[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.
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.