[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.