni Jerusalem exaltato.

[193] We may see in Raoul de Caen the debates which arose on this subject, and particularly the accusation directed against Tancred by Arnold de Rohés, in the name of the Latin clergy.

[194] We here give the translation of some passages of an elegy of the poet Modhaffer Abyverdy upon the taking of Jerusalem by the Crusaders, inserted by Aboul-Feda in his _Annales_, tom. iii. p. 319. This translation is by M. Jourdain.

“Our blood is mingled with our tears, and no part of our being remains to us that can be the object of the blows of our enemies.

“O misfortune! if tears take the place of true arms, when the fires of war break forth!

“How can the eye close its lids, when catastrophes such as ours would awaken even those who slept in the most profound repose!

“Your brethren have no other resting-places in Syria but the backs of their camels and the entrails of vultures!

“The Franks treat them like vile slaves, whilst you allow yourselves to be drawn carelessly along by the skirt of the robe of effeminacy, as people would do in perfect security!

“What blood has not flowed! how many women have been forced by modesty to conceal their beauty with their bracelets!

“Will the chiefs of the Arabs, the heroes of the Persians, submit to such degradation?

“Ah! at least, if they do not defend themselves, from attachment to their religion, let them be animated on account of their own honour, and by the love of all that is dear to them!”

[195] Eos tanquam segetem in transverso gladii secabant.—_Bald._ lib. iv.

[196] Subito sagittâ transfigebant, et quasi aves volatili telo percussas, ab ipsis arborum ramis moribundos humi procumbere cogebant.—_Alb. Aq._ lib. v. cap. 49.

[197] Anna Comnena, who speaks of the battle of Ascalon, says that the Franks were at first conquerors, and that they were afterwards attacked and beaten near Ramla. She mentions Baldwin, who was not then in Palestine, and did not come thither till after the death of Godfrey. It is easy to see that she confounds, as often happens with her, two different periods, that of the battle of Ascalon and that of the battle of Ramla, which was fought three years after, in the reign of Baldwin I.

[198] It is commonly believed that this battle of Ascalon served Tasso as a model for the great battle which terminates the _Jerusalem Delivered_. It is easy to see that the poet had also in view the battle of Antioch, which was fought at the gates of the city, of which the Christians were the masters. Raymond could not be present, because he held the citadel of Antioch in check, still in the power of the enemy. These circumstances, and several others, are found equally in the battle of the _Jerusalem Delivered_ and in the historians who have described the battle of Antioch.

[199] There is in the Arabian history of Jerusalem and Hebron, a quatrain addressed to the count of St. Gilles, upon the defeat of Afdhal-Ben-Bedr-al-Djémaly, general of the army of Egypt, before Ascalon:—

Tu as fait triompher par ton épée la religion du Messie, Dieu nous preserve d’un homme tel que Saint Gilles! Jamais les hommes n’avaient entendu rien de pareil à ce qu’il a fait; Il a mis dans la plus honteuse fuite Afdhul.

We quote this quatrain less for any idea that it contains, than to show that Raymond enjoyed great fame among the Mussulmans.

[200] This emissary is called Bohemond by Raymond d’Agiles. It is believed that it was Phirous who gave up Antioch to the Christians, that had taken the name of Bohemond.

[201] For this quarrel between Godfrey and Raymond, see _Albert d’Aix_, lib. vi. cap. 41, 42, and 43.

[202] In the genealogical history of several houses of Brittany, is the following rather curious passage: “Rion de Loheac acquired in this voyage beautiful and rich spoils from the enemies of Christianity, the Saracens; and above all things he was curious to seek for and collect heaps of the sacred and precious relics which were in those regions, in the number of which was a part and portion of the true cross upon which our Saviour Jesus Christ suffered death for the salvation of the human race, and of the stone of the sepulchre in which the said Saviour was buried. These relics he intended to bring into his own country; but being prevented by a disease of which he died in the said country of Syria, he sent them to his brother Gauthier de Loheac, by his squire called Simon de Ludron, who had accompanied him in this voyage.” We might quote many other similar facts which prove that the Christians of the West set the greatest value upon relics brought from the East.

[203] This circumstance is related in the _Chronicle of Hainault_ ’_Gisleberti Chronica Hannoniæ_:)—Tacendum non est, says this chronicle, quod uxor ejus Yda comitissa domini sui occasum ut audivit, sed incerta si occisus fuerit, vel captus teneretur, Deum et virum suum diligens, partes illas eum labore magno et gravibus expensis adire non dubitavit: unde ipsa priùs de viro suo incerta, incertior rediit.—P. 37.

[204] See the _Life of Peter the Hermit_, by le P. d’Oultremont. Peter the Hermit was returning from the Holy Land in 1102, with a nobleman of the country of Liége, named the count de Montaign, when he was assailed by a violent tempest, during which he made a vow to build an abbey. It was in performance of this vow that he founded the abbey of Neufmontier at Huy, in Le Condrez, on the right bank of the Meuse, in honour of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem. Alexander, bishop of Liége, dedicated it in 1130. Peter died there at an advanced age, and desired, from humility, to be buried outside the church. It was not till a hundred and thirty years after his death that the abbot and the chapter caused his relics to be removed to a coffin covered with marble before the altar of the twelve apostles, in the year 1242, with a sufficiently long epitaph, which M. Morard, of the Academy of Sciences, read on passing through Huy in 1761, which is reported in the 3rd vol. of the MSS. of the Library of Lyon, by M. Delandine, p. 481.

[205] Robert, count of Flanders, was killed by a fall from his horse.

[206] William IX. is the first troubadour known. He was a valorous and courteous knight, but _a great deceiver of ladies_. He bade adieu in a song to the Limousin, to Poitou, to chivalry, which he had loved so much, and to mundane vanities, which he describes as coloured habits and beautiful hose. On his return he sang the fatigues, the dangers, and the misfortunes of this expedition, in a poem which is lost. His usual gaiety pervaded it, according to Oderic Vital, in spite of the sadness of the subject.—See the _History of the Troubadours_, by Millet, tom. i.

[207] Guichenon, in his _History of the House of Savoy_, expresses himself thus: “William Paradin relates that this prince ’Humbert, second count of Savoy) went to the Holy Land in the crusade which was determined on at the council of Clermont, under Godfrey of Bouillon,” which the greater part of the historians have confirmed after him ’such as Pingon, Vanderb, Dogliani, Chiesa, Balderan, Buttel, and Henning). Papyrus Masson has rejected this, because neither the manuscript chronicle, nor the authors of the crusades, who name many lords of less consequence, have mentioned him. Botero has said nothing of him. “Nevertheless we cannot doubt this voyage; for about that time this prince gave the monks of the Bourget in Savoy a property called Gutin, for the health of his soul, of that of count Amé, his father, and of his ancestors. This donation, dated at d’Yenne in Savoy ’and not Jena in Thuringia, as is said in the _Art of Verifying Dates_), imports that the count bestowed this liberality to obtain from God a fortunate establishment ’_consulat_) in his voyage beyond sea. Now this word _consulat_ then signified a principality, government, or sovereignty. Oderic Vital gives to Roger, count of Sicily, the title of consul of Sicily.” Guichenon adds here many other examples of the same kind. That which created doubts of the voyage of Humbert is the silence of the historians of the first crusade, as well as all the acts of this prince that have been preserved, and which prove that he was in Europe in the year 1100; but all these doubts vanish, when we know that he went in the second expedition.

[208] The details of this last expedition are found scattered in the works of several historians. They who afford the most information are Albert d’Aix, Oderic Vital, Foulcher de Chartres, _Chronicon Uspergensis_, _Alberici Chronicon_, &c. &c.

[209] For these various positions, see the Map and the explanatory Memoir.

[210] The body of the duke of Burgundy was brought back to France, and buried at Citeaux. Urban Planchier says in his history, that they observed the anniversary of the death of this prince on the Friday before Passion Sunday. After the death of her husband, Mahaul, the wife of Eude, and mother of Florine, retired to the abbey of Fontevrault.

[211] It has been said that Arpin, on setting out for the crusade, sold the county of Berri to Philip, king of France, for the sum of 60,000 crowns. This is the way in which the fact is related in the _History of Berri_: “King Philip redeemed his city of Bourges, which Henry his father had engaged for 60,000 crowns, from Arpin. Thus Bourges returned to its natural prince.”—_History of Berri_, by Chaumeau, p. 97.

[212] Ancient historians contain many other details concerning this expedition that we have not thought it necessary to notice. This expedition presents nothing but scenes of carnage and reverses, without glory or results. We shall be obliged to return to it hereafter.

[213] Alexander, say the Greek historians, had thirty thousand infantry and five thousand horse. A single historian, Anaximenes, makes the Macedonian army amount to forty-eight thousand men.

[214] The Turks, thirty years before the taking of Jerusalem by the Christians, had scarcely met with any resistance to their invasions of some of the richest provinces of Asia, because the Mussulman religion, which they had recently embraced, was that of the countries against which they directed their arms. If the Tartars at different epochs have invaded several countries of the globe, and have maintained themselves in them, it was because on issuing from their deserts they had almost no religion, and were thus disposed to adopt any advantageous faith they might meet with in their passage. It will be objected to me that the Arabians, in the first ages of the Hegira, invaded a great part of Asia and Africa, where they found other religions than their own long established; but it may be answered that these religions were sinking to decay. When the Mussulmans presented themselves in Europe, where the Christian religion was better established than in the East, this religion offered an insurmountable barrier to their progress.

[215] Daimbert, Godfrey of Bouillon, and Raymond de St. Gilles, when writing to the pope and the faithful of the West, say that the victory of Dorylæum had filled the pilgrims with pride, and that God, to punish them, opposed Antioch to them, which delayed them nine months.

[216] Tasso himself was of this opinion, as may be seen in an interesting letter addressed to us by M. Dureau Delamalle. The admiration which I entertain for the Poet of the Crusades, makes me exceedingly anxious that M. Baour Lormian should finish the undertaking he has begun, so worthy of his rare talent, a translation in verse of the _Jerusalem Delivered_.

[217] M. Guinguené, in his _Histoire Littéraire d’Italie_, has deigned to adopt, with some modification, several of these observations, which is the most worthy reward of my labours and researches.

[218] In our general conclusions, we shall often have to quote the works of M. Heeren and M. Choiseuil d’Aillecourt upon the influence of the crusades.

[219] The verse of this writer is much better than his prose, which is very incorrect, and sometimes unintelligible.

[220] We have obtained these details from a manuscript history of Béarn, which has been kindly communicated to us by one of our most distinguished magistrates, who consecrates his leisure to the cultivation of letters. This history, remarkable for a wise erudition and sound criticism, is likely to throw a great light upon the remote times of which we speak.

[221] All the ordinances of Gaston de Béarn are to be found in the decrees of the synod or council held in the diocese of Elne, in Roussillon, the 16th of May, 1027. These dispositions had for object the Truce of God. The council decreed that no unarmed clerk or monk should be attacked, nor any man who was going to church or coming from it, or was walking with women. At the council of Bourges in 1031, and in several others, these regulations were renewed; labourers, their cattle and mills, were placed under the safeguard of religion.—See the _Collection of the Councils_ by le P. Labbe. It is not useless to remark that these regulations were at first received in Aquitaine. The council of Clermont caused them to be adopted throughout the greater part of Europe.

[222] I only here speak of the clergy with regard to its knowledge. The opinion I express is not only applicable to France, but to all the states of Europe.

[223] What a comment upon man’s assumption is the history of France since this was written!—TRANS.

[224] An excellent dissertation on the Holy Land, by the Abbé Guénée, in _Les Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions_, may be consulted with advantage.

[225] We have been guided principally in the history of Jerusalem, by the chronicle of Foulcher de Chartres, that of Albert d’Aix, the anonymous author of the _Gesta Francorum expugnantium Hierusalem_, and the history of William of Tyre. There is nothing in French upon the kingdom of Jerusalem. Being ignorant of the German language, we regret our inability to avail ourselves of the second volume of the _History of the Crusades_, by M. Walken, to the extent we could have wished. We may say the same of the history by M. Hacken, and several other German works upon the establishment of the Christians in the East.

Among the Arabian historians from whom the learned D. Bertheraud has made extracts, we have consulted—1. _The Mussulman Annals of Aboulfeda._ 2. _The History of Tabari_, or rather the continuation of that historian, who is called the Livy of the Arabians. 3. _The History of Jerusalem_, by Moudgireddin. 4. _The History of Aleppo_, by Kemaleddin. 5. _The History of the Attabecs_, by Ben Latir. These historians and some others have furnished us with some points of comparison, and some document frequently incomplete, generally useless. The Oriental historians only become an abundant source of information at the epoch of the reigns of Noureddin and Saladin.

[226] This account is found entire in _Albert d’Aix_, book vii. chaps. 8, 9, &c.

[227] The Assizes of Jerusalem, transported into the kingdom of Cyprus, were collected in the thirteenth century, by John d’Ibelin, count of Jaffa and Ascalon. They were printed by Baumancir, and commented upon by Thomas de la Thaumasière. It is to be lamented that the French publicists, and Montesquieu himself, have studied so superficially this monument of modern legislation, which is able to throw great light upon the history, laws, and manners of the middle ages.

[228] Dolens aliquantulùm de fratris morte et plus gaudens de hæreditate.—_Fulch. Carn._ lib. x. cap. 22.

[229] The Christians were in so much danger in this expedition, that Foulcher de Chartres exclaims in his history, “I would rather have been at Chartres or Orleans,” “Ego quidem vel Carnoti vel Aurelianis mallem esse quam ibi.”—Lib. x. cap. 22.

[230] “Ubi ego ipse Fulcherius adaquavi meos.”—In _Bongars_, p. 405. The same historian speaks in the same chapter of the Dead Sea, and of the phenomena he had remarked. Foulcher de Chartres seldom neglects an opportunity of speaking of himself; these words, “Ego Fulcherius,” very frequently appear in his narration.

[231] William of Tyre, in his account of the taking of Cæsarea, speaks of a precious vase which fell to the share of the Genoese. “At this time,” says he, “was found a vase in the shape of a dish, of a bright green colour, which the Genoese, believing it to be an emerald, were desirous of having, at the valuation of a large sum of money, to make an offering of to their church as an excellent ornament, and which they are accustomed to exhibit to the great lords who pass through their city.” This vase found at Cæsarea, and preserved at Genoa till the end of the last century, is now in the Cabinet of Antiques in the Imperial Library at Paris. [Qy. whether restored to the Genoese in 1815?—TRANS.]

[232] This singular fact is related by William of Tyre with all its details.—Chap. x.

[233] We here follow the version of Foulcher de Chartres, who makes use of the word _vivit_ instead of _vincit_, which appears to have prevailed afterwards. The device _Christus regnat, vincit, imperat_, forms the legend of the reverse of all the gold coins struck in France from the time of John to that of Louis XVI., under the different names of _Francs à pied et à cheval_, of _Agnelets_, or _Ecus d’or_, or _Louis_. In the most ancient, the _Francs_, the verb _vincit_ is the first: X. P. C. VINCIT; X. P. C. REGNAT; X. P. C. IMPERAT; Christ conquers, Christ reigns, and Christ governs; which proves that this device or war-cry may be traced back to the time of the crusades.

[234] See Gibbon for the interesting memoir of this noble family, whose name so frequently occurs in our own history, and is, I believe, still extant, in the Courtenays, earls of Devon.—TRANS.

[235] “Anna Comnena adds, that to complete the deceit, he was shut up with a dead cock; and wonders how the barbarian could endure the confinement and putrefaction.”—_Notes to Gibbon._—TRANS.

[236] This may at first appear a singular pledge; but when we remember the great consideration in which beards were and are held in the East, we are reconciled to the fact. Beckford makes Vathek inflict loss of beard upon the sages who cannot decipher the magic characters upon the sabres, as the greatest possible punishment; and few were better acquainted with Eastern manners than the master of Font-hill Abbey.—TRANS.

[237] These details are taken from the Arabian historian _Novaïry_.

[238] Sir William d’Avenant elegantly calls books “the monuments of deceased minds.”—TRANS.

[239] Aboulfeda in his account justifies the Genoese for the massacre of the Mussulmans; the city being taken by assault, they did not exceed the usual rights of war. Another Arabian historian, Ebn-Abi-Tai, says that the Christians exhibited at the taking of Tripoli the same destructive fury as the Arabs had who burnt the library of Alexandria. The same historian speaks of the incredible number of three millions of volumes. We have preferred the version of Novaïry, who reduces the number of volumes to a hundred thousand. This author states that the library of Tripoli was founded by the cadi Aboutaleb Hasen, who had himself composed several works.

[240] The governor of Mossoul is called by the Latins Maledoctus, Mandult, and by the Arabians Mauduts. Togdequin was prince of Damascus.

[241] We have avoided mentioning too frequently the sultans and emirs of Syria, whose names seem the more barbarous as they are correctly written.

[242] Tabari and Aboul-Feda.

[243] See, for an account of this disaster, Kemaleddin and Tabari.

[244] The account of this battle, and the preparations for it, are taken from Robert of the Mount ’_Robertus de Monte, Appendice ad Sigebertum_). This author speaks of the fast the troops were ordered to undergo, as had been done at Nineveh: “Universo pecori pabula negabantur.” He also speaks of the milk of the holy Virgin, carried in a vase: “Episcopus Bethleemides ferens in pyxide lac sanctæ Mariæ virginis.”

[245] This act is reported in its entirety by William of Tyre.

[246] Albert d’Aix finishes his history in the first year of the reign of Baldwin II., and Foulcher de Chartres terminates his after the siege of Tyre. We may consult for this reign many passages of Baronius, Robert of the Mount, Sanuti, and particularly William of Tyre and Bernardus Thesaurius. We are in possession of the second part of a _History of Jerusalem_, the anonymous author of which speaks of the reigns of the two first Baldwins.

It will be said perhaps that I have borrowed from these different historians too many details; but I could not resist the desire I had to impart to my readers things that have never hitherto been related in the French language. It is surprising that, notwithstanding Jerusalem was almost always governed and defended by the Franks, no writer of our nation has spoken of it.

[247] The emir Balac was a prince of the family of Ortoc, who possessed many places on the Euphrates, reigned in Aleppo and Mesopotamia, and could set on foot innumerable armies of Turcomans.

[248] Edma, the daughter of Baldwin, still a child, was violated by the Mussulmans, to whom her father had given her as an hostage.

[249] See, as well for the incursion of the Turks as of those of the Christians, Kemaleddin, Tabari, and Aboul-Feda.

[250] Our learned Orientalists have furnished us with some very useful and profound works on the Ismaëlians; at their head is M. de Sacy, who has made us acquainted with the doctrine and many of the usages of this singular people. M. Jourdain has on this subject supplied us with a very interesting memoir.

[251] See, for the origin and the reign of Zengui, the _History of the Atabecks_, by Ben Latir.

[252] The history of the knights of St. John has been written in Italian by Bosio, and translated into French by Boyssat. The history since written by the Abbé de Vertot has caused all that preceded it to be forgotten. The Templars, after their tragical end, had no historian of their exploits in the Holy Land; but they have in our days found a very eloquent one in M. Raynouard.

[253] See Saint Bernard, _Exhortatio ad Milites Templi_.

[254] We will relate in full the decrees of the council of Naplouse, which form a precious monument of the history of these distant times; but the greater part of the crimes and offences against which the fathers of this council raised their voices, do not permit us to give these statutes in French or English, or present the most curious details of them.

[255] The castle of Puyset, near Orleans, was besieged three times by all the forces of Louis le Gros; this castle was at length taken and demolished. Veilly, and all the French historians, having neglected to read William of Tyre, make the seigneur de Puyset die in the kingdom of Naples.

[256] When quoting William of Tyre, I avail myself always of the old translation, whose _naïf_ and simple style associates best with the spirit and manners of the twelfth century.

[257] In William of Tyre may be seen the letter which the vizir of Damascus addressed to the Christian princes of Jerusalem.

[258] The Assizes of Jerusalem speak thus of the coronation of the king:—Ly met l’anneau au doigt, qui sinefie foi; et asprès ly ceint l’espée, qui sinefie justice, à deffendre foi et sainte esglise; et asprès la couronne, qui sinefie la dignité; et asprès le sceptre, qui sinefie chastier et deffendre; et asprès la pomme, qui sinefie la terre du royaume. [Although offering a translation, I cannot resist giving this very curious piece of old French.—TRANS.]

They put the ring on his finger, as signifying faith; then they girded on the sword, which means he must defend justice, faith, and the holy church; next the crown, which denotes dignity; after that the sceptre, with which he is both to punish and defend; and at last the apple or globe, which signifies the kingdom of the earth.

[259] William of Tyre attributes the determination of the king and the barons to the cries of the populace of Jerusalem; the same historian relates this expedition with many details in his sixteenth book, ch. vii.-xiii.

[260] Kemaleddin, an Arabian historian, and William of Tyre agree as to the principal circumstances of this siege.

[261] We have before us in manuscript some historical and geographical notes upon the city of Edessa, communicated to us by M. J. Chahan de Cerbied, an Armenian professor. This work is rendered more valuable by M. J. Chahan de Cerbied’s ’its author) being born at Edessa, where he passed many years. These notes are to be published in a general picture of Armenia, which will not fail to attract the attention of the learned.

[262] The greater part of the Arabian historians assert that Zengui sought to repair the evils his army had caused to the inhabitants of Edessa. Kemaleddin relates the following anecdote on this subject, which makes us at the same time acquainted with the Mussulman spirit of history and manners. We will transcribe the Latin extract from Dom. Berthereau:—Norredinus ingressus est urbem, diripuit eam, incolas jugo captivitatis submisit; illis evacuata fuit urbs, pauci tantùm remanserunt. Ex captivis unam misit ancillam Norredinus ad Zeineddinum Ali Koudgoucum, pro rege, patris sui in Mosulâ inter munera quæ ad eum misit; quam cum vidisset ille, statim illâ usus est; lavit se posteà, dixitque suis: Nostisne quid mihi hac die acciderit? Dixerunt, non. Dixit: Cum Roham cepimus, regnante Zengui, inter res raptas in manus meas incidit ancilla pulchra, ejusque pulchritudo mihi admodùm placuit; ad eam declinavit cor meum, statimque jussu Zengui martyris fuit inclamatum: Redde servos opesque raptas. Metuendus porrò erat et reverendus; ancillam reddidi, ei vero semper adhæsit cor meum: novè verò misit mihi dona Norredinus, quæ inter, ancillas misit plures, quas inter eamdem ancillam. Coitu earn subegi, nè adhuc etiam tolletur.—_Kemaleddin_, _Hist. de Halep._ p. 62, translation of Dom. Berthereau.

[263] M. Cerbied has translated this piece into French, which for several reasons deserves to be known. This poem, in seven cantos, was composed by Narses-le-Beau, the Armenian patriarch of the city of Edessa, to console his fellow-citizens in their misfortune, and arouse the zeal of the defenders of the Christian religion against the Turks.

[264] Godfrey, who was abbot of Clairvaux after St. Bernard, has left us a life of this saint, in which he does not speak of the crusade; the reason of this is that St. Bernard was reproached with the crusade, and that his panegyrist thence thought proper to pass over this remarkable epoch. We have several other lives of St. Bernard; the best and most complete is that which is printed in _La France Littéraire_.

[265] Commota est quidem et contremuit terra, quia cœpit Deus cœli perdere terram suam.—_St. Bernard_, epist. cccxxii.

[266] Nunquid potest mittere angelorum plusquam duodecim legiones, aut certè dicere verbo, et liberabitur terra sua?—_St. Bernard_, epist. cccxxii.

[267] The pulpit from which St. Bernard preached the crusade remained in the church of Vèzelai until the period of the revolution of 1789.

[268] The Abbé Velly thus relates the same fact: “Satisfied with the character of preacher and thaumaturge ’performer of miracles), St. Bernard set out for Germany, where he put to silence another monk, who, without having the authority of the pope, dared to exhort the Christian nations to take up arms for the assistance of their brethren in Asia.”

[269] These exclamations were pronounced in old German:—Christ uns gende, die heiligen alle helffen uns.

[270] Philip, archdeacon of Liege, afterwards a monk of Clairvaux, has made a detailed relation of the miracles of St. Bernard, from the first Sunday in Advent, the first day of December, 1146, to Thursday, the second day of the following January. In his relations he produces ten ocular witnesses, whose names he gives. Le Père Maimbourg, in his _History of the Crusades_, does not appear to believe in the authenticity of the miracles of St. Bernard; the author of the _Life of Suger_, 3 vols. in 12mo., sharply reproves Maimbourg for his incredulity. We do not think it at all necessary to go into this question; we believe it to be quite sufficient to know that the contemporaries of St. Bernard had faith in his miracles, and that this faith made them perform things which simple reason might call miraculous.

[271] A German historian speaks thus of this crusade:—Si autem aliter non, hâc tamen ratione, exitum habuit expeditio frequens, purgaretur eo genere hominum qui rapinis consueverunt victitare; mœstum devotione qualicunque, omnes id genus homines, pro remedio peccatorum sacram amplexi militiam, in eam nomine dedêre volentes expeditionem.—_Krantz_, vi. sax. c. 13; _De Regibus Hierosolymorum_, auctore Christophano Besoldo, p. 214.

[272] The pope had forbidden luxury among the Crusaders; he expressed himself thus in a circular:—Nec eant in vestibus pretiosis, et cum canibus sive avibus, aut aliis quæ ostentationi potius et lasciviæ, quam necessariis videantur usibus deservire, sed in modesto apparatu, et habitu, in quo pœnitentiam potius agere quam inanem affectari gloriam videantur.

[273] We quote here the words of Belle Forest, which we should not use if they were not translations from contemporary chronicles. We will only repeat a single passage, which is taken from the chronicle of Raoul:—De dicette: Per totam Galliam fit descriptio generalis; non sexus, non ordo, non dignitas quempiam excusavit, quin auxilium regi conferret; cujus iter multis imprecationibus persequebatur.

[274] Montfaucon speaks of these pictures in _Les Monuments de la Monarchie Française_, vol. i.

[275] Otto of Frisingen, an eye-witness, describes this misfortune at great length.

[276] Odo de Deuil gives an account of this deliberation, and reports the speech of the bishop of Langres, on whom he bestows the greatest praise.

[277] Otto of Frisingen, an ocular witness, gives none of the details of the rout of the Germans, saying as his excuse that he had nothing agreeable to relate. The _Gesta Ludovici_ and William of Tyre supply the silence of Otto of Frisingen.

[278] Nicetas, in his account, confounds the army of the French with that of the Germans, who did not fight on the banks of the Meander; all which Louis did he attributes to Conrad. The German historians have followed him, and state the victory near the Meander to have been gained by the sovereign of their own nation.

[279] The Crusaders had then a march of forty days before them to arrive at Antioch by land. They might have reached it in three days by sea.

[280] Odo de Deuil is the only writer who speaks of these events; but his account appears to us full of obscurity in some parts.

[281] The 19th of March, 1148.

[282] See the translation of William of Tyre, book xiii. ch. 21.

[283] Some romancers, and even some historians, have advanced that Eleanor of Guienne was in love with Saladin, who founded the dynasty of the Ayoubites. Saladin, the son of Ayoub, was born the same year that Eleanor married Louis VII., and was scarcely ten years old at the time of the second crusade. Her _second_ son, by Henry II. of England, became the great rival of Saladin in military glory.—TRANS.

[284] Percussit eum inter collum et sinistrum humerum ictu mirabili; ita quòd ensis secuit totum pectus cum humeris et descendit obliquando usque ad latus dextrum, taliter quòd pars dexterior abscissa penitùs cum capite cecidit super terram, et tunc omnes Turci, qui ictum tam formidabilem viderant stupefacti, statìm fugâ remedio nostrorum gladios evaserunt.—_G. C._ chap. ii.

[285] All these details, and some others which were not known to the authors of the West, are taken from the Arabian chronicle of _Ibuferat_.

[286] Abulfeda, Abulfarage, and some other Arabian historians speak of the siege of Damascus; but it is difficult to reconcile their account with that of the Latins. We have taken some few circumstances from them that appeared the most probable. The Chronicle of Ibuferat is that which gives the most circumstantial details.

[287] The Chronicle of Geuvais attributes the retreat of the Christians to the perfidy of the Templars:—Cum civitas Christianis reddenda esset, accesserunt Templarii, dicentes se primam habituros pugnam, ut omnes deinde in communi victoriam obtinerent, statuerunt itaque tentoria sua inter civitatem et exercitum Christianorum, et cum his qui erant in civitate paganis proditionis pactum inierunt. Cives igitur eorum agnoscentes cupiditatem, promiserunt eis tres cados plenos bisantis aureis, si eos ab obsidione liberarent. Delusi itaque Christiani per milites Templi, Damasco recesserunt. Post modicum verò cum Templarii promissos à viribus recipissent cados, in eisdem non nummos aureos, sed cupreos invenerunt, miraculoque quæ ascripserunt.

[288] _William of Tyre_, b. xvii. chap. 6.

[289] This crusade from the north is mentioned by Otto of Frisingen. Saxo the grammarian gives the most ample details in his thirteenth book. The reader may likewise consult the Latin _History of Germany_, by Kruntz. The _History of Denmark_, by Mallet, does not say a word of this war.

[290] Arnold, a Flemish preacher, on the publication of the second crusade, exhorted the nations of France and Germany to enrol themselves in this pious army; he followed the Crusaders who laid siege to Lisbon, under the command of Arnold count d’Arschot. Arnold sent an account of this siege to Milo, bishop of Terouane, in a letter published by Dom Martène, in the first volume of his great collection, upon two manuscripts. The relation of Arnold, an eye-witness, different from that of Robert of the Mount, is adopted by Fleury. The historian of Portugal, Manoel de Faria y Sousa, speaks also of this expedition of the Crusaders.

[291] St. Bernard wrote to the Estates of the kingdom, assembled by Suger, to repress the ambition of a brother of the king and some great vassals. He also wrote to the abbot of St. Denis: “Whilst Louis,” said he in his letter, “is fighting for a king whose reign is eternal; whilst in the flower of his age he exiles himself from his kingdom to serve Him who causes them to reign that serve him, is it possible there can be men so rash as to create disorder and troubles in his states, and to attack in his person the Lord and his Christ?”—_Ep._ 337.

[292] The legend of one of these medals is conceived in these terms:—

Regi invicto ab oriente reduci, Frementes lætitia cives.

In another medal the Meander is represented, and a trophy raised upon its banks, with this inscription—

Turcis ad ripas Mæandri cæsis fugatis.

[293] We have a life of Suger, written by his secretary. We have in French a Life of the abbot of St. Denis, in three volumes. L’Académie Française in 1778 proposed the _Eulogy of Suger_ as a subject for a prize; the discourse of M. Garrat, which was crowned, contains many very eloquent passages. We have before us another discourse which was published in 1779, which presents an exaggerated, but very ingenious satire upon the life and administration of Suger.

[294] Robert of the Mount.

[295] William of Tyre says that he was once much scandalized by a question Amaury put to him concerning the next world.

[296] Among the Arabian authors who give the greatest number of details of the conquest of Egypt, the continuator of Tabari deserves remark; Chehabeddin, son of Mohammed, the author of the _Roudatins_ ’the two gardens or lives of Noureddin and Salabeddin), is also very explicit upon this war between the Christians and the Mussulmans. Moudjireddin, in his _History of Jerusalem_, says a few words of the conquest of Egypt by Chirkou. Aboulmahason speaks also of the conquest of Egypt by the Turks. When speaking of the influence the Franks exercised at Cairo, he says they had a particular quarter of the city, and a market which Chaver had had built for them. Kemaleddin, in his _History of Aleppo_, relates these events with his usual clearness. This author agrees with Tabari. Ibu-elatir, in his _History of the Attabeks_, says but a very few words about the conquest of Egypt; he agrees with the continuator of Tabari and Kemaleddin. Dzemaleddin, in his _History of Egypt_, is also very brief on this important event. Macrizi, in his _Kitab-alsolouek Timaresch Doual Almoulouek_ ’Institution on the Knowledge of the Dynasties of Kings), only speaks with brevity of these events. Amongst the Latin authors who have spoken of the conquest of Egypt, we principally quote William of Tyre, and the Latin history of the latter years of the kingdom of Jerusalem, which is met with in the _Collection_ of Bongars.

[297] Near the castle of Toura, two leagues from Cairo, opposite ancient Memphis.

[298] Saladin has had many historians. Among the Arabian authors the most celebrated are Bohaddin, who has written his life; Omad-el-Cathed, secretary of the sultan, and author of the _Phatah_; Schahab-Eddin, author of the lives of Noureddin and Saladin, entitled _El Reudatains_ ’or the two gardens). Several particulars relative to the Mussulman hero are to be met with in Aboulfeda, who was of the family of Ayoub, and in several other Arabian writers quoted by D. Berthereau. There is a Life of Saladin in French, by Marin. In the Imperial Library [of France—TRANS.] two manuscript Lives may likewise be consulted, one by the Abbé Renaudot, and the other by Galland, the translator of the _Thousand and One Nights_.

[299] This was a common punishment in the East. In the Persian “_boat-death_,” as described by Plutarch, the criminal was nailed down in a boat, leaving only his head bare;—thus smeared, exposed, and left to die.—TRANS.

[300] Schahabbedin, Tabari, and Aboulfeda relate this fact at great length.

[301] I am inclined to think this was a kind of ceremony—the liege lord demanding entrance to the fortress of his vassal.—TRANS.

[302] Jacques de Vitri does not spare the Christians of the East in his History, particularly in the chapters entitled “De corruptione prælatorum; de regularibus irregulariter viventibus; de corruptione Terræ Sanctæ.” The satires of Juvenal would appear moderate by the side of the pages of this historian, who had been in the Holy Land in the quality of a legate.

[303] This was the same Andronicus who afterwards ascended the throne of Constantinople, and became notorious for his cruelties.

[304] The Latin history of the kingdom of Jerusalem contains this curious passage: Quidam verò, ut fama ferebat, ardentiùs cæteris movebatur, et abscissis viri genitalibus, ea tanquam in usum gignendi reservare deposuit, ut vel mortua membra, si fieri posset, virtutis tantæ suscitarent hæredem.—See the _Collection_ of Bongars, p. 1151.

[305] Among the Christian historians who have spoken of the battle of Tiberias, the following may be consulted: _Chronica Terræ Sanctæ_; the two continuations of William of Tyre, by Harold and Hugh de Plagon; and the Latin history of Jerusalem. Jacques de Vitri, William de Newbridge, the Chronicle of Gervais, Paule Emile Roger de Hoveden, and Matthew Paris also give some details of this battle, and of the events by which it was followed. None of these authors, however, have described it at sufficient length to give a complete idea of it; they are not even always agreed, and ought to be read with much precaution.

[306] Saladin adds in his letter that the Franks flew round the cross like moths round light.

[307] The continuator of Tabary speaks with much detail of this battle; the author of the _Roudatain_, in the description which he has given of this day, shows all the enthusiasm of a Mussulman. We find in these two histories, and even in Omad ’the secretary of Saladin), more words than things, more Oriental figures than historical circumstances. They may, however, be profitably consulted by comparing their accounts with those of the Latins.

[308] Many Christian historians accuse Raymond of having assisted the cause of Saladin. No Mussulman historian is of this opinion; indeed several of them speak of him as the most cruel enemy of the Saracens. The continuator of Tabary positively says that the count of Tripoli was opposed to the marching of the Franks towards Tiberias. M. Marin, in his History of Saladin, has discussed this point of history, and the proofs that he gives leave no doubt respecting the sincerity of the intentions of Raymond. Abulfeda, in the short description which he gives of the day of Hetin, praises the valour of Raymond, and says that he died of the grief created by the defeat of the Christians. In a letter written in the name of Saladin by the Cadi Alfdel to the Iman Nassir-Sedin-Illah-Aboul-Abbas-Ahmed, are these remarkable words: “Not one of the Christians was able to escape except the count of Tripoli. May God curse him; God caused him afterwards to die, and sent him from the kingdom of death to hell.” This letter of Saladin’s, which speaks also of the taking of Jerusalem, has been preserved by Ebu-Khilcan in his Biography. M. Jourdain had the intention of giving a translation of it; but the text presents so many difficulties, from the use of Oriental figures and bad copying, that he was obliged to be satisfied with making some extracts from it.

[309] For the siege of Jerusalem we may consult the continuator of Tabary, the author of the _Roudatains_, and the letter from Saladin before mentioned. All the Arabian historians are agreed as to the principal circumstances. Moujireddin, in his _History of Jerusalem_, of all the Arabian writers of this period, gives the fewest particulars of the siege and capture of the holy city. We need not repeat that the greater part of these historians are known to us by the Latin extracts of Dom. Bertreau.

[310] Most historians say that Saladin granted a delay of forty days to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In the position that matters were in, Saladin could not remain forty days before a captured city; and what proves that historians are mistaken in this respect is, that they themselves say that Saladin took Jerusalem in the beginning of October, and that he set out on the day of All Saints, which is always the first of November, from Ptolemaïs to go to the siege of the city of Tyre.

[311] Marin and most historians say that Sibylla was not at Jerusalem during the siege: they are in error. The author of the _Roudatains_ says positively that that princess came out of Jerusalem with the other captives, followed by her treasures and her attendants. She asked permission of Saladin to rejoin her husband, who was then detained a prisoner at Naplouse.

[312] This fact, which is not mentioned by our Western authors, is related with many details by Bohaëddin and Abulfeda.

[313] These prodigies remind us of those related by the historian Josephus, in his account of the conquest of Jerusalem.

[314] Marin, in his _History of Saladin_, and several others after him, have pretended that the William who came into Europe to preach the crusade, was not the author of the _History of Jerusalem_. This assertion is founded on an obscure passage of Hugh de Plagon, and is not at all confirmed by the testimony of contemporary historians. Matthew Paris, and all the other authors of the time, give the name of William to the archbishop of Tyre who came into Europe; if this William had not been the same as the historian of this name, would it not have been remarked by contemporary chronicles? All these chronicles give us some details of the birth and life of William, author of the _History of Jerusalem_; and if another William, archbishop of Tyre, came into the West, why have not the historians of the time made him known, and said something of him? His mission was sufficiently important, the see in which he was placed attracted attention enough, for the second to be mentioned as well as the first, if there was one.

[315] For the history of this period, the following authors may be consulted with advantage:—The _Acts_ of Rymer, the historian Rigord, Roger of Hoveden, Matthew Paris, William of Newbridge, the _Chronicle_ of Alberic of Trois Fontaines, Otho of St. Blaise, Brompton, the _Chronicle_ of Gervais, &c.

[316] “The noblest monument of a conqueror’s fame and of the terror which he inspired, is the Saladin tenth.”—_Gibbon._—TRANS.

[317] There is extant in Latin an account of the journey of Archbishop Baldwin through the country of Wales, entitled _Itinerarium Cambriæ_, drawn up by Barry, who accompanied the preacher of the crusade. This journey is curious, from the singular prodigies and miracles which are related in it. If this relation may be credited, Archbishop Baldwin neglected no means to induce the people to take the cross; he enrolled one day, says Barry, a great number of men who came to him in a state of nudity, their clothes being secreted by their wives and friends, who wished to prevent their going.

[318] The discourse of Peter of Blois, which is printed in his works, has for title, _Tractatus de Jerosolymitanâ Peregrinatione_. After having quoted several passages from the Bible and Testament to exhort the Crusaders to set out, he cites two verses from the tenth chapter of Juvenal, and two verses from the _Fasti_ of Ovid. He is not satisfied with presenting to the pilgrims the example of Abraham, but points out to them all the kings and captains of profane antiquity. Peter of Blois does not spare, in his discourse, the princes and nobles who compelled the clergy to pay tribute towards the expenses of the holy war.

[319] _Cantipratensis apud Surium_, die Junii, cap. 20. This is likewise related by Besoldo, _De Regibus Hyerosolimitanorum_, p. 274.

[320] The letter written by Frederick to Saladin, and the answer of Saladin to Frederick, have been preserved by Baronius and Matthew Paris.

[321] In the works of Peter of Blois is a letter which Alexander III. wrote to the sultan of Iconium, giving him counsels to direct him in his conversion. The same letter is in many other collections.

[322] The monk Pant, who was himself a Crusader, and Crusius, both attest this miracle.

[323] Most historians make Frederick perish in the river Cydnus, in which Alexander bathed; but they have confounded the Cydnus with the Selef, according to historians of the time. The Cydnus, which is now called Kara-sou, that is to say, _black water_, flows from Antitaurus into Lower Armenia, near ancient Dianæa; it enters Cilicia, passes by the city of Tarsus, and falls into the sea two leagues from that city. Selef, a little river, has its source in the mountains of Isauria, and bathes the walls of Seleucia; the inhabitants commonly call it “the water of Selefké.” According to Armenian historians, it was in this river Frederick Barbarossa met his death. S. Narses, of Lampron, sent by the Armenians to compliment the emperor of Germany, says that that prince, bathing in the river Selef, was carried away by the rapidity of the stream, and that, being weakened by age, he was not able to contend against it, and was drowned. ’This precious and authentic information is given us by M. Cahan de Cerbied, Armenian professor.) The Arabian historian Omad relates that Frederick Barbarossa was drowned in endeavouring to cross the river on horseback; the force of the stream carried him towards a tree, against which he struck his head. He was dragged out of the water, adds Omad, and his soul being ready to quit his body, the angel of death took possession of it, and carried it to hell.

[324] The chronicle entitled _Historia Hierosolymitana_ relates all that passed in the kingdom of Jerusalem from 1177 to the siege of Ptolemaïs inclusively. The _Chronicle of the Holy Land_, the two continuators of William of Tyre, Florent and the bishop of Ptolemaïs, give some particulars of the siege, but much less than the Arabian historians, to whom we shall often have recourse.

[325] Karacoush was the first minister of Saladin in Egypt. It was he who caused the well of Joseph to be dug, built the citadel, and began the inclosure of Cairo. Karacoush was short and hump-backed. His name is employed now in Egypt for a sort of Punchinello, who amuses the people in the streets, in whose mouth are placed abundance of obscenities.

[326] The Arabian historians Chéhabeddin, the author of the _Roudatins_, Omad of Ispahan, and Bohaddin, give many more particulars of the siege of Ptolemaïs than the Latin historians. These three Mussulman historians accompanied Saladin in all his expeditions.

[327] This day I was among the holy men, and I was upon the hill with them, looking at the fight, and watching for what would happen to the enemy. We had no idea that the battle would reach us; but when the enemy became mingled with us, we mounted on our mules, without any equipments, and seeing that all the army had turned their backs, fled away. We reached Tiberias, with others who had taken the same road. Every one of us had forgotten to either eat or drink. Other fugitives went as far as Damascus without stopping on their way, constantly pursued by fear.—_Chehabeddin._

[328] The author of the _Roudatains_ says that one thousand Mussulman horsemen were all that maintained and recovered the battle. Saladin, adds the same author, remained alone upon the field, and angels defended him.

[329] Our author before mentions _Gerard_ d’Avesnes as left in charge of the camp; but I am not sufficiently certain there were not two of the name to alter the text.—TRANS.

[330] This accident of a loose horse is related by the anonymous author of the _History of Jerusalem_ ’_Historia Hierosolymitana_).

[331] The Arabian historians say that a horse escaped from a vessel, and was pursued; he threw himself among the Mussulmans, who presented him to Saladin, which was considered an evil presage.—See _Chéhabeddin_, the historian of Saladin.

[332] Florentinus, bishop of Ptolemaïs, relates, that when the famine began to reign among the besiegers, to put a check upon the greediness of those who sold provisions at too high a price—

Barones constituunt uno prorsùs ore Ut dentur cibaria precio minore. Sed error novissimus pejor fit priore Dùm non audent vendere consueto more. Non enim tùm cibaria inveniuntur Per forum venalia; sed effodiuntur Pavimenta, domini recluduntur. Sic inops et locuples famem patiuntur.

[333] Fleury relates this fact in his _Ecclesiastical History_, after the English historian Roger Hoveden. The same Roger speaks of the predictions and visions of Abbot Joachim, who finished by incurring the censure of the Holy See.

[334] Could not the reader imagine these kings were _playing_ the siege of Troy, and that Richard was the sulky Achilles? There is a strong resemblance in the constitution of the forces before Troy and the independent nations, baronies, and counties of the Crusaders—thence the dissensions, delays, and disasters of both. History becomes the test of poetry, and Homer shines forth not only the great poet, but the veracious historian and clear-sighted philosopher.—TRANS.

[335] I would fain translate this word _shield_ or _buckler_; but as I cannot find the word _cuirasse_ ever used for one of these, am obliged to follow my original.—TRANS.

[336] Either the English took less part in the crusades than we generally imagine, or a French historian does not mete them due honour; the archbishop of Canterbury is the only name clearly English in this list. I shall have occasion to recur to this subject.—TRANS.

[337] Saladin had a copy of the _Koran_, compiled by Omar, always carried with his army.

[338] Florentinus, bishop of Ptolemaïs, describes with horror the impiety of the Turks:—

Milites aspiceres super muros stantes Turcos, sanctam manibus crucem elevantes Cum flagellis asperis eam verberantes, Et cum impropriis nobis minitantes.

[339] “One of our people,” says Omad, “having been made prisoner, was burnt, and the flames accompanied him to his place of everlasting repose; we took a Christian, we burnt him, and the flames that devoured him mingled with the fires of hell.”—See the MS. of Dom Berthereau.

[340] A combat of children is related by Omad of Ispahan; and the same author speaks of the Christian heroines who mingled in the fight. He adds, that the young women fought, and the old women animated them by their cries.

[341] The march and the contests of the Christians and the Mussulmans are described in fullest detail by Omad-al-Kabel, secretary to Saladin, in his book entitled the _Pheta_; and by Schahabeddin, author of the _Roudalain_. These two historians almost always make the Mussulmans triumph. “We have,” say they, “animated the tongues of lances and swords to speak to the Christians, and to hear their words. Then God rendered sweet to us all that was bitter, and by his goodness drew near to us all that was at a distance.” We shall not follow these two historians, nor even Bohaddin, through the combats of the Mussulmans and Christians, combats in which the latter are, by their account, always conquered, and yet always continue to advance into their enemy’s country.

[342] Omad says that the Mussulmans surrounded the army of their enemy as the eyelashes surround the eye. The Mussulman authors speak highly of Jacques d’Avesnes. All the historians of Saladin do not agree as to his defeat, and say that Richard got possession of Jaffa after being conquered. Aboulfeda is more honest; Tabary agrees also that the Mussulmans were put to flight; the same historian adds to his faithful account the following remarkable circumstance: “Near the Mussulman army was a thick wood, into which they retreated. The Franks believed that this retreat was a stratagem, and did not dare to pursue their enemies, whom they might have destroyed if they had followed up their victory.” For these authors, see the Latin extracts of Dom Berthereau.

[343] Arabian historians say nothing of the single combat between Richard and Saladin. English historians alone mention it.

[344] I cannot attach much consequence to the silence of the Arabian writers on this subject, neither can I think, with our author, such a _rencontre_ so _improbable_ in such a _mêlée_. The principal argument against it is, that Saladin survived the battle. Richard was at least twelve years younger than Saladin, and in the full vigour of a large, powerful frame, whilst Saladin was weakened by toil and disease.—TRANS.

[345] This gallant act of devotedness of William de Pourcelet, a Provençal gentleman, is related by both the Latin and Oriental historians.

[346] This negotiation is related by the principal Arabian historians. Bohaëddin and the author of the _Phatah_. Although Christian writers have not spoken of it, it would be difficult to cast doubt upon, or weaken the evidence of Arabian authors, who were ocular witnesses, and were themselves mixed up with the affair. It is this negotiation that gave Madame Cottin the idea of her romance of _Mathilda, or the Crusades_; a work full of eloquent pictures and heroic sentiments, drawn from the history of chivalry.

[347] M. Paultre, in his manuscript history of the states of Syria, believes that this city, so named by the historians of the crusade, is the city of Eleutheropolis, situated nine or ten leagues east of Ascalon, on the road to Jerusalem, in a valley crossed by the torrent of Ascalon, seven leagues west of Jerusalem, and six of Ramla.

[348] The assassination of Conrad is thus related in the continuator of Tabary.—See the MS. of D. Berthereau.

[349] Our author’s argument is very weak here. Gibbon says: “I cannot believe that a soldier so free and fearless in the use of his lance as Richard, would have descended to whet a dagger against his valiant brother Conrad de Montferrat.”—_Decline and Fall_, vol. viii. p. 426.—TRANS.

[350] It is difficult to follow the accounts of several historians at this period, who affirm that Richard was not willing to take Jerusalem. M. Paultre, a distinguished officer who made the campaign of 1799, has furnished us with all the means of understanding the old chronicles, and to appreciate their testimony. Historians, from ignorance of the country, are often deceived with respect to military events. The situation of places and a knowledge of the country are often the best commentaries we can have upon the old historians of the crusades. M. Paultre has himself related part of the events which we repeat; and his account, which he has kindly confided to us, has given us useful information, which will throw light upon this part of our history.

[351] Gibbon’s conclusion is very different. He says, “The laurels of Richard were blasted by the prudence or envy of his companions.”—TRANS.

[352] The historian Bohaëddin relates that Richard, in an interview with Aboubeker, the ambassador of Saladin, said “That he only sought for a pretext to return to Europe; that he took little interest in the affairs of Palestine; that the Christians could not stand against the Mussulman power when deprived of his support; that a very small force would be sufficient to take the few places they still possessed; that the sultan need not be difficult, as the peace would only be simulated, and would serve to remove the only obstacle to the conquests of that prince.”—See _Life of Saladin_, by Marin.

[353] The Latin historians say that the truce was for three years, three months, three weeks, and three days. We prefer the version of the Oriental writers, who say that the truce was for three years and eight months. Omad, whose account we adopt, declares he wrote the treaty with his own hand.

[354] Gibbon says, “A personal interview with Richard was declined by Saladin, who alleged their mutual ignorance of each other’s language.”—Vol. viii. p. 429.—TRANS.

[355] L’amour de sa mie.—TRANS.

[356] The adventures of the Châtelain de Coucy and the lady de Fayel are related in an old chronicle quoted by the President Faucher. There exists in the Imperial Library a manuscript copy of this chronicle, which appears to have been written towards the beginning of the thirteenth century, a short time after the third crusade. M. Roquefort, whose authority is of great weight in all which concerns the middle ages, does not appear to adopt the account of the chronicle quoted in his article “Coucy” of _La Biographie Universelle_, and is of the opinion of Father Papon, who attributes the adventure of the Châtelain to the troubadour Cabestan. We may object to M. Roquefort, that the adventure of Cabestan is not the same as that of Coucy, and that one may be true without rendering the other doubtful. We find in the works of Belloc a dissertation which has not been refuted, which proves the truth, if not of some details, of the principal facts related in the chronicle we have quoted.

[357] Saladin had but little indulgence in religious matters. The Abbé Renaudot, in his manuscript history, relates that he caused a philosopher to be strangled who ventured to preach new doctrines in the city of Aleppo.

[358] To know the character and virtues of Saladin, it is sufficient to quote the discourse he addressed to his son El-daher, to whom he had confided the government of a province: “My son,” said he, “you are about to reign over states that I have bestowed upon you. My infirmities give me reason to fear that I may never see you again; I recommend you, then, my son, as my last command, to love and honour God, who is the source of all good, and to observe the precepts of his law; for your welfare depends upon it. Spare human blood, for fear it should fall again upon your own head; for blood once shed never sleeps. Endeavour to gain the hearts of your subjects; administer justice, and be as careful of their interests as of your own. You will have to render an account to God of this trust which I confide to you in his name. Show respect and condescension for the emirs, the imauns, the caliphs, and all persons placed in authority. It is only by mildness and clemency that I have attained the elevated position in which you behold me. We are all mortal, O my son! entertain then no malice, no hatred against any one. Be careful, above all things, to offend nobody; men only forget injuries when they have revenged them, whilst God grants us pardon for our errors for a simple repentance; for he is beneficent and merciful.” This speech of Saladin to his son has been transmitted to us by Bohaëddin, who heard it delivered.—See the _Life of Saladin_, by Marin, book xiii.

[359] Although, happily, the time is gone by in which an English writer would break a lance in defence of the entire character of Richard, much as I admire the general reflections and spirit of my author, I cannot but think he has scarcely done him justice. His faults are always thrown into high relief, whilst his good qualities,—for he had some,—are either shaded or entirely concealed. In the disputes which his position naturally drew him into, his antagonists are always made to be in the right, Richard in the wrong. Not a single act is recorded before Ptolemaïs, and yet Richard had five thousand prisoners; most authors say _three thousand_, but the larger number is assumed, for the sake of the massacre. The more eminent the exploits of Richard, in an army constituted like that of the Crusaders, the greater were sure to be the envy and hatred of his fellow-leaders. Richard is no worse than other heroes of the sword, from Achilles downward. I greatly fear it is his successful rivalry with the more astute French monarch that is the cause of this bias. Against the comparison with Saladin I say nothing—Saladin was a greater man than Richard.—TRANS.

[360] This crusade terminated in 1192; the battle of Bovines was fought in 1214.—TRANS.

[361] Our author has given an extract from the interesting manuscript which has furnished him with this account; but it is so long, the French is so old, and the story so well known, I have thought best to omit it—a translation would spoil it. It is remarkable that the manuscript chronicle makes Richard see Blondel, and sing _first_—our author reverses this:—Ensi com il estoit en cette pensée, li rois regarde et vie Blondel, et pensa comment li se feroit à lui connoistre, et li souvint d’une canchon que ils avoient fait entre aus deux que nus ne savoit fois que il roi. Si commencha haut et clerement à canter le premier vier, car il cantoit très bien. There appear to me discrepancies in the language of this manuscript chronicle, which make the date of it, the thirteenth century, very apocryphal.—TRANS.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE:

—Obvious print and punctuation errors were corrected.