Richard the Lion Heart | Project Gutenberg

[686] See the various accounts of these negotiations in Bohadin, 235-7; Ibn Alathyr, Recueil des Hist. des Crois., Hist. Orient., II, i. 44-7; other Arab authorities collected in Abu Shama, ib., V, 22-5; Gesta and R. Howden, ll.cc.

[687] Gesta, 177, 178.

[689] See Note II at end.

[691] R. Devizes, 52.

[692] Itin., 233, 234. According to Bohadin, French ed. p. 238, this duty was entrusted to Conrad; the passage is omitted in the Leyden MS. edited by Schultens, but is reproduced in an emphatic form by Abu Shama (Recueil, Hist. Orient., V, 26).

[693] Gesta, 179, 180; Itin., 234.

[694] Bohadin, 237, 242; Gesta, 179. The Estoire, ll. 5217-19, says the Franks were to have as hostages “Les plus hauz Turs e les plus sages Que l’em poreit en Acre eslire,” and does not specify what was arranged as to the garrison. But from the sequel it is quite clear that the hostages really consisted of the whole body of the garrison.

[695] Bohadin, 238. Cf. Ibn Alathyr, 47.

[696] He had sent his baggage thither on the night of the 12th, Bohadin, 239; a fact which misled the author of the Itinerarium (234) into saying that Saladin himself retired “eadem nocte sequenti proxima post ingressionem nostram.” The Gesta, 181, agrees with Bohadin in placing Saladin’s own removal on July 14.

[697] Bohadin, l.c.

[698] Ib., 239, 240; cf. Gesta, 180.

[699] Gesta, 181, 182.

[700] Ib., 182. Cf. Itin., 234.

[701] See Note I at end.

[702] Otto of S. Blaise says of Richard: “Praeda communi universorum sudore adquisita inter suos tantum distributa reliquos privavit, in seque odia omnium concitavit. Omnibus enim fortiori militum robore praestabat, et ideo pro velle suo cuncta disponens reliquos principes parvipendebat” (Pertz, xx. 323). “Reliquos” seems here to include Philip. Even Rigord does not go so far as this. It is certain that Philip got his due share of the prisoners; and there is no reason to doubt that he also got, as the English writers say, his due share of the city and its contents.

[703] Gesta, 182, 183.

[704] Ib., 184; Est., ll. 5050-61; Itin., 235, 236.

[707] Gesta, l.c.; Est., ll. 5054, 5055.

[708] Gesta, l.c.; Est., ll. 5056, 5057, 5062, 5063; Itin., 235. Geoffrey only “held” his fiefs in the sense that he was legally seised of them; they were Joppa, Caesarea, and Ascalon, all in the enemy’s hands. Conrad’s were Tyre, Sidon, and Beyrout.

[710] R. Diceto, ii. 95.

[711] Est., ll. 5305-28; Itin., 238; Gesta, l.c.; in this last authority the clause about forty days’ notice after Richard’s return is omitted, and the date of the oath is given, July 29.

[714] Est., ll. 5333-4; Itin., 239; Gesta, 185. The latter make the date July 31; the Itinerarium makes it August 1.

[715] Rigord, 117; date from R. Howden, iii. 126.

[716] Otto of S. Blaise, Pertz, xx, 323.

[717] Gesta, 185, 186.

[718] Bohadin, 238-40.

[721] A certain number of the captive Christians of rank were to be chosen by name by the two kings. See Note II at end.

[723] From 17 Jomada II (= July 12) to 18 Rajab.

[724] The writer of the Gesta, 187, gives the appointed day as August 9; no doubt imagining the “month” to mean four weeks.

[726] Gesta, 185. If the prisoners were really as numerous as our authorities represent, the whole of Philip’s share could hardly have gone, with him and his suite, in two galleys. Probably he took the picked ones only.

[727] Ib., 186, 187; Est., ll. 5414-86; Itin., 242, 243.

[729] Bohadin, 241, 242.

[730] The writer of the Gesta, 187, who gives the date for the original first term as August 9, says it was on that day postponed “in diem undecimum post illum.” It is, however, clear from Bohadin that the postponement cannot have been agreed upon till after the 11th; and it is equally clear from the sequel that the term as ultimately fixed cannot have been later than the 20th. This would be the fortieth day from the surrender—which is what the writer of the Gesta asserts in p. 179 to have been the term originally fixed for payment of the whole ransom. Evidently he is correct in his implied date, and wrong only in his mode of arriving at it.

[731] Gesta, 188, 189. “Sui cum eo” in p. 189 must surely be an error for either “sui cum me,” or, much more probably, “mei cum eo.”

[732] The Est., ll. 5613-46. and Itin., 245, place Richard’s encampment outside the walls and the skirmish or skirmishes which followed it after the slaughter of the garrison, i. e. after August 20. But the whole narrative of the surrender of Acre and the proceedings there is in the Gesta arranged with such minute chronological order that it can hardly fail to be founded on documentary authority so far as its dates are concerned, while the chronology of both Estoire and Itinerarium, just at this period, is vague and confused in the extreme.

[733] Bohadin, 242, 243; cf. Gesta, 189; R. Howden, iii. 127, 128; Est., ll. 5513-39; Itin., 243; R. Diceto, ii. 94; R. Devizes, 52. All the authorities, Bohadin included, who give a date at all make it Tuesday, August 20, except the Itinerarium, which unaccountably says “die Veneris proximo post Assumptionem Beatae Mariae,” i. e. Friday, August 16.

[734] Letter of Richard in R. Howden, iii. 131.

[735] Bohadin, 243. As to the way in which the Frank soldiers had treated the corpses, the statements in Gesta, 189 (copied in R. Howden, iii. 128) must be compared with Bohadin, l.c., whence it appears, first, that whatever was done to the bodies did not shock him, for he makes no comment on it; and secondly, that the Saracens who went to look at them next morning could quite well have taken them away then, if they had chosen to do so.

[737] “Quibus sub hac conditione vita concessa est, si Saladinus pro redemptione eorum 70,000 bisantiorum dare vellet,” R. Coggeshall, 32. “Qui [Caracois et Mestocus] ... cum per interpretes deditionem urbis promitterent et capitum redemtionem, rex Anglorum volebat viribus vincere desperatos, volebat et victos pro redemtione corporum capita solvere, sed agente rege Francorum indulta est eis tantum vita cum indemnitate membrorum, si post deditionem civitatis et dationem omnium quae possidebant Crux Dominica redderetur.” R. Devizes, 51.

[738] Gesta, 179, followed by R. Howden, iii. 121.

[739] See the curious statement in a letter written about this time by El-Fadhel, one of Saladin’s secretaries, to the Divan at Bagdad: “The number of barbaric tongues among these people from the west is outrageous, and outdoes everything that can be imagined. Sometimes, when we take a prisoner, we can only communicate with him through a series of interpreters—one translates the Frank’s words to another, who translates them again to a third.” Abu Shama, Hist. des Crois., iv. 15.

[740] “Si fud la chose esguardee A un concile ou assemblerent Li halt home, qui esguarderent Que des Sarazins ocireient Le plus,” etc., Est., ll. 5524-7; cf. Itin., 243. The Gesta, 189, and R. Howden, iii. 128, say expressly that the duke of Burgundy caused the French king’s share of the prisoners to be slaughtered likewise.

[741] “E dont furent li cop vengie De quarels d’arbaleste a tor, Les granz merciz al Creator!” Est., ll. 5540-2; cf. Itin., l.c.

[742] Extract from Imad-ed-Din, in Abu Shama, Hist. des Crois., iv. 277, 278. It is probably to this that Bohadin alludes when he speaks of “reprisals” as one of the motives to which the massacre at Acre was attributed; and it is he who adds (p. 243) that it was also ascribed to Richard’s sense of the risk of leaving so many prisoners behind him. The story told in the Gesta, 189, and R. Howden, iii. 127, that Saladin had wantonly provoked the retaliation by beheading on August 18 all the Christian prisoners who should have been exchanged for his own men next day, is obviously a fiction; and it is clear that the leaders of the host were not even misled by a false report, for the Estoire and the Itinerarium make no mention of any such thing.

[743] Est., ll. 5543-5, Itin., 244.

[744] Est., ll. 5384-7; Itin., 240; cf. Bohadin, 244.

[746] Est., ll. 5550-65; Itin., 244.

[747] Est., l. 5675; Itin., 247, 248. This would include three hundred (or five hundred, R. Howden) Christian prisoners who were in Acre when it was surrendered. Gesta, 178; R. Howden, iii. 120.

[748] Gesta, 190; R. Howden, iii. 128. Bohadin, 244, gives the date of the departure, 29 Rajab (= Thursday, August 22).

[749] Est., ll. 5677-702; Itin., 248.

[750] Est., ll. 5704-14; Itin., l.c.

[751] Bohadin, 244-6.

[752] This is the date given by the Est., ll. 5721-33, and Itin., 249. Bohadin (244), Ibn Alathyr (Recueil, II. ii. 48), and Imad-ed-Din (in Abu Shama, ib., iv. 33) say 1 Jaban (= August 24). From this point to the Crusaders’ departure from Caesarea, I follow Bohadin’s reckoning for the movements of Saladin, on whom he was in attendance, and the reckoning of the two Frank chroniclers of the Crusade (the writers of Estoire and Itinerarium) for the movements of the host, of which one of them is universally acknowledged to have been a member, and I personally believe the other to have been so likewise. We shall find that from August 30 to September 6, 1191, Bohadin’s dates are confused; a like confusion may have affected them for the whole period from August 24, but of this we cannot be sure.

[753] Est., ll. 5751-95; Itin., 249-51; cf. Bohadin, 244-5.

[755] Est., ll. 5800-60; Itin., 251-2.

[756] The difficulty is complicated by the contradictory descriptions of the site in Est., ll. 5889-90, and 5935, and in Itin., 253, 254. The present native name of Athlit is Khirbet Dustrey. One is tempted to suggest that “Destreitz” might be an attempt to reproduce the sound of, and give a meaning to, this native appellation; but as an Arabic scholar has been good enough to answer a question on the subject by informing me that “it is quite impossible to trace the word Dustrey” in that language, one is driven to conclude that the corruption has taken place in the opposite direction, and that “Dustrey” is a modern Arab form of the old French “Destreitz” (Latin “Districtum).”

[757] Est., ll. 5863-92, 5935-42; Itin., 253, 254.

[758] Bohadin, 245, 246.

[759] Its Arabic name is Nahr es Zerka, “blue” or “grey river.”

[760] Bohadin, 247-50.

[761] Est., ll. 5981-4; Itin., 256.

[762] Est., ll. 5944-6004; Itin., 255-6. The date of the arrival of the host at Caesarea has to be made out by counting the days’ marches and halts, as given by these two writers, since the departure from Acre. A question arises whether Ambrose’s “deus jours de sejour” (l. 5936) at Casal des Destreitz means two whole days and three nights, i. e., August 27-30, or two nights and one whole day besides the day of arrival there, i. e., August 27-29. The word in the Itinerarium—“biduo”—does not help to a decision; but Bohadin does help, though indirectly. He says (250) the Franks reached Caesarea on “Friday 6 Jaban.” This date is self-contradictory; the 6 Jaban (= August 29) was Thursday, and from this point to 14 Jaban (= September 6) all Bohadin’s days of the week are one day in advance of his days of the month. On reaching the last date of the series, however, we shall find from other evidence that the day of the week, not that of the month, is the correct one all through; therefore the “two days” are to be taken in the widest sense, and the entry into Caesarea was on Friday, August 30.

[763] Bohadin, 250, 251; for the date, which he gives as 8 Jaban (= August 31), see preceding note. Imad-ed-Din, in Abu Shama, 34, gives it correctly, 9 Jaban = September 1.

[764] Bohadin, 251, 252.

[766] Est., ll. 6039-46; Itin., 257.

[768] Est., ll. 6047-64; Itin., 258. Oddly enough, Richard soon afterwards forgot the date of his own wound, for in a letter inserted in R. Howden, iii. 130, he says it occurred on the third day before Saladin’s defeat (at Arsuf), i. e. on September 5. We shall see that this date is impossible, because on September 5 there was no fighting at all.

[769] Est., ll. 6071-90; Itin., 258, 259.

[770] Bohadin, 255-7.

[771] Est., ll. 6092-111; Itin., 259. Bohadin, 257, describes the site as “a place called Birka” (the Pond, or Marsh), “whence the sea was visible.” It is probably one of the streamlets which, when not dried up or choked up with sand, run into the Nahr el Falik, a little creek about eight miles south of the mouth of the Salt River.

[772] Est., ll. 6114-17; Itin., l.c.

[773] Bohadin, 258, calls it “Saturday 14 Jaban” (= September 6), but all the Frank writers show that the date of the battle was really Saturday September 7 = 15 Jaban.

[774] Est., ll. 6191-4, 6204-8; Itin., 261.

[775] Cf. Bohadin, 258, Est., l. 6211, and Itin., 262 and 274; the passage “Sicque et in parte ... fixere tentoria” in this latter page seems to be out of place, and to represent Bohadin’s words (l.c.) “the foremost of the Frank footmen reached the gardens of Arsuf.”

[776] Est., ll. 6212-51; Itin., 262, 263.

[777] Est., ll. 6157-64; Itin., 260, 261.

[778] According to Est., ll. 6427-30, he was a “compainz” of Richard from England.

[779] Est., ll. 6255-472; Itin., 264-9.

[781] Est., ll. 6475-92; cf. Itin., 269, 270.

[782] Cf. Est., ll. 6532-616, Itin., 273, 274, and Bohadin, 259-60.

[783] Cf. Est., ll. 6621-38, Itin., 274, 275, Richard’s letters in R. Howden, iii. 130-2, and Bohadin, 261. Other accounts of the battle are in Gesta, 191, and R. Howden, iii. 128, 129; both with a wrong date and some other obvious errors.

[784] Letter in R. Howden, l.c. 131.

[787] Cf. Est., ll. 6895-902, and Itin., 281, with Bohadin, 261.

[788] Est., ll. 6683-734, 6903-25; Itin., 276, 277, 281, 282; Bohadin, 261-2—the last again with wrong days of the month.

[789] Est., ll. 6925-35; Itin., 281, 282.

[790] Bohadin, 262, gives the date of Saladin’s arrival at Ramlah as 17 Jaban (= Monday, September 9); Imad-ed-Din (in Abu Shama, Recueil, v. 40) makes it 19 Jaban (= September 11).

[791] Bohadin, 263; cf. Imad-ed-Din, in Abu Shama, v. 40-1, 43.

[792] Bohadin, 263-7. He says (266) that he heard one of the men engaged in the demolition tell Saladin that they had dug through a wall “a spear’s length” in thickness. What was the length of a Saracen spear?

[793] Bohadin, 265, says 20 Shaban = September 12; but probably he is a day behind as usual.

[794] Ib., 265, 266.

[795] Est., ll. 6941-7034; cf. Itin., 283.

[796] Letter in R. Howden, iii. 130.

[798] Letter in R. Howden, iii. 132.

[799] The salutation of the letter is merely “N. dilecto et fideli suo,” without any name.

[800] Letter in R. Howden, iii. 131, 132.

[801] Est., ll. 7038-58.

[802] Ib., ll. 7051-60; Itin., 285. For locality see note in index to Estoire, s.v. “Seint Abacuc.”

[803] Est., ll. 7061-6; Itin., l.c.

[805] Natroun is the form used by Bohadin; but Quatremère, Hist. des Sultans Mamelouks de l’Egypte, t. ii, I^ère partie, p. 256, no. 10, says, “La forme la plus régulière de ce nom est Alatroun,” and quotes a MS. Arabic geographical lexicon which gives the name thus. It is better known in the corrupt form Latroun. The place seems to be identical with a ruined castle which the Christian inhabitants of the land told early pilgrims was the abode of the Penitent Thief. This raises a question whether the story was derived from Alatroun by way of Latroun and latro, or latro gave rise to Alatroun. Quatremère inclines to the latter view.