book iii.

[103] The historian of Byzantium says, with regard to this fire, that so lamentable a spectacle was capable of producing floods of tears sufficiently abundant to have extinguished the conflagration.

[104] The marshal of Champagne describes to us the order of battle of the Latins, as it was drawn up according to the tactics of the middle ages. The Crusaders issued from their camp divided into six bodies; they ranged themselves before their palisades. The knights were on horseback, their sergeants and esquires were behind them close to the quarters of their horses; the crossbow-men and archers were in front.

[105] Certes, voila une capitulation bien étrange, répondit l’empereur, et ne voy pas comme elle se puisse accomplir, tant elle est grande et excessive. Nompourtant vous avez tout fait pour lui et pour moy, que si l’on vous donnerait tout cet empire entièrement, si l’avez vous bien desuivi.—_Villehardouin_, book iv.

[106] The Crusaders addressed Otho, and not Philip of Swabia, which is very strange, as Philip was the brother-in-law of Alexius; but it is to be observed that at this period the pope had declared in favour of Otho, and threatened Philip with the thunders of the Church.

[107] This speech is given in its entirety by Villehardouin.

[108] The Greeks and Latins were divided on three principal points; first, the addition made by the Latin Church to the creed of Constantinople, to declare that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father; 2nd the refusal on the part of the Greeks to acknowledge the primacy of the pope; 3rdly the pretension of the Greeks that it is not possible to consecrate in the Eucharist with unleavened bread. Photius began the schism; the patriarch Cerularius established it; this latter wished to be acknowledged as the head of the universal Church instead of the pope. L’Abbé Fleury, in his _Histoire Ecclesiastique_, thinks that the schism of the Greeks only really began at the period the Latins were masters of Constantinople.

[109] The Bulgarians had shaken off the yoke under the first reign of Isaac. They had for leaders two brothers, Peter and Asan, who had for successor a third brother, Joannices.

[110] Nicetas devotes an entire chapter to the description of this fire. Villehardouin, in the fourth volume of his _History_, speaks thus of it: De quoi les pélerins Français farent mult dolent, et mult en eurent grand pitié.

[111] Nicetas gives a sufficiently long description of this statue of Pallas.—See the _History of Isaac Angelus_, chap. iii. This statue was thirty feet high; its eyes, says the Greek historian, were turned towards the south, so that those who were ignorant of the science of angles considered she was looking towards the West, and that she invited the nations from the north of Europe to come to the shores of the Bosphorus.

[112] Nicetas.

[113] The continuator of William gives the Greek prince the name of Marofle.

[114] Lebeau, _Histoire du Bas-Empire_, says that Mourzoufle had been employed to put out the eyes of Isaac.—See _Hist. du Bas-Emp._ liv. xciv.

[115] Jacques de Vitri, Alberic, and the continuator of William of Tyre speak of this battle fought between Antioch and Tripoli; Villehardouin likewise makes mention of it, and names many knights that were killed or made prisoners.

[116] Vigenère, when translating Villehardouin, renders thus the passage in which the marshal of Champagne expresses the dissatisfaction of the Crusaders, and the ill-conduct of Alexius towards them:—Alexis les menait de délai en délai, de respit en respit, le bec dans l’eau, quant au principal, et pour le regard de certaines menues parties, qu’il leur fournissait comme à lesche doigt, formait tant de petites difficultés et chicaneries, que les barons commencèrent à s’ennuyer.

[117] Villehardouin, after having described the court of Alexius, in this ceremony naïvely adds: Tout cela se sentait bien sa cour d’un si puissant et riche prince. The title of _puissant_ scarcely suited a prince who was hearing war declared against him in his own palace; and the epithet _rich_ was hardly more applicable to him, since he could not pay what he had promised, and thereby redeem his empire from the greatest danger.

[118] Là-desseus bruit se leva fort grand au palais; et les messagers s’en retournuèrent aux portes, où ils montèrent habilement à cheval; n’y ayant celui, quand ils furent hors, qui ne se sentit très heureux et content en son esprit, voire estonné, d’être reschappé à si bon marché d’un si manifeste danger; car il ne tint presque à rien qu’ils n’y demeurassent tous morts ou pris.—_Villehardouin_, liv. vi.

[119] Mourzoufle deprived Nicetas of the place of Logothete, to give it to his brother-in-law Philocales. Nicetas treats Mourzoufle with much severity, and among the reproaches he addresses to him, we may remark one which suffices to paint the court of Byzantium. The greatest crime of the usurper was not that of having obtained sovereignty by parricide, but postponing the distribution of his favours.

[120] The two attempts to burn the Venetian fleet are described in a letter of Baldwin to the pope.—See _Gesta Innocent_. The marshal of Champagne only mentions the first attempt of the Greeks.

[121] Dandolo demanded of Mourzoufle fifty centenaries of gold, which have been valued at 50,000 pounds’ weight of gold, or 48,000,000 of francs (about £2,000,000 sterling.—TRANS.). Nicetas alone speaks of this interview, of which Villehardouin and other historians make no mention.

[122] The whole of this interview militates very strongly, as indeed do all the scenes in which the doge is an actor, against the story of his blindness.—TRANS.

[123] The monuments we have consulted for the second siege of Constantinople are the _History_ of Villehardouin, the reign of Mourzoufle in Nicetas, the account of Gunther, and the second letter of Baldwin to the sovereign pontiff, which is found in the Life of Innocent (_Gesta Innocent._).

[124] Eidem civitati de quâ fugere non audebant, obsidionem ponebant.—_Gunther._ The same Gunther describes the Crusaders as trembling and distracted: De victoriâ tantæ multitudinis obtinen lâ, sive expugnatione urbis nulla eis spes poterat arridere.

[125] This treaty, made under the walls of Constantinople, is still preserved, and is to be found in _Muratori_, vol. xii.

[126] Et là, il eut maintes choses alléguées se trouvant en grand emoy ceux de l’ost, pour leur être ainsi pris ce jour là.—_Villehardouin_, liv. v.

[127] Et sachez qu’il y en avait qui eussent volontiers desiré, que la vague et le vent les eussent ravis jusqu’au delà de l’archipel; car à tels ne chaillait sinon que de parter de là, et aller leur voie droite en leurs maisons.—_Idem._

[128] According to Gunther, the taking of Constantinople was more wonderful than all that has been related by Homer and the poets of antiquity.

[129] Gunther says it was a German count that set fire to the city,—_comes Teutonicus_; he did it to prevent the Greeks from rallying:—Comes Teutonicus jussit urbem in quâdam parte succendi, ut Græci duplici laborantes incommodo, belli scilicet atque incendii, faciliùs vincerentur; quod et factum est, et hoc illi consilio victi penitùs in fugam conversi sunt.

[130] The crowd of Greeks fled principally by the Golden Gate. M. le Chevalier, in his _Voyage de la Propontide_, informs us that vestiges of the Golden Gate are still to be seen within the inclosure of the seven towers. This gate was a triumphal arch erected by Theodosius, after his victory over Maximus; it was surmounted by a statue of Victory in bronze, and ornamented profusely with gold. On the remains of this gate may still be read these Latin verses:—

Theodosi jussis, gemino nec mense peracto, Constantinus ovans hæc mœnia firma locavit; Tam citò tam stabilem Pallas vix conderet arcem.

Raoul de Dicetto, quoted by Ducange, says that these words were upon the Golden Gate:—Quando veniet rex flavus occidentalis, ego per meipsam aperiar. Raoul de Dicetto wrote thirteen years before the taking of Constantinople.

[131] Agnes, daughter of Louis VII., had been at the age of eight years, given in marriage to Alexius Comnenus, the son of Manuel, in 1179. After the death of Alexius, his murderer Andronicus usurped the empire and married Agnes, but had no children by her. Agnes remained a widow at Constantinople to the time of its being taken, when she married Branas, who was attached to the party of the Latins.

[132] Nicetas speaks of the carnage which followed the taking of Constantinople. We have quoted the words even of Villehardouin, who does not materially contradict Nicetas. The pope in his letters warmly reproached the Crusaders on this subject. Gunther only carries the number of slain, on the entrance of the Crusaders into Jerusalem, to two thousand persons, and attributes this slaughter to the Latins established at Constantinople, who had great cause of complaint against the Greeks. The same historian informs us that the ecclesiastics that followed the army contributed, by their discourses, to put an end to the massacre. He does not omit this occasion to praise the piety and humanity of Martin Litz, who went through the ranks of the victorious army, preaching moderation to the conquerors.

[133] There was nothing so difficult, says Nicetas, as to soften the fierce temper, appease the anger, or gain the affections of these barbarians. Their bile was so heated, that it only required a word to set it in a blaze; it was a ridiculous undertaking to attempt to render them tractable, a folly to speak reason to them.

[134] This is a very remarkable passage; it describes the hero of the crusades with the pencil of the painter as well as with the pen of the historian.—TRANS.

[135] The lamentations of Nicetas are not always natural; whilst deploring the fate of Byzantium he says, “I complained to the walls, that they alone should be insensible to calamities, and should remain standing, instead of melting away in tears.”

[136] The eleventh and twelfth volumes of the _Memoirs of the Royal Society of Gottingen_ contain a beautiful work of the illustrious Heyne, upon the monuments of art that have existed at Constantinople. In the first memoir he gives the nomenclature of the ancient monuments,—_Priscæ Artis Opera_. In the second those that were erected under the emperors of Byzantium. In two other memoirs, the same learned author describes the loss of these same monuments: _De Interitu Operum cum antiquæ tam verioris ætatis_.

[137] The Bellerophon. This statue is that of Theodosius, showing a trophy placed upon a neighbouring column; it was thus the Pacificator was represented: _fuit a Deo pacificatoris habitus_. Nicetas says that in his left hand he held a globe. The statues of the other emperors of Constantinople present a similar sign, to which a cross is attached. The people believed that under the hoof of the left fore foot, was the figure of a Venetian or a Bulgarian, or of a man of some other country which had no intercourse with the Romans. The statue being destroyed by the Latins, it was said that the figure of a Bulgarian was found concealed in the hoof, crossed by a nail and incrusted in lead. This statue came from Antioch in Syria. At the quadrilateral base was a basso-relievo, in which the populace, ever superstitious, fancied they beheld the prediction of the fall of the empire. They even said that the Russians there represented would accomplish the prediction.

[138] One of the French translators of Gibbon, of a single statue has made two; he speaks of a statue of Joshua and of another of Bellerophon. It is true that this gross error is only met with in one French translation; the English original says that in the opinion of the vulgar, this statue passed for that of Joshua, but that a more classical tradition recognised in it that of Bellerophon and Pegasus; the free and spirited attitude of the courser indicating that he trod on air rather than on the earth.

[139] Heyne attributes it to Lysippus; he thinks it is the same as the colossal Hercules of Tarentum, which was brought to Rome and placed in the Capitol. From this city it went to Constantinople, with ten other statues, under the consulate of Julian and the reign of Constantine, that is to say, about 322; but it was not till after being exhibited in the Basilic that it was placed in the Hippodrome.

[140] Gibbon calls this _an osier basket_; Michaud says, _un lit d’osier_, which I have preferred. I can imagine Hercules sitting upon a bed or mattress of osier, but not upon a basket.—TRANS.

[141] The learned Harris, in his historical Essay upon the literature and arts of the middle ages, thinks that the monument which represented the wolf suckling Romulus, was the same as that to which Virgil makes allusion when describing the buckler of Æneas:—

Illam tereti cervice reflexam Mulcere alternos, et corpora fingere linguâ.

_Æneid_, b. viii.

[142] Cum ergo victores victam, quam jure belli suam fecerant, alacriter spoliarent, cœpit Martinus abbas de suâ etiam prædâ cogitare, et ne ipse vacuus remaneret, proposuit et ipse sacratas manus suas ad rapinam extendere.—_Gunther._

The same Gunther relates how Martin committed violence upon a Greek priest to obtain relics from him. When speaking of Martin Litz Gunther employs these singular expressions—_prædo sanctus_.

[143] We have spoken in the early part of the work of the true cross which the kings of Jerusalem caused to be borne before them in battle, and which was taken by Saladin at the battle of Tiberias; Saladin refused to deliver it up to Richard, as many of the Crusaders must have known. How then could the true cross be found at Constantinople? The Greeks, however, were not very nice with respect to the authenticity of their relics, and the Christians of the West on this point yielded very easy faith to them. [I cannot but think our author a little out in his criticism here: they were but fragments or portions of the cross, at Constantinople the Saracens still held the main body of the true cross—_if true it was_.—TRANS.]

[144] Villehardouin, when speaking of the rigorous justice exercised upon all who endeavoured to conceal any part of the plunder, says: Et en y eut tout plein de pendus.

[145] One edition of Villehardouin makes the plunder of Constantinople amount to five hundred thousand silver marks, equivalent to twenty-four millions; if we add to this sum the fifty thousand marks due to the Venetians, and deducted before the division, and the part which they had in the division itself, we shall find the total amount of booty fifty millions four hundred thousand francs (about £2,100,000.—TRANS.). As much, says the modern historian who supplies us with this note, perhaps, was appropriated secretly by individuals. The three fires which had consumed more than half the city had destroyed at least as much of its riches, and in the profusion that followed the pillage, the most precious effects had lost so much of their value, that the advantage of the Latins probably was not equivalent to a quarter of what they had cost the Greeks. Thus we may suppose that Constantinople, before the attack, contained 600,000,000 of wealth (£25,000,000). (What would the plunder of London amount to in 1852?—TRANS.)

[146] The ceremony of the lighted flax still takes place at the exaltation of the popes; these words are addressed to them: _Sic transit gloria mundi_.

[147] Nicetas relates all the circumstances of the sharing of the lands of the empire. We find in _Muratori_ the treaty for the division which was made before the siege; we do not offer it to our readers, because it is unintelligible in several places, and cannot shed any light over geography. The names of the cities and provinces of the empire are given in a very unfaithful and imperfect manner. The Venetians without doubt furnished the necessary information for the drawing up of the treaty, but this information was very incomplete.

[148] The pope would not at first recognise this election, which appeared to him a usurpation of the rights of the Holy See; but as Morosini was an ecclesiastic of great merit, Innocent was not willing to choose another. Morosini was sent to Constantinople not as if elected by the Crusaders, but as if appointed by the pope.

[149] Innocent, when speaking of the sack of Constantinople, expresses himself thus in his letter:—Quidam nec religioni, nec ætati, nec sexui pepercerunt; sed fornicationes, adulteria, et incestus in oculis omnium exercentes, non solum meretriculas et viduas, sed et matronas et virgines Deoque dicatas exposuerunt spurcitiis garcionum. The pope is more severe towards the Crusaders than Nicetas himself; the indignation that the disobedience of the Crusaders had created, led him to exaggerate their faults. The word _incestus_, applied to warriors who had no family relations with the Greeks, alone serves to prove that there is more bitterness than truth in the letter of Innocent.

[150] Some modern writers have asserted that the column from which Mourzoufle was precipitated is still to be seen at Constantinople: but there existed two columns in that city; one of Theodosius and the other of Arcadius. The first was destroyed by Bajazet, and nothing remains of the other but the pedestal, which is in the Avret Baras (the women-market). See the _Voyage to the Propontis_, by M. le Chevalier, who has cleared up this fact on the spot.

[151] Claudian has made in his panegyrics of Stilicho, a picture of the invasion of the Goths in the provinces of Greece. These beautiful countries had not been invaded since the third century. The Franks scarcely knew how to guard their conquests better than the barbarians that had preceded them.

[152] There is in the king’s library a manuscript in modern Greek, bearing the number 2,898; the first part of this manuscript is a romance in verse, entitled “Les Amours de Thésée et des Amazones.” The second part of the manuscript is a poem on the crusades; all the tenth canto describes in detail the conquests of the Franks in Greece. M. Khazis, professor of modern Greek, had made a short analysis of this poem.

[153] The letters of Innocent speak of the city of Athens, which was no longer dedicated to Minerva, but to the holy virgin.—See b. xx. epis. vi. _Idem._

[154] It is here that for the last time we quote the _History_ of Villehardouin; we shall perhaps be reproached with having quoted it too often, and by that means given too much monotony to our account. We will answer, that the natural relation and expressions of such an historian, who relates what he has seen and that which he has experienced, have appeared to us above all that talent or the art of writing could substitute in their place. We are pleased at believing, that if our recital has been able to interest our readers, we owe a great part of this interest to the multiplied quotations from Villehardouin and other contemporary historians.

[155] Among the romantic accounts that were circulated concerning Baldwin, we must not omit the following:—The emperor was kept close prisoner at Terenova, where the wife of Joannice became desperately in love with him, and proposed to him to escape with her. Baldwin rejected this proposal, and the wife of Joannice, irritated by his disdain and refusal, accused him to her husband of having entertained an adulterous passion. The barbarous Joannice caused his unfortunate captive to be massacred at a banquet, and his body was cast on to the rocks, a prey to vultures and wild beasts.

But people could not be convinced that he was dead. A hermit had retired to the forest of Glançon, on the Hainault side, and the people of the neighbourhood became persuaded that this hermit was Count Baldwin. The solitary at first answered with frankness, and refused the homage they wished to render him. They persisted, and at length he was induced to play a part, and gave himself out for Baldwin. At first he had a great many partisans; but the king of France, Louis VIII., having invited him to his court, he was confounded by the questions that were put to him: he took to flight, and was arrested in Burgundy by Erard de Chastenai, a Burgundian gentleman, whose family still exists. Jane countess of Flanders caused the impostor to be hung in the great square of Lisle.—See _Ducange_, _Hist. de Constant._ book iii.

[156] Dandolo was magnificently buried in the church of St. Sophia, and his mausoleum existed till the destruction of the Greek empire. Mahomet II. caused it to be demolished, when he changed the church of St. Sophia into a mosque. A Venetian painter, who worked during several years in the court of Mahomet, on returning to his own country obtained from the sultan the cuirass, the helmet, the spurs, and the toga of Dandolo, which he presented to the family of this great man.

[157] Nicetas did not know whether he ought to give a place in his _History_ to the Latins, who were for him nothing but barbarians, but he makes up his mind to continue—“when God, who confounds the wisdom of human policy, and lowers the pride of the lofty, has struck with confusion those who had outraged the Greeks, and delivered them up to people still more wicked than themselves.”—See the history of that which happened after the taking of Constantinople, chap. i.

[158] How is it that our author, who is evidently partial to Villehardouin, has neglected to speak of his skilful retreat from Adrianople, upon which Gibbon bestows such high praise “His masterly retreat of three days would have deserved the praise of Xenophon and the ten thousand.” Gibbon has fine passages on Villehardouin.—TRANS.

[159] Innocent, to get rid of the neighbourhood of the emperor, demanded of Philip Augustus a knight who might marry a daughter of Tancred, and possibly reconquer Sicily. The adventures and the wars of Gauthier de Brienne are related by Conrad, abbot of Usberg, Robert the Monk, Alberic, and, as we have already said, by the author of the _Acts of Innocent_.

[160] We cannot refrain from offering our readers a curious passage from an excellent manuscript memoir which M. Jourdain has communicated to us, entitled _Recherches sur les Anciennes Versions Latines d’Aristote employées par les Ecclésiastiques du 13me Siècle_. “Two circumstances contributed in the thirteenth century to materially spread the knowledge of the Greek language in the West. Baldwin, who was placed upon the imperial throne, wrote to Pope Innocent III. to beg of him to send to him men distinguished by their piety and knowledge, chosen from the religious orders and the University of Paris, to instruct his new people in the Catholic religion and Latin letters. The pope wrote to several monastic orders and to the University of Paris. About the same time Philip Augustus founded at Paris, near the mountain St. Geneviève, a Constantinopolitan college, destined to receive the young Greeks of the most distinguished families of Constantinople. The intention of this prince was to extinguish in the hearts of these young men the hatred they had imbibed against the Latins, by offering to them all sorts of kind treatment, and perhaps also to secure hostages against the fickleness and bad faith of the Greeks.” We can conceive that this circumstance contributed powerfully in diffusing the knowledge of Greek, not only in France but in all the West, for Paris was then the most celebrated school, and almost all the men to whom Latin translations from the Greek are attributed, had studied in that city: we must also assign to the same cause the Latin versions of Aristotle made from the Greek and published before St. Thomas. Nevertheless, if the Arabs had not previously spread throughout the West a taste for the Peripatetic philosophy, it is very doubtful whether the relations established between the East and the West by the inauguration of Baldwin, would have produced any desire to obtain it from purer sources.

[161] Since their restoration to Venice, the history of these three celebrated horses has given birth to three dissertations. In one (_Narrazione Storica dei Quatro Cavalli di Bronzo_, &c.), Count Cicognara, president of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts at Venice, pretends that this monument was cast at Rome in the reign of Nero, in commemoration of the victory over Tiridates. M. Schlegel (_Lettera ai Signori Compilatori della Biblioteca Italiana_) rejects this opinion of the count, and thinks that the four bronze horses are from the hands of a Greek statuary of the time of Alexander.—_Dei Quatro Cavalli della Basilica di S. Marco._ Andre Mustoxidi, a very learned young Greek, makes this superb group come from Chios, which was rich in skilful sculptors, and believes they were transmitted to Rome in the time of Verres, and to Constantinople under Theodosius the Great.

[162] We find in the first volume of an Italian work entitled _Storia d’Incisa e del già celebre suo Marchesato_, published at Asti, in 1810, a precious monument; this is a charter which proves the sending of the seeds of maize to a city of Montferrat. This is a very interesting document.

[163] It is well worthy of remark that it is very little more than a quarter of a century since this sentence was written; and, in that short period, what has not science effected!—the East, of which we were then said to be so ignorant, is better known to Europeans than it was at any time during the crusades.—TRANS.

[164] The account of this famine, and the disasters by which it was followed, is to be found in its details, in _Les Relations de l’Egypte_, translated from Abdallatif by M. Letvestre de Lacy. This Arabian author was a skilful physician and an enlightened man; and his recital, which contains many extraordinary facts, bears all the characters of truth.

[165] The circumstances of this earthquake are related by Abdallatif, the Latin historians scarcely name this great calamity.

[166] M. Langlès has furnished us with this valuable incident, which he has taken from the Persian biographer Daulet Chah. The biographer adds, that a merchant of Aleppo redeemed Saadi, by paying the Christians the sum of ten golden crowns, and he likewise gave the poet another hundred as the dowry of his daughter, whom he gave him in marriage.

[167] History has great trouble in following the events of this period through the cloud of anarchy which reigned everywhere; and that which increases the difficulty is, that the authors of our old chronicles were only acquainted with the kingdom of Jerusalem, and knew nothing of what was going on in the interior of the states. The Arab historians, on the contrary, take much more note of the expeditions of the interior than of the events that happened at Ptolemaïs, situated on the sea-coast, and in some sort isolated from the rest of Syria.

[168] We find few details upon this epoch in the continuator of William of Tyre, or the other historians of the middle ages who mention the Christian colonies.

[169] This penitence and that which follows are mentioned by Fleury, in the sixteenth volume of his History; the guilty were condemned, in addition to the pilgrimage, to wear neither vair, grey squirrel fur, ermine, nor coloured stuffs; they were never to be present at public games; after becoming widowers, were never to marry again; to walk barefooted and be clothed in woollen, and to fast on bread and water on Wednesdays, Fridays, Ember-week, and Vigils; to perform three Lent fasts in the course of the year, to recite the Pater Noster a hundred times, and make a hundred genuflexions every day. When they came to a city, they were to go to the principal church barefooted, in drawers, with halters round their necks and rods in their hands, and there receive from the canons discipline, &c. &c.

[170] Son of Erard II., count of Brienne in Champagne, and Agnes Monthéliard.

[171] The continuator of William of Tyre relates that the barons of Palestine themselves demanded John of Brienne of the king of France.

[172] As Gibbon has done, I have preferred the real name of this sect to the Latinized _Albigenses_.—TRANS.

[173] Bossuet, _Histoire des Variat._ vol. ii. L’Abbé Paquet, in his _Dictionnaire des Hérésies_, and Fleury, in his _Histoire Ecclésiastique_, express the same opinion.

[174] Notwithstanding the partiality I naturally feel for an author whose work I am translating, and to which task I was led by my admiration of it, I cannot allow such opinions of the war against the Albigeois to pass unnoticed. A very sensible French historian says:—“The inhabitants of these provinces were industrious, intellectual, and addicted to commerce, the arts, and poetry; their numerous cities flourished, governed by consuls with forms approaching to republican; all at once this beautiful region was abandoned to the furies of fanaticism, its cities were ruined, its arts and its commerce destroyed, and its language cast back into barbarism. The preaching of the first religious reform gave birth to the devastation of these rich countries. The clergy were not distinguished there, as in France or the northern provinces, by their ardour to improve themselves and diffuse knowledge; they signalized themselves by gross disorders, and sank daily into greater contempt. The need of reform had been long felt among the people of Provence and many reformers had already appeared. For a length of time associations had existed whose aim it was to purify the morals and the doctrines of the Church; such were the Paterins, the Catharins, and the Poor of Lyons; and the greater part of these had obtained the sanction of the popes, who considered them as so many orders of monks, highly calculated to awaken public devotion. But the reforms that were operated extended gradually; dogmas even were attacked, priests were subjected to the insults of the people, and the domains of the Church were invaded. Such was the state of things when the famous Innocent III., at the age of thirty-nine, ascended the pontifical throne in 1198. To his great task he brought the talents of an ambitious, and the energy of a violent and an inflexible character. This pontiff, who dominated over Europe by indulgences and excommunications, watched for and punished with severity every free exercise of thought in religious matters; he was the first to feel how serious and threatening for the Church of Rome that liberty of mind must be that had already degenerated into revolt. He saw with great inquietude and anger the new tendency of men’s minds in Provence and Languedoc, and proscribed the reformers, the most numerous of whom, and who gave their name to all the others, were known under the names of Albigeois and Vaudois. Some among them were Manicheans, that is to say, admitted the two principles; _but the greatest number of them professed doctrines differing but very little from those which, three centuries later, were preached by Luther_. They denied transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Eucharist, rejected confession, and the sacraments of confirmation and marriage, and taxed the worship of images with idolatry.” In this war papacy put forth all its most dreaded powers; indulgences to its brutal, mercenary soldiers; heaven for wholesale slaughterers of their fellow-creatures; hell for all who dared to think when they worshipped, or to breathe a word against the veriest nonsense of Romish rites: many instances occurred in which the odious doctrine of _no faith to be observed with heretics_, was unblushingly advanced and cruelly acted upon. I will close my notice of this war against men who ventured to entertain a shade of difference in opinion from their fellow-Christians and the head of the Church, by a quotation that vividly stamps its character. “The Crusaders precipitated themselves in a mass upon the lands of the young viscount de Béziers, took his castles and burnt all the men, violated the women and massacred the children they found in them; then, turning towards Béziers, they carried it by assault. A prodigious number of the inhabitants of the circumjacent country had taken refuge in this city; the abbot of Citeaux, legate of the pope, upon being consulted by the knights as to the fate of these unhappy beings, a part of whom only were heretics, replied by these execrable and ever-memorable words: ‘_Kill away! kill away! God will take care of his own!_’” The crusade against the Albigeois is one of the blackest pages in the history of mankind, and ought to be described as such by every historian whose disagreeable duty it is to name it.—TRANS.

[175] The abbot of Vaux-de-Cernai, who signalized himself in the crusade against the Albigeois, has left us a history of this period, in which he relates with an air of triumph, facts which passed before his eyes, at which religion as well as humanity ought to blush. When we have read his account, we are persuaded of two things: the first, that he was sincere in the excess of his fanatical zeal; the second, that his age thought as he did, and did not disapprove of the violences and persecutions of which he so candidly exposes the history. Le Père Langlois, a Jesuit, has written, in French, a history of the crusades against the Albigeois. The _Histoire Ecclésiastique_ of Fleury, and _L’Histoire de la Province de Languedoc_ may be consulted with advantage.

[176] This crusade of the children is related by so great a number of contemporary authors, that we cannot entertain any doubt of it. We will refer to our Appendix the different versions of the ancient chronicles of this singular event.

[177] Vetus est hoc artificium Jesus Christi, quod ad suorum salutem fidelium diebus istis dignatus est innovare.—_Epist. Innocent._

[178] The year 1263 answered to the year 602 of the Hegyra.

[179] Montesquieu foretells the fate of Mahometanism; not as Innocent did, but philosophically. He likewise predicts “that France will fall by the sword;” but whether the sword will be drawn by foreigners or her own sons, he does not say.—TRANS.

[180] Gibbon says: “Some deep reasoners have suspected that the whole enterprise, from the first synod at Placentia, was contrived and executed by the policy of Rome. The suspicion is not founded either in matter or fact. The successors of St. Peter appear to have _followed_, rather than _guided_ the impulse of manners and prejudice.” With great respect for our illustrious historian, I cannot quite agree with him; the popes were in many instances the first to kindle the flame, and were always anxious to keep it burning. In the part of our history now before us, it is plain it would have gone out but for the great exertions of Innocent. The crusades were a powerful engine in the hands of the popes; they could not afford to let them go to decay.—TRANS.

[181] The cardinal de Courçon was an Englishman by family. He had studied at the University of Paris, and from that was connected with Lothaire, who became pope under the name of Innocent III. It is to this friendship that Peter Robert de Courçon owed his elevation. There is a very long notice of this person by the late M. du Theil, in _Les Notices des Manuscrits_, tom. vi.

[182] The continuator of William of Tyre expresses himself thus:—Il ot en France un clerc qui prescha de la croix, qui avait nom mâitre Jacques de Vitri; cil en croisa mult, là où il étoit en la predication, l’eslurent les chanoines d’Acre, et mandèrent à l’apostolle (le pape) qu’il lor envoyast pour estre évesque d’Acre; et sachiez s’il n’en eust le commandement l’apostolle, il ne l’eust mie reçu, mais toutes voies passa-t-il outremer, et fust évesque grand pièce, et fist mult de biens en la terre; mais puis resigna-t-il, et retourna en France, et puis fut il cardinal de Rome. [As M. Michaud has placed this note all in the text, and has only given it to show the curious mode of expression, I have followed his example.—TRANS.]

[183] Philip granted this fortieth, without reference to the future—_absque consuetudine_, and upon condition that this voluntary gift should be employed wherever the king of England and the barons of the two kingdoms should think best.—See _Le Rec. des Ord._ tom. i. p. 31.

[184] In the royal regulations of Philip Augustus, there is an order relative to the debts contracted by the Crusaders as members of a commune. We think our readers will not be displeased by the particulars of this order. “As to the Crusaders, members of certain communes, we order,” says the king, “that if the commune itself be charged with any levy, whether for foot or horse soldiers (l’ost et la chevauchée), the inclosure of the city, the defence of the city in the event of a siege, or for any debt that is due, and contracted before they took the cross, they shall be held subject to the payment of their proportion, equally with the other inhabitants who have not taken the cross; but as to the debts contracted after the period at which they shall have taken the cross, the Crusaders shall remain exempt, not only until their approaching departure, but until their return.”—See the _Recueil des Ordonnances_, _Dachery_, and the sixth vol. of the _Notices des Manuscrits, dissertation de M. du Theil sur Robert de Courçon_.

[185] In the charter granted by King John, that monarch expressly says that he grants this charter by the advice of the archbishop of Canterbury, of seven bishops, and the pope’s nuncio.

[186] This victory of Bouvines, which had such happy results for the French monarchy, will be worthily celebrated in the poem of _Philip Auguste_, by M. Perceval de Grand-maison: we cannot sufficiently praise our poets who take their subjects from the greatest periods of our annals.

[187] Upon the holding of this council, the Chronicle of Opsberg, the monk Godfrey, Matthew Paris, Albert Stadensis, the Chronicle of Fassano, and particularly the collection of the councils, may be consulted. Fleury enters into very copious details.—See the sixteenth vol. of the _Histoire Ecclésiastique_.

[188] The discourse of the pope is preserved in its entirety in the collection of the councils.—See the fourth Council of the Lateran.

[189] M. Raynourd, who has made profound researches into the language and poetry of the troubadours, communicated to us this piece of Pierre of Auvergne, with several others which appear to us of great interest, and which we will insert in our Appendix.

[190] In a dissertation upon the cardinal de Courçon, M. du Theil has undertaken to make the apology of Innocent III. We have the greatest respect for this _savant_; but he evinces too strong an inclination to justify Innocent in all respects; and an application of the common proverb, “_He who proves too much proves nothing_,” is quite in place here.

[191] Innocent pronounced these words against Louis, the son of Philip Augustus, whom he had induced to make war against the king of England; and whom he afterwards wished to excommunicate, because this prince persisted in continuing a war begun by the commands and advice of the Holy See.

[192] I have observed more than once, that our author is so absorbed in the history he has undertaken, that he is somewhat loose in his remarks upon that of the nations nearest to him. It was not likely that Henry III., a boy of nine years old, should take the cross, or that the prudent Pembroke and his other counsellors would allow the forces of an unsettled kingdom to be wasted upon such a scheme. The king of France again, who he says was constantly occupied in the war against the Albigeois, had absolutely nothing to do with that war. The southern provinces subjected to this calamity were fiefs of the crown of Aragon, and did not belong at that time to France in any way. Whilst these wars were raging, Philip was prudently extending his dominions to the north and north-east.—TRANS.

[193] Bonfinius, the historian of Hungary, says that Gertrude gave up the wife of Banc, the chancellor of the kingdom, to the criminal desires of her brother. He adds that Banc killed the queen to avenge this injury; but this assertion is contradicted by all historians. The same author says that the wife of Andrew was assassinated during his voyage to the Holy Land; but this assertion is as false as the first. Gertrude was assassinated on the 18th of September, 1213.—See Palma, _Notitia Rer. Hung._ t. i.

[194] Marguerite, queen of Hungary, set out for Palestine after the death of Bela, her husband.—See the ninth book of this History.

[195] The Chronicle of Peter Durburg, a priest of the Teutonic order, may be consulted on the manners and religion of the ancient Prussians. This chronicle, whose purpose is to describe the conquests of the Teutonic knights, contains several historical dissertations, which appear to us to have great merit; the most curious are, _Dissertatio de Diis Veterum Prussorum_; _Dissertatio de Sacerdotibus Veterum Prussorum_; _Dissertatio de Cultu Deorum_, _de Nuptiis_, _de Funeribus_, _de Locis Divino Cultui dicatis_, &c. &c. A Latin dissertation, _De Moribus Tartarorum, Lithuanorum, et Moschorum_, may likewise be consulted. This work contains curious details upon the worship and manners of Lithuania and Samogitia, which bore a strong resemblance to the worship and manners of the Prussians. M. Kotzbue, in his history of the Teutonic knights, has thrown great light upon the origin of the legislation, and the customs and religion of the ancient inhabitants of Prussia.

[196] A letter from Pope Honorius to the archbishop of Maïence, says that there is in Prussia a nation of barbarians, of whom it is said that they kill all the girls but one born of each mother; that they prostitute their daughters and wives, immolate captives to their gods, and bathe their swords and lances in the blood of these victims, to bring them success in battle—See _Raynal_, 1218. We refer our readers to our Appendix, for some details upon the manners of the Prussians.

[197] Le Père Maimbourg and most historians make the king of Hungary embark at Venice; but they are unacquainted with the Chronicle of Thomas, deacon of Spalatro, who furnishes the fullest details of the passage of Andrew II. into the Holy Land, and his return to his dominions. This Chronicle, it is true, contains many doubtful things concerning the crusade, and the kingdom of Hungary on the return of Andrew; but it is quite worthy of confidence in all that passed at Spalatro.

[198] “This year,” 614 of the Hegyra, says the continuator of Tabary, “the Franks received succours by sea from Rome the great, and other countries of the Franks, both west and north. It was the chief of Rome, a prelate much revered among the Christians, who directed them; he sent troops from his own country under various commanders, and he ordered the other Frank kings either to march in person or send their troops.”

[199] A letter from the master of the soldiers of the Temple, addressed to Honorius III., enters into several details respecting the situation of the Holy Land at this period. This letter speaks of the scarcity experienced in Syria; the master of the Templars adds, that they could procure no horses. “For this reason,” said he to the pope, “exhort all who have taken the cross, or intend to take it, to furnish themselves with such things as they cannot procure here.”

[200] This prince was named Cheref-Eddin Melik Moaddham.

[201] It is our duty to quote here what is met with in the continuator of Tabary, or the false Tabary, relative to this expedition of the Christians: “They undertook to besiege the castle of Thour (Tabor), and reached the top of the mountain and the foot of the walls. They were very near becoming masters of it; but one of their princes being dead, they retired, after having remained seventeen days before the fort.” This account is quite contrary to that of the western historians, and otherwise bears no mark of probability. It is true that the king of Cyprus died during this campaign of the Crusaders; but he died at Tripoli, and more than a month after the expedition of Mount Tabor.

[202] According to the chronicles of the times, and the report of travellers, there is no water on Mount Tabor. It is probable that the want of water prevented the Crusaders from undertaking the siege of the fortress.

[203] The unimportant accounts of this period are to be found in the continuator of William of Tyre and in James of Vitri, who was then bishop of Ptolemaïs.

[204] The archdeacon Thomas describes with great simplicity the miracles effected by the relics of the king of Hungary.

[205] One of these historians, Palma, expresses himself thus:—Hæc eadem expeditio Hierosolymitana adeo nervos omnes monarchiæ Hungaricæ absumpsit, ut unius propemodum seculi spatio ad pristinam opulentiam viresque redire nequiverit. Another historian adds, that the long absence of Andrew, and the imbecility of his son, so completely alienated the minds of his subjects, that his return created no joy, and that Benedict, the chancellor of Queen Yollande, had difficulty in persuading a few prelates to go out and meet him.

[206] The register of Honorius in Rinaldi, and particularly the letter written by William of Holland to the pope, may be consulted for the details of this campaign against the Moors. William asks permission of the sovereign pontiff to remain in Portugal a year; but this permission was refused him by the Holy See, at that time only interested in the crusade beyond the sea. Some details concerning the expedition of the Crusaders in Portugal may be found in James of Vitri, and in the monk Godfrey.

[207] Savary has rectified an error committed by several learned moderns, who have confounded the city of Damietta, which existed in the times of the crusades, and which is called _Thamiatis_ by Stephen of Byzantium, with the city of that name which exists at present. Aboulfeda informs us that the ancient Damietta was set fire to and demolished in the year 618 of the Hegyra, after the crusade of St. Louis, and that another city, under the same name, was constructed at two leagues from the sea. The assertion of Aboulfeda agrees in this point with the description of Macuzi.

[208] James of Vitri gives a sufficiently particular description of Egypt and its productions; this portion of his history is not unworthy of the perusal of the learned, and may give a just idea of the knowledge of geography and natural history of the thirteenth century.

[209] For particulars of the siege of Damietta, James of Vitri, the continuator of William of Tyre, Marin Sanut, Matthew Paris, the correspondence of Honorius in _Raynaldi_, Godfrey, and the Monk of Alberic may be consulted. We have examined the account attributed to Olivier, priest of Cologne, which may be found in the _Gesta Dei per Francos_, but this account is repeated by James of Vitri. The Arabian authors and the Chronicle of Ibn-ferat have afforded us great assistance in our labours, and have informed us of very important facts of which the Franks and their historians were ignorant.

[210] Le Père Maimbourg gives a long account of this machine, not necessary to be repeated.

[211] This priest, who was named Olivier, afterwards became bishop of Paderborn and a cardinal of St. Sabina; it is the same that signed his name to the account we have mentioned in a preceding note.

[212] Gretser, in his treaty _de Cruce_, says formally that the popes required the commanders of the pilgrims to take with them both agriculturists and workmen.

[213] The Chronicle of Ibn-ferat collects the judgments of all the Arabian historians upon Malek-Adel. These historians all express themselves in the same manner. The continuator of William of Tyre, who appears to have lived in the East, speaks of the pomp and of the air of majesty which were remarked in the brother of Saladin: the latter otherwise treats Malek-Adel with great severity.

[214] It is under the name of Seïf-Eddin, by corruption Saphadin, that Malek-Adel is known in our Histories of the Crusades.

[215] A Latin dissertation, by Boecler, entitled _De Passagiis_, may be consulted on this subject.

[216] I cannot make out who this Prince Oliver was.—TRANS.

[217] In the letter by which Honorius announced to the leaders of the crusade the powers he had given to Cardinal Pelagius, his holiness expresses himself thus: Ut exercitum Domini cum humilitate præcedens, concordes in concordiâ foveat, et ad pacem revocet impacatos.

[218] _Califas papa ipsorum._ The continuator of William of Tyre calls the caliph the _Apostle of the Miscreants_. The same historian adds:—“Après manda (le soudan du Caire) au calife de Baudac, qui apostoille était des Sarrasins, et par Mahomet qu’il le seccurût, et s’il ne le seccurait, il perdrait la terre. Car l’apostolle de Rome y envoyait tant de gent, que ce n’était mie conte ne mesure, et qu’il fait preschier par Payennisme ainsi comme faisaient par Chretienté, et envoyât au soudain grant seccurs de gent par son preschement.”—“The sultan of Cairo afterwards sent to the caliph of Bagdad, who was the apostle of the Saracens, and implored him, in the name of Mahomet, to assist him, assuring him that if he did not assist him, he should lose his dominions. For the apostle of Rome sent so many people that they were beyond all count or measure, and that the caliph must order preaching throughout Paganism as was practised in Christendom, and he might send the sultan great assistance in consequence of his preachings.”

[219] The Chronicle of Ibn-ferat, from which we have drawn that which we relate, says that Emad-eddin was the son of Seïf-Eddin-aboul-Hassan-Ali-ben-Ahmed Alhékari, surnamed Ibn-almachtoub (son of the Scarred), on account of a wound which had marked his face. The same chronicle adds that the emir, the son of the Scarred, despised the futile things of kings, and that most extraordinary circumstances were related of his revolts against sovereigns.

[220] All the Christian historians of the middle ages, and Maimbourg after them, appear persuaded that Providence, by a miracle of its will, put the Saracens to flight.

[221] Our historians of the crusades name this prince Meledin.

[222] The infantry must have rendered, during the siege, greater services than the cavalry, in defending the intrenchments, mounting to the assault, or fighting on board the ships. This dispute alone proves that the infantry had made great progress; for till that time they would not have dared to compare themselves with the cavalry.

[223] The continuator of William of Tyre speaks at length of the interview between St. Francis and his companion and the sultan of Cairo. St. Francis at first proposed to the sultan to renounce Mahomet, under pain of eternal damnation.

[224] Li soudan dist qu’il avait archevesques et évesques de sa loi, et sans eux ne pouvoit-il crier ce qu’ils diraient. Les clercs lui respondirent: “Mandez les guerre;” et ils vinrent à lui en sa tente. Si leur conta ce que li clercs li avaient dist; ils respondirent: “Sire, tu es épée de la loi. Nous nous te commandons, de par Mahomet, que tu lor fasse la teste couper.” A tant puient congé, si s’en allèrent. Li soudan demora et li dist clercs, dont vint li soudan, si lors dist, “Seignors, ils m’ont commandé, de par Mahomet, et de par la loi, que je vous fasse les testes couper; mais j’irai en contre le commandement,” &c. &c. The sultan—we translate our old historian—said he had archbishops and bishops of the law, and without them he could not listen to what they had to say. The clerks, St. Francis and his companion, answered him, “Send for them here”—and they came to him in his tent. He then related to them what the clerks had said, and they answered: “Sire, thou art the sword of the law. We command you, by Mahomet, to order their heads to be cut off.” They then made their obeisance and went away. The sultan and the said clerks remained. Then the sultan came towards them, and said, “Seignors, they have commanded me, by Mahomet, to order your heads to be cut off; but I shall act contrary to the commandment,” &c. &c. The historian adds, that the sultan offered them presents, which they refused—he ordered them refreshment, and sent them back to the Christian army.

[225] Ingredientibus nobis fœtor intolerabilis, spectus miserabilis; mortui vivos occiderunt; vir et uxor, dominus et servus, pater et filius, se mutuis fœtoribus interemerunt. Non solum plateæ erant mortuis plenæ, sed in domibus et cubiculis et lectis jacebant defuncti; extincto viro, mulier impotens surgere, sublevandi carens subsidio vel solatione, putritudinem non ferens expiravit. Filius juxta patrem, vel e converso; ancilla juxta dominam, vel vice versâ, languore deficiens jacebat extincta; parvuli petierunt panem, et non erat qui frangeret eis. Infantes ad ubera matrum pendentes, inter amplexus morientium vocitabant; delicati divites, inter acervos tritici interierunt fame; deficientibus cibis, in quibus erant nutriti, pepones et allia, cepas et alitilia, pisces et volatilia, et fructus arborum, et olera frustra desiderantes. Multitudo vulgi contracta vel molestiis diutius fatigata deficiens aruit.—_J. Vitr. Hist. Or._ l. iii.

[226] M. Michaud is accused by some French critics of being too rhetorical—in this instance he has not made his story so effective as he might have done. If the reader will turn to the extract from _James of Vitri_, at the foot of the last page, he will find the old chronicler much more powerful than the modern historian.—TRANS.

[227] Two letters which Honorius wrote to Pelagius, when sending him the money, are still extant; they appear to us to be very curious, and merit a place in our Appendix.

[228] The Chronicle of Ibn-ferat gives some details of this council of the Mussulman princes. The Western historians say nothing of it. It is a pity that James of Vitri, who was sent to the camp of the Saracens to propose the capitulation, should have preserved a profound silence upon so important a circumstance. We have several times remarked that the Arabian historians, when the Mussulmans experience reverses, content themselves with saying, “_God is great; may God curse the Christians!_” We find the same inconvenience in the Western historians, who are almost always silent when the Christians are conquered.

[229] We cannot refrain from observing that the deliberations of the Mussulmans generally end in resolutions of moderation and mercy; and that those of the Crusaders have, as often, a very different result.—TRANS.

[230] As translation can scarcely do justice to this touching little _morceau_, I subjoin the original.—TRANS. Le roi s’assit devant le soudan, et se mist à plorer; le soudan regarda le roi qui ploroit, et lui dist: “Sire, pourquoi plorez vous?” “Sire, j’ai raison,” repondit le roi, “car je vois le peuple dont Dex m’a chargié, perir au milieu de l’eve et mourir de faim.” Le soudan eut pitié de ce qu’il vit le roi plorer, si plora aussi; lors envoya trente mille pains as pauvres et as riches; ainsi leur envoya quatre jours de suite.

[231] Muratori has preserved a little elegiac poem in Latin, upon the taking of Damietta.—See _Script. Rer. Ital._ vol. vii. p. 992.

[232] See the letter of the patriarch of Alexandria, in the Appendix. The patriarch, at the end of his letter, gives the pope some remarkable opinions upon the manner in which the emperor and the Crusaders were to arrive in Egypt.

[233] The letter of the queen of Georgia is to be found in the continuator of Baronius, under the year 1224. Curious details of the manners of the Georgians in the thirteenth century may likewise be found in James of Vitri, _Hist. Orient._

[234] The Chronicle of Upsberg attributes the murder of the respectable Engelbert, archbishop of Maïence, to this indulgence of the preachers of the crusade.

[235] These details, unknown to all the historians of the West, are related by Abulfeda and the greater part of the Arabian historians who treat of the events of this period. The same authors name the Mussulman envoy _Fakreddin_; they disfigure the name of Frederick’s envoy, and say that this prince selected for this mission the person who had been his governor in his childhood.

[236] The perusal of Arabian authors throws great light upon this part of the history of the crusades; the continuator of William of Tyre, the letters of the patriarch of Jerusalem, or the correspondence of the pope, give but very incomplete information.

[237] The Arabian authors who speak of this treaty, say that one of the conditions was, that the fortifications of Jerusalem should not be repaired; this condition is not named in the treaty which is found in the continuator of Baronius.

[238] Quant l’apostelle oi ces nouvelles, si n’en fu mie lies, parce que l’empereur était excommunié, et qu’il li etoit avis qu’il avait fait mauvaise paix, parce que les Sarrasins tenaient le temple et per ce ne volut-il soffrir un le sçut fait par lui, ne que sainte église en fit fête, ains recommanda par toute Chrestianeté qu’on excommuniat l’empereur come renvoyé et mescréant.—_Cont. of William of Tyre._ (When the apostle heard these news, he was not at all pleased, because the emperor was excommunicated, and he thought he had made a bad peace, as the Saracens were to retain the temple. Therefore he was not willing it should be thought he consented to the peace, or that the Church should offer up thanks for it; and he ordered that the emperor should be excommunicated throughout Christendom, as a castaway and an infidel.)

[239] Un poi après que l’emperor se fust parti de la terre de Jerusalem, s’assemblèrent villains de la terre as Sarrasins, et allèrent à Jerusalem une matinée, pour occir les Chrétiens qui dedans estoient.—_Cont. de Guill. de Tyr._ The same author adds that the Christian knights then at Ptolemaïs came to the assistance of Jerusalem, and that they killed a great number of the Mussulmans.

[240] The letters addressed by the pope to the Mussulman princes may be found in the continuator of Baronius.

[241] For the preachings of John of Vicentia consult _L’Histoire Ecclésiastique_, of Fleury, vol. xvii., and _L’Histoire des Républiques d’Italie_, by Sismondi.

[242] This was then a common epithet. St. Thomas Aquinas was called _the Angel of the School_.—TRANS.

[243] This poetical exhortation, addressed to all knights, may be found printed among the poetry of Thibault.

[244] Matthew Paris speaks warmly against this abuse, which created much murmuring in England.

[245]

N’aie, Ector, Roll’, ne Ogiers, Ne Judas Maahebeus li fiers Tant ne fit d’armes en estors Com fist li Rois Jehans cel jors Et il defors et il dedans La paru sa force et ses sens Et li hardement qu’il avoit.

_Philip Mouskes_, 1274.

[246] John of Brienne married, as his second wife, a daughter of the king of Arragon.

[247] “My lady lost, holy lady be my aid.”—TRANS.

[248] See Raynold, Matthew Paris, Alberic, Richard of St. Germain, and the _Ecclesiastical History_ of Fleury, regarding this circumstance.

[249] Upon the quarrels of the pope and the emperor, _L’Italia Sacra_, tom. viii., Richard de St. Germain, and particularly Matthew Paris, who reports the letters of Frederick, may be consulted.

[250] This is a mistake; Richard had no legitimate children. Richard, duke of Cornwall, who was likewise king of the Romans, was the son of John, Richard’s brother. In the same manner Gibbon calls Edward I. Richard’s nephew;—he was his _great-nephew_.—TRANS.

[251] It appears to be almost incredible that our author should be so blind himself, or expect his readers to be so, to the lessons taught by his History! If the early Crusaders could not buy off their pilgrimages, more of them were attracted by what they might obtain on earth, than by “religion and its promises.”—TRANS.

[252] Most of these questions may be found in the work of the Jesuit Greutzer, which bears for title _De Cruce_.

[253] Although this is very like “damning with faint praise,” I cannot see how the popes or their abuses are entitled to any mitigation of contempt or disapproval: the beneficial results were the work of Providence, and were never contemplated by the pontiffs.—TRANS.

[254] King John was a bad prince: he inspired mistrust in his subjects, who demanded a pledge of him, and this pledge became the English constitution. If France, before the revolution of 1789, had never asked her kings for a pledge, it was because none of them had inspired mistrust in his people: the best eulogy that can be made upon the kings of France is, that the nation had never felt under their government the want of a written or guaranteed constitution, and that they were in all times considered as the safest guardians of the public liberty.

[It is scarcely conceivable how a writer of the nineteenth century could offer his readers such opinions as these (both text and note). Some of the best portions of British liberty were obtained from better kings than any France had, with the exception of Henry IV., from Louis IX. to the end of the monarchy. Our Charles I. and James II. had their faults, but they are as “unsunned snow” by the side of nine French monarchs out of ten.]—TRANS.

[255] M. Michaud is here more happy than usual in his political and philosophical reflections. We might fancy him prescient of the 2nd of December.—TRANS.

[256] A dispute upon an affair of gallantry, between two or more troubadours.—TRANS.

[257] These verses are quoted by M. Raynourd in his grammar of the Romance language.

[258] We have but to compare the piece of the Provençal with that of Raoul de Courcy, who died in the third crusade.

[259] M. Michaud’s parental partiality for his elder born makes him very oblivious. If we look back to his own account of the morals of the early crusades, particularly those of Jerusalem, we cannot see the justice of these remarks. The Crusaders only “remembered to be pious and penitent” when they experienced reverses.—TRANS.

[260] It may be questioned whether the weapons since employed for the same purpose, the cunning and the tongue of Jesuits, were not in all senses as bad as the sword and lance of the Crusaders.—TRANS.

[261] The city of Thorn was built on the spot where the consecrated oak grew.

[262] We may name, among the Greeks, the sacred war undertaken for the lands which belonged to the temple of Delphos; but on reading closely the history of this war, it is easy to see that they did not fight for a dogma or a religious opinion, as in the wars which, among the moderns have had religion for a motive or a pretence.

[263] Karakoroum, the residence of the principal branch of the successors of Gengiskhan. It is only lately that the true situation of this city has been fixed by M. Abel-Remusat; it was on the left bank of the Orgon, not far from the junction of that river with the Selinga to the south of the Lake of Baïkal, by the 49° of latitude and the 102° of longitude. The same country has since been the residence of the Grand Lama.

[264] M. Petis de Lacroix has published a life of Gengiskhan, according to Eastern authors. This history, though fable is sometimes mixed with truth, is one of the best works that can be consulted. M. Deguignes, in his History of the Huns, has spoken at great length of the Tartars and of Gengiskhan; he announces that he has deviated from the account of Petis de Lacroix; but as he does not always name the sources from which he has drawn, he does not inspire perfect confidence for this part of his history. We find some details upon Gengiskhan in _La Bibliothèque Orientale_ of D’Herbelot.

[265] The Chronicles of the middle ages often speak of Prester John. A letter written by a prince of this name to Louis VII. has been preserved. Seven barbarous princes have been reckoned who bore the name of Prester John. The researches made to ascertain the truth would be uninteresting nowadays.—See the _Precis de la Geographie Universelle_, by M. Malte Brun, tom. i. p. 441.

[266] According to what we know of Gengiskhan, we should with difficulty believe that among modern historians he has been able to find panegyrists; but Petis de Lacroix has not been able to avoid the example of most historians, who generally appear infatuated by the hero whose life they are writing. An Arabian historian relates, that on learning the massacre of his ambassadors, Gengiskhan was not able to refrain from tears. Here Petis de Lacroix is very angry with the Arabian, and reproaches him bitterly with having given the emperor of the Moguls _a feminine_ character. All others, says he, have given a portrait of him more worthy of a hero.

[267] There have been long disputes upon the terms Mogul and Tartar. We think we can make out, amidst much uncertainty, that the Moguls originally formed a distinct tribe of the vast countries of Tartary; and that the Tartars, being in great numbers in the armies of the conquering Moguls, obliterated in a degree the names of their conquerors in the kingdoms of Europe and Asia to which these armies penetrated.

[268] Father Gaubil has translated a Chinese history of Gengiskhan; this history yields but little information, and gives no curious details but upon the family and the successors of the conqueror.

[269] Matthew Paris speaks of the terror which the Moguls spread through Europe: his history contains an exhortation to all the nations of the West to fly to arms; each nation is in this history characterized by an honourable and flattering epithet.

[270] The reader may consult _Thurocsius_, vol. i., _Rerum Hungaricarum_, and particularly the _Carmen Miserabile_ of Roger of Hungary, canon of Varadin, who has described in poetical prose the disasters of which he himself was a witness.

[271] See in the Appendix the details which many of the Chronicles give of the ravages of the Carismians in Palestine.

[272] Joinville gives many particulars of this war which he had learnt during his sojourn in Palestine. The continuator of William of Tyre may likewise be consulted. Matthew Paris has preserved two letters, one from the patriarch of Jerusalem, the other from the grand master of the Hospitallers, which describe this battle.

[273] This is the opinion of M. Deguignes, in his _Histoire des Huns_.

[274] Consult Matthew Paris, and the _Annales Ecclésiastiques_, for particulars concerning the council of Lyons.

[275] Matthew Paris affords some very curious details upon the council of Lyons; Le Père Labbe may also be consulted.

[276] We find in the great theology of Tournely (_Traité de l’Eglise_, tom. ii.) a very learned dissertation upon this deposition of the emperor Frederick II. at the first council of Lyons. This theologian asserts that the council had nothing at all to do with this great act of authority of Innocent IV., and brings several reasons to support his opinion. We will quote some of them, leaving our readers to appreciate their value.

“Whilst all the bulls of the pope, published in council, begin by these words: ‘We have decreed, with the approbation of the council, according to the advice of the sacred council, &c. (sacro approbante concilio, ex communi concilii approbatione, statuimus),’ we read at the head of the bull in question: ‘Sentence pronounced against the emperor Frederick by the pope, Innocent IV., in presence of the council (sacro præsente concilio),’ an essential difference, which is likewise observable in the body of the bull, when the sovereign pontiff only speaks in his own name, and as holding the place of Jesus Christ upon earth. All the fathers of the council, says Matthew Paris, on hearing the sentence, _were struck with surprise and horror_, sentiments they certainly would not have felt if they had had any part in the judgment.

“All the historians of the time attribute this act of authority to the pope, without even mentioning the council; and Frederick II., when accusing the incompetence of the judge, his partiality, his blindness, and his ingratitude, when writing to the kings of France and England and the barons of his kingdom on the subject, only complains of the pontiff, and does not attach the least reproach to the prelates who composed the assembly. The sentence was considered as so completely the work of the pope, that the Church, which received the decisions of the council, attached little importance to the bull, and that this bull became absolutely a party affair. It was rejected by a great number of the churches of Germany and Italy. The kings of France and England considered it as injurious to sovereign majesty, and continued to treat Frederick as legitimate emperor. It only rendered the wars between the Guelphs and Ghibellines more active and more inveterate.

“The pope said truly that he had deliberated with the fathers of the council; but he adds, that the deliberation turned upon no other object but the excommunication of the emperor; that he did not at all speak of the article of the deposition, and that thence came the surprise and horror which the prelates manifested.

“It is nevertheless objected that the pope and the fathers of the council, after the reading of the sentence, turned down the waxlights which they held and extinguished them, and that afterwards the pope gave out the _Te Deum_, in which the prelates assisted; but Matthew Paris believes that the circumstances are here not exact. He thinks that some priests only, attached to the court of Rome, lent themselves to the passion of the pope against Frederick, and performed the ceremony of the waxlights, which may still further only relate to the excommunication; otherwise how can we reconcile this passage of the historian with the surprise and horror that were manifested, according to him, in the assembly at the reading of the sentence.

“The pope did not even endeavour to persuade anybody that he was supported by the authority of the council. He declared that he should know how to maintain irrevocably _all that he had done_ relative to Frederick.”

After having discussed all these points, Tournely raises doubts upon the œcumenicity of the first council of Lyons.

“The council of Florence,” says this theologian, “which makes an enumeration of the general councils held before that period, passes by that of Lyons in silence, and in fact several countries, as Germany, Italy, Spain, Brittany, Sweden, and Poland, had no bishops there; there were few prelates from France or England.”

“In the same way the council of Constance, enumerating in a formula, that the pope about to be elected was to sign all the œcumenic councils which had preceded, only mentions one council of Lyons. Now, this could only be the second, for that was very solemn. There were more than five hundred bishops at it, as well from the East as the West, and the Greeks in it acknowledged _the divine filiation_.”

Thadæus of Suesse, representative of the emperor Frederick II. at the council of Lyons, and zealous defender of the rights of that prince, appealed publicly from this council to a future general and _œcumenic_ council. One of the causes which might, according to Tournely, lead several bishops into error, but which will appear very strange at the present day, was, that they imagined the empire really was a feudatory of the court of Rome. It is the sovereign pontiff, they say, who crowns the emperor; he has then a particular and special right over the empire; he can depose the head of it for a serious matter. Frederick, in his letters to the kings of France and England, mentions and combats strongly this ridiculous prejudice, and the foolish pretensions of the popes. Gregory IX., in a letter addressed to Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, informs him that Frederick is engaged by oath to go to the Holy Land, abandoning, if he failed in his promise, his states and his person to the sovereign pontiff. According to this, the fathers might believe that the deposition was a consequence of the penalty the prince had incurred as a perjurer. We must refer to the ages in which these questions were agitated to appreciate the influence they had upon events.

[277] This great incident in the life of Louis IX. is differently, and indeed more strikingly, related by most French historians. “When he felt himself better, to the great astonishment of all, he ordered the red cross to be affixed to his bed and his vestments, and made a vow to go and fight for the tomb of Christ. His mother, and the priests themselves, implored him to renounce his fatal design. It was all in vain; and scarcely was he convalescent than he called his mother and the bishop of Paris to his bedside, and said to them, ‘Since you believe that I was not perfectly myself when I pronounced my vows, there is my red cross, which I tear from my shoulders; I return it to you: but now, when you must perceive that I am in the full enjoyment of all my faculties, restore to me my cross; for He who is acquainted with all things, knows also that no kind of food shall enter into my mouth until I have again been marked with His holy sign. ‘It is the hand of Heaven,’ cried all who were present; ‘its will be done.’” (_Bonnechose_).—TRANS.

[278] English readers should acknowledge a familiar acquaintance in this excellent mother and good queen: she is the _Lady Blanche_ of Shakespear’s _King John_.—TRANS.

[279] See in our Appendix this fact related by Matthew Paris.

[280] It is Matthew Paris who furnishes us with information relative to this attempt to persuade St. Louis. This is the chronicler that throws most light upon the events of that period; such as the council of Lyons, the quarrel of Frederick and the pope, and the crusade of the king of France. We also find some details in William of Nangis, in Joinville, and in the _Ecclesiastical Annals_ of Raynaldi.

[281] Que loyauté ils porteraient à sa famille, si aucune malle chose avenait de sa personne au saint veage d’outremer.

[282] We do not observe that this worthy penitent opened his hand and relaxed his grasp whilst living; death-bed repentances and posthumous restitutions are very suspicious affairs.—TRANS.

[283] These calamities were but a portion of God’s great law of cause and effect—they were begun in error and ended in failure. What connection is there between Louis’ just government of his kingdom and his mad and foolish expeditions to the East?—TRANS.

[284] Il ne voulut oncques retourner ses yeux vers Joinville, pour ce que le cœur lui attendrit du biau chastel qu’il laissait, et de ses deux enfants.

[285] Concerning the departure of Saint Louis, and the facts that follow consult William of Nangis, William of Puits, Matthew Paris, Sanuti, &c.

[286] Like many good and affectionate mothers, Blanche was very jealous of the influence of a young wife over her son. Principally for territorial advantages, Louis married Marguerite of Provence, when he was nineteen and the princess thirteen. Immediately after the ceremony, Blanche separated the newly-married couple and kept them apart for six years, under pretext of the youth of the new queen.—TRANS.

[287] Bien fou celui qui, ayant quelque pêché sur son âme, se met en un tel danger; car si on s’endort au soir, on ne sait si on se trouvera le matin au fond de la mer.

[288] Michaud has omitted to mention the cause of Louis’ unfortunate choice of a route,—the residence in Cyprus proving so injurious to the army. The most regular and advisable route would have been by Sicily; but after Louis had in vain tried every means of subduing the anger of the pope, his superstitious reverence for the head of the Church prevailed over even his good sense and his prudence, and he declined stopping in Sicily, because that island was part of the dominions of an excommunicated prince.—TRANS.

[289] The French had a custom of reckoning sums by _twenties_: in the text of Joinville this stands, “six vingts livres tournois.”—TRANS.

[290] Oncques nul d’eux ne revint.

[291] Matthew Paris, William of Nangis, said Zanfliet are agreed concerning this embassy. We shall revert to it in our Appendix.

[292] Deguignes informs us that the prince Ecalthaï was the lieutenant of the khan of the Tartars in Asia Minor.

[293] Most of the articles which form the correspondence between Christendom and the Tartars are collected in the book of Moshemius, entitled _Historia Tartorum Ecclesiastica_: the letters of this correspondence do not all merit the same attention or the same confidence.

[294] M. Abel-Remusat, in his learned Memoir upon the Tartars, explains several doubtful circumstances of this embassy; he examines the opposite versions, and does not at all adopt the opinion of M. Deguignes, who views the Mogul ambassadors as nothing but impostors. If it may be allowed me, after these two great authorities, to offer an opinion, I should say that the arrival of Louis having created a great sensation in the East, Ecalthaï, governor of all the provinces of Asia, might send emissaries to ascertain the designs and strength of the Franks; and it may be believed that these emissaries, to perform their mission with more success, feigned several circumstances calculated to increase their credit in the minds of the Christians. It appears to us that this opinion may reconcile that which is opposite in that of the two writers quoted.

[295] No chronicle says that the king of Cyprus went with Louis, although he had taken the cross. This prince is never mentioned in any of the events of the war.

[296] This word comes to us from the Arabs, with the instrument which it designates. The Arabs pronounce it _nakarah_.

[297] ——chose épouvantable à ouïr et moult étrange aux Français.—_Joinville._

[298] An admirable subject for a large historical picture.—TRANS.

[299] Upon the battles that preceded the taking of Damietta, and upon the taking of that city, Joinville may be consulted, as the historian that furnishes the greatest number of details. William of Nangis, Matthew Paris, but particularly Guy de Melun, may be read with advantage. We have quoted in our text the Arabian authors that have spoken of these events.

[300] At this period the national troops had neither the courage nor the constancy that the labours of war require. The Arabs, who had entered Egypt as conquerors with Amron-Ben-al-As, had disappeared, without leaving successors capable of supporting their reputation. There were no means of recruiting the army but by slaves bought in the north of Asia and in Europe, or by wandering Arabs, who, accustomed to a hardy, active life, still showed some energy. This latter measure presented another advantage. By bringing these nomads under the yoke of military discipline, the nations were delivered from the depredations of men who lived by war. It was with this motive that the pacha of Egypt of the present day has enrolled the Arabs of his states under his banners.—See the _Voyage of Belzoni in Egypt and Numidia_.

[301] The livre Tournois was so called from being coined at Tours, and was one-fifth less in value than the livre coined in Paris; thus afterwards the livre Tournois was valued at twenty sous, that of Paris at twenty-five. The sum mentioned would thus only amount to little more than £200 which appears almost impossible.—TRANS.

[302] Ainsi demeura la besogne, dont maintes gens se tinrent mal satisfaits.—_Joinville._

[303] At this period Louis IX. was but thirty-three years old.—TRANS.

[304] There is here an apparent contradiction between the version of Ducange and that of MM. Melot, Sallier, and Caperonier: in the latter we read that these five hundred Mussulmans were sent to harass the French army, but there is no mention of a deceit, or _ruse de guerre_; in that of Ducange, on the contrary, we find this sentence: “He [the sultan] sent to the king, as a _ruse_, five hundred of his best-mounted horsemen, they telling the king that they were come to assist him, him and all his army.” We find nothing like this in the edition of MM. Melot, Sallier, and Caperonier; it is probable that this sentence may have been interpolated in the manuscript, for we cannot believe that five hundred Mussulman horsemen could have been received as friends in the Christian army, who stood in no need of auxiliaries, and who certainly did not look for them among the Saracens. We avail ourselves of this opportunity to warn our readers that the various editions of Joinville often vary in important circumstances, and that they should at all times be subjected to a very critical examination.

[305] Il s’écriait, pleurant à grant larmes: “Beau Sire, Dieu Jesus Christ, garde moi et toute ma gent.”—_Joinville._

[306] This word _ores_, which was employed to animate the courage of combatants, and which is still in use among the people in several provinces of France, may it not be the same as the word _houra_, which the Russians employ? May it not have been introduced by the Franks and the other barbarians who conquered the Gauls?

[307] This is the same person who, later, made himself so formidable to the Christians when he had united Egypt and Syria under his power; he had preserved the name of Bondocdar from that of his ancient master, so called because he was the _bondocdar_, or general of the arbalatiers, in the reign of Malek-Saleh.

[308] Je vous promets que oncques plus bel homme armé ne vis.

[309] Leur disant paroles en signe de mocquerie.—_Joinville._

[310] .... et tous furent moult oppressés d’angoisse, de compassion et de pitié de le voir ainsi plorer.—_Joinville._ [I hope my readers will excuse my repetitions of this kind; I make them from a sense of inability to convey the touching and characteristic simplicity of the original, and from a wish that others should partake with me the feeling they create.]—TRANS.

[311] This disease was the scurvy; “it was such,” says Joinville, “that the flesh of our legs dried away to the bone, and our skins became of a black or earth colour, like an old saddle which has been a long time laid aside: and besides this, we who were afflicted by this disease were soon subjected to another persecution, in a complaint of the mouth, which arose from our having eaten of those fish; it putrified the flesh of the gums, so that it rendered the breath horribly stinking.” Joinville here speaks of the _burbotte_, a fish of the Nile, which is a voracious fish, and feeds upon dead bodies. The seneschal adds, in another passage of his memoirs, “that the malady having seized upon the army, it became necessary for the barbers to cut out the swollen flesh of the gums of all who were afflicted with this disease, so that they could not eat. Great pity was it to hear all from whom this dead flesh had been cut, going about in the army, crying and moaning. They appeared to me like poor women who are in labour with their children when they come upon earth: nobody can tell how pitiable that sight was.”

[312] ... ne oncques plus ne chanta. [The readers of Michaud have reason to congratulate themselves, when he is availing himself of such authorities as Villehardouin and Joinville; he seems to have a sympathy with them that procures us some very delightful traits.]—TRANS.

[313] Bernard Thesaurius, the author of the Continuation of the History of William of Tyre, has fixed the precise epoch of each fact. We shall most likely have occasion to draw the reader’s attention to the _Annales Ecclésiastiques_ of this writer in a future volume.

[314] This generous trait of St. Louis, who refused to quit his army, is attested by both French and Oriental historians. Joinville expresses himself thus:—“Seeing the king had the same disease as the army, and great weakness, as others had, we thought he would be much safer on board one of the great galleys; but he said ‘he would rather die than leave his people.’” Geoffrey of Beaulieu, equally an eyewitness, attests this fact. To the evidence of these two historians we may add that of the Arabian historian Aboul Mahassem. “The king of France,” says he, “might have escaped from the Egyptians, either on horseback, or in a boat; but this generous prince would never consent to abandon his troops.”

[The conduct of Louis might be imprudent, but it was noble and heroic. The admirers of the modern French idol, Buonaparte, would be very much at a loss to find such a trait in his history; it was always _sauve qui peut_ with him, when he met with reverses.]—TRANS.

[315] See the extract from _Soyouti_ in Appendix.

[316] This is the Minieh of Aboul-Abdallah.

[317] What a lesson is this letter to all such as designate their God “the God of armies,” or are worshippers of military glory! The archbishop of Canterbury could not have written a better, or one apparently more pious, after the battles of Trafalgar or Waterloo.—TRANS.

[318] Très volontiers le ferai, et si ai-je eu en pensée d’ainsi faire, si le cas y échéait.—_Joinville._

[319] I am unable to discover the nature of this punishment, or the meaning of the word, but cannot help thinking they are connected with the French proverbial expression, _Envoyer quelqu’un au berniquets_, as meaning to ruin him.—TRANS.

[320] Joinville speaks of a sum of five hundred thousand livres. Ducange has made a dissertation on this head, that gives very little information:—in the first place, we must be able to ascertain what was then the value of 500,000 livres of our money.

[321] The continuator of Tabary and the _History of St. Louis_, by Joinville, furnish information upon this event. Their accounts agree exactly.

[322] Would not the death of the accomplished Sidney assort worthily with these pictures, as not only exemplifying the good and true knight, but the Christian hero, imbued with charity, the great principle of the Gospel?—TRANS.

[323] This is really one of those tales that require “seven justices’ names” to vouch for their authenticity. How such a man, at such a time, could be ambitious of the honour of knighthood, it is very difficult to imagine. But when we recollect that the evidence of sixty-five miracles performed by him, was produced to procure his canonization, we must not be sceptical in what regards Louis IX.—TRANS.

[324] We had at first consulted the edition of Ducange; and we have been surprised to find an account and expressions totally different in that of Caperonier, otherwise called the edition of the Louvre; however this may be, we cannot conclude, from either one version or the other, that any proposal of the kind was made to Louis IX. [As the reader may like, without trouble, to see the opinion of our great historian upon this interesting subject, I venture to subjoin it:—“The idea of the emirs to choose Louis for their sultan is seriously attested by Joinville, pp. 77-78, and does not appear to me so absurd as to M. de Voltaire. The Mamelukes themselves were strangers, rebels, and equals; they had felt his valour, they hoped for his conversion; and such a motion, which was not seconded, might be made perhaps by a secret Christian, in their tumultuous assembly.”—_Gibbon._]—TRANS.

[325] If we compare this council with that of the Christians which sat after the taking of Jerusalem, and the results of both, we shall be less inclined to blame the hesitation of the Mussulmans. The Crusaders were the invaders of the country of the Mussulmans, the assailants of their faith—can it be wondered at if they awakened vindictive passions?—TRANS.

[326] These Arabian verses were translated by M. l’Abbé Renard. See _L’Extrait d’Abulfeda_, vol. xi.

[327] Matthew Paris gives curious details upon the effects produced by the news of the captivity of the king.

[328] Among the great number of historians who have spoken of this movement, William de Guy, Matthew Paris, William of Nangis, and the _Annals of Waverley_ may be consulted.

(Some historians relate the catastrophe differently. One says: “The pastors were accustomed to preach, surrounded by armed men for their defence; one day, by the command of Blanche, an executioner introduced himself among these, and gliding behind Jacob, struck his head off at a blow, before the eyes of the spectators, who were chilled with horror. Some knights then appeared and dispersed the pastors.”)—TRANS.

[329] There can be no doubt that this was the case with those who remained with him; even the worthy seneschal and all. His determination to go to Antioch proves that he had no resource in Europe. It was a desperate game, and they were obliged to play it out.—TRANS.

[330] Norway.

[331] The reader may remember a curious ceremony of alliance, in the last volume, wherein the one party passes through the shirt of the other whilst he has it on.—TRANS.

[332] M. Michaud observes this is a remarkable circumstance; but it is much more remarkable, that whilst instructing his readers, he appears to gather no wisdom himself. Every page of his book tells us, that though there were many examples of sincere piety and virtue among the Crusaders, the bulk of them were _adventurers_, to whom the most profitable religion would be the best. He is so in love with his drama, that he wishes to think the actors and their motives of action much better than they are.—TRANS.

[333] M. Ancelot, in his tragedy of _Louis IX._, has painted with much truthfulness the character of a renegado.

[334] Joinville’s account is very confused here; indeed, almost unintelligible. He says at first that the king was at Sidon, and that he retired into the castle on the arrival of the Saracens. Two pages further on he says: “When the king had finished the fortifying of Jaffa, he formed the intention of doing the same for Sidon as he had done for Jaffa.” We cannot fail to observe a contradiction here. We can suppose that Louis had been to Sidon, had left it, and had again returned; but one circumstance proves the contrary. History says that two thousand Christians were killed at Sidon, or in the vicinity of that city; if Louis had then been upon the spot, it is most probable he would have buried the dead before his departure, and would not have deferred the performance of this pious duty till his return. It is evident that Joinville’s account has been altered at this part; unfortunately, this alteration is not the only one which this precious historical monument has undergone.

[335] It is not uninteresting or barren of instruction, to think how different would be the reflections of a Voltaire or a Gibbon on this subject! The reader may safely take a position between the two extremes: Louis was a good and pious man, but a very mistaken one; as king of a great people, he certainly had not performed his duties during the last five years.—TRANS.

[336] The continuation of the conversation of King Louis with the emir has for its object the manner in which the Mussulman doctors interpret the precept for the pilgrimage to Mecca.

[337] But there is one piece of internal evidence in this tradition, that we think should obtain it credit, notwithstanding the silence of history. When we remember how the European armies in Egypt, at the end of the last century, suffered from _ophthalmia_, we think there is strong reason to believe that Louis might found such an institution on his return.—TRANS.

[338] _Verit. Invent. de l’Histoire de France_, by John de Serres, p. 152.

[339] One thing worthy of remark is, that the emperor Frederick resembled closely, both in character and policy, Frederick II., king of Prussia; but the latter was in harmony with his age, and his age has named him the _great Frederick_.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE:

—Obvious print and punctuation errors were corrected.