[810] Itin., l.c.
[811] Est., ll. 7083-175; Itin., 286-8.
[812] Bohadin, 274, 275.
[813] Bohadin, 277-80.
[814] Itin., 289.
[815] Est., ll. 7207-32; Itin., 290.
[816] “Car si a vos mescheiet E qui issi fust escheiet, Cristente sereit tuee,” Est., ll. 7341-3.
[817] Est., ll. 7233-66; Itin., 291-4.
[818] Bohadin, 284, 285.
[819] Ib., 286.
[820] Ib.
[821] Itin., 296.
[822] Bohadin, l.c.; cf. Ibn Alathyr, 53.
[823] Ibn Alathyr, l.c.
[824] Bohadin, 286, 287.
[825] In the French edition of Bohadin the date is given as “le 11 Chouwal,” i. e. November 1. But evidently this is impossible; it must mean 21 Shawal = November 11.
[826] Bohadin, 287-91. The accounts of these negotiations given in Est., ll. 7370-428, and Itin., 295-7, are obviously less trustworthy.
[827] Bohadin, 292, says he went to Tell el Jezer, i. e. “the Hill of the Bridge,” Stubbs, note 1 to Itin., 298; possibly a bridge over the little river that runs through the Wady Ali, between Natroun and Amwas. The Frank chroniclers say he went “dreit al Toron as Chevalers,” i. e. Natroun, Est., ll. 7456-62; “versus Darum,” Itin., 298. Stubbs in a note suggested that “Darum” here was a phonetic error for “Toron”; this the Estoire practically proves; and I venture to think the passage furnishes a little bit of evidence on another question, for if the Latin “translator” had “al Toron as Chevalers” before his eyes, how came he to misrender it “versus Darum”? whereas if Ambrose found “Darum” in his friend’s notes, and noticed that it was a mistake, he would of course correct it in his own version of the story.
[829] Est., ll. 7429-41; cf. Itin., 297.
[830] Est., ll. 7471-6; cf. Itin., 298.
[831] Est., ll. 7477-8; Itin., 299, “verum non in deliciis.”
[832] Bohadin, 292.
[833] The later high road to Jerusalem from Joppa goes by Ramlah, but not by Amwas and Beit Nuba; it passes further south, through the Wady Ali.
[834] Itin., 305.
[835] See, e. g., the story of the fight in which the Earl of Leicester was nearly lost, Est., ll. 7480-604, Itin., 300-3.
[837] Cf. R. Howden, iii. 17, with Ibn Alathyr, 54, who makes the day December 22, while Roger makes it the 23rd.
[838] Abu Shama, Recueil, V., 49; seemingly from “récit du Cadi,” i. e. Bohadin, but the passage does not occur in either the French or the Dutch edition of Bohadin’s work.
[839] Est., ll. 7617-25; cf. Itin., 303.
[840] “E li Turc qui bien conisseient Le rei Richart e sa baniere E sa vistece e sa maniere,” Est., ll. 7738-40. For “e sa baniere” the Itin., 307, has “ex ejus imminente baneria.” Probably e in l. 7739 should be a.
[841] Est., ll. 7717-60; Itin., 306, 307. On the localities mentioned in this incident see Note IV at end.
[842] Est., ll. 7627-704; cf. Itin., 305.
[843] Est., ll. 7705-16; cf. Itin., 305, 306.
[844] Place from R. Howden, iii. 179, who gives the date as S. Hilary’s Day, January 13. The Est., l.c., and Itin., 308, say merely that it was after Epiphany.
[845] Est., ll. 7761-80; Itin., l.c.
[846] Ibn Alathyr, Recueil Hist. Orient., II. i. 55, 56. The comments on the difficulties in the way of an effective blockade which he ascribes to Richard are almost verbally identical with those of the Knights as reported in Estoire and Itinerarium.
[847] Ibn Alathyr, l.c., 55; Est., ll. 7841-2; Itin., 310. The exact date of the retirement is questionable, owing to the doubt as to the date of the council. Ibn Alathyr (l.c.) says the host withdrew from Beit Nuba on 20 Dulheggia = January 8; Abu Shama (Recueil, V. 49) quotes from “Récit du Cadi” a statement that the withdrawal was on 22 Dulheggia (= January 10), but there is no such thing in the printed editions of Bohadin. Perhaps Ibn Alathyr and Roger of Howden may have erred in different ways from making one and the same mistake, viz., assuming that the return to Ramlah took place on the same day as the council, which is not necessarily implied in any of the chronicles, Frank or Mussulman.
[848] Est., ll. 7799-810; Itin., 309.
[849] Est., ll. 7811-42; Itin., 310.
[850] Otherwise called Yabneh, Jafna, in older days Jamnia, and, earlier still, Jabneel (Joshua xv. 2).
[851] Est., ll. 7843-95; Itin., 311, 312. Both these writers say the host spent a night at Ibelin on its way to Ascalon. Imad-ed-Din (apud Abu Shama, 51) says “the Franks marched upon Ascalon on 3 Moharrem,” i. e. January 20, the date given in Itin., 312, as that of the arrival there. I venture to think that the difficulty suggested by Stubbs (Itin., l.c., note 2), as to reconciling these dates with the statement in Itin., 311, that the duke of Burgundy stayed eight days at the Casal des Plains, is an imaginary one. Those eight days need not be crowded in before the setting out of the rest of the host; the two parties may have gone in opposite directions almost at the same time, since we shall find that they did not come together again until several weeks later.
[852] Est. ll. 7967-8077; Itin., 315-17.
[853] “Ipse manibus aedificando,” Itin., 317. We shall presently find an unimpeachable eye-witness testifying to having seen the king performing a no less arduous manual labour at Darum.
[854] Imad-ed-Din, apud Abu Shama, 50.
[855] See William of Tyre’s description of Darum: “Castrum in Idumaea (ipsa est Edom) situm, trans torrentem illum qui dicitur Ægypti, qui etiam terminus est Palestinae et praedictae regionis,” lib. xx. c. 19. The earlier frontier—like the later one—was further to the south-west, and the “river of Egypt” then was the Wady el Arish, or, earlier still, another stream yet further westward.
[856] Est., ll. 8092-141; cf. Itin., 318, 319.
[857] Est., ll. 8143-54; Itin., 319, 320.
[858] Est., ll. 5329-50; Itin., 239. R. Coggeshall, 37, says 30,000 bezants.
[859] Est., ll. 8160-77; Itin., 320, 321.
[860] Est., ll. 8177-224; Itin., 321, 322.
[861] Est., 8225-34; Itin., 322, 323. The latter gives the date: “Rex ... postquam Achon pervenerat in crastino Cinerum, postera die,” etc. The morrow of Ash Wednesday 1192 was February 20.
[862] Est., ll. 8238-46; Itin., 323.
[863] The Estoire, ll. 8247-60, has in this passage a hiatus which has to be supplied from Itin., 323, 324.
[864] Itin., 324; cf. Est., ll. 8265-70, where again there is a hiatus.
[865] This is the version of Richard’s proceedings given by Bohadin, 293, who was with Saladin at Jerusalem all the time.
[866] Bohadin, 292, 293.
[867] Ib., 293, 294.
[868] Itin., 325.
[869] Bohadin, 294.
[870] The Itin., 324, says he left Acre on the Tuesday before Easter, i. e., March 31.
[871] Est., ll. 8325-35; Itin., 326.
[872] “De ses Peitevins E de Mansels e de Angevins E des barons de Normandie,” Est., ll. 8336-9; of Templars and Hospitaliers, with Count Henry “and many others,” Itin., l.c.
[873] Est., ll. 8340-52; Itin., 326, 327.
[874] Est., ll. 8429-42; Itin., 329, 330.
[875] Est., ll. 8287-304; Itin., 325.
[876] Bohadin, 293. He reckons the captured sheep at a thousand.
[877] Itin., 330.
[878] “Post Pascha completum,” i. e., after April 12; Itin., 333.
[879] Est., ll. 8519-646; Itin., 333-5.
[880] Est., ll. 8650-6, 8715-66; Itin., 336, 338.
[881] Bohadin, 297; R. Diceto, ii. 104. Roger of Howden, iii. 181, gives the date as April 27.
[882] Bohadin, 297; Imad-ed-Din, apud Abu Shama, 53.
[883] Bohadin, l.c.
[884] Est., ll. 8879-99; Itin., 341; R. Coggeshall, 35.
[885] Ibn Alathyr, 58.
[886] Est., ll. 8788-814; Itin., 339-41.
[887] R. Coggeshall, l.c.; R. Howden, iii. 181.
[888] “Encore ne fu çou mie voirs,” Ernoul, 290.
[889] Livre d’Eracle, Rec. Hist. Croisades, Hist. Occid., ii. 190-3. William of Newburgh, lib. v. c. 16, and Roger of Wendover, ed. Coxe, iii. 74, 75, give a letter purporting to have been written by the “Old Man” to exculpate Richard from the charge of having contrived Conrad’s death. In William’s version the letter is addressed “principibus et omni populo Christianae religionis,” and professes to have been written spontaneously; in Roger’s version it is addressed to Duke Leopold of Austria, and Roger says (though the letter itself does not say) that it was written at the request of Richard during his imprisonment in Germany. William says, “Has [literas] nimirum se vidisse atque legisse vir fide dignus mihi protestatus est cum regi Francorum Parisius constituto solemniter fuissent oblatae”; he adds that Philip formally accepted the document as proof of Richard’s innocence; and he dates this transaction 1195. The contents of the letter differ slightly in the two versions, but both are substantially in agreement with the accounts in Ernoul and Eracle of the circumstances which led to Conrad’s death. The letter is unquestionably a forgery. It may have been circulated in the East as well as in the West, and the “ultramarine” chroniclers may have taken their story from it; there is, however, also a possibility that both they and the composers of the letter—whoever these may have been—all alike derived their information from a genuine source.
[890] “Li baron de France esteient En lor tentes hors de la vile, Que haut que bas, plus que dis mile; E li haut ensemble parlerent E a la marchise manderent Qu’ele lor rendist la citie Trestut en peis e en quitie En guarde a l’oes le reis de France; E el respondi sanz dotance Que quant li reis la revendreit Que mult volenters li rendreit, Si ainz n’i ad autre seignor.” Est., ll. 8912-23. For the last four lines the Itinerarium (342) has: “Quibus ipsa respondit quod quando rex Ricardus ipsam visere veniret, ipsi potius redderet civitatem et nulli alii, sicut dominus suus moriens ei praeciperat.” The context in Estoire clearly shows that by “li reis” in l. 8921 Ambrose meant not Richard but Philip; and it seems most likely that this version is the correct one, although Ambrose, as well as the Latin chronicler, has previously stated that Conrad when dying had bidden Isabel “que la citie ne rendist Fors al cors le rei d’Engleterre Ou al dreit seignor de la terre” (ll. 8858-64)—“ut civitati Tyro conservandae vigilanter intenderet, nec cuiquam hominum resignaret nisi regi Ricardo sive illi quem regnum jure contingebat haereditario,” Itin., 340. Whom Conrad can have meant by the last seven words (if indeed he really spoke them) is a puzzle of which I can suggest no solution.
[891] Est., ll. 8774-7; Itin., 338.
[892] Est., ll. 8928-50, 8973-9016; Itin., 342, 343, 346, 347.
[893] Est., ll. 9021-62; Itin., 348, 349. The date of the wedding is given by R. Diceto, ii. 104.
[894] Est., ll. 8961-70; Itin., 343.
[895] Itin., 299.
[896] Ib., 344, 345.
[897] Ib., 343, 346.
[898] Est., ll. 8956-9.
[899] Est., ll. 9127-45; Itin., 351.
[900] Bohadin, 295, 296, 298.
[901] The Est., ll. 9323-4, and Itin., 355, however, mention some Genoese and Pisans as taking part in the final storming.
[902] The authorities say merely “un diemaine,” Est., l. 9175; “quadam dominica,” Itin., 352; but we shall see later that it must have been May 17.
[903] Est., ll. 9173-240; Itin., 352-4.
[904] Bohadin, 301.
[905] Bohadin’s version (l.c.) of this is that they asked for time to communicate with Saladin.
[906] Est., ll. 9174-368; Itin., 354-6; cf. Bohadin, 301. This last, Ibn Alathyr (60), and Imad-ed-Din (in Abu Shama, 54), date the surrender May 23; as it seems to have been made late in the evening, and the Mohammedan day begins at sunset, this date really agrees with that given by the western writers.
[907] We hear nothing of a taking of Gaza; but Gaza had long ceased to be a place of any military importance. Richard and his companions passed through it on their way back to Ascalon (Est., l. 9389, Itin., 356), so its Moslem garrison, if it had had one, had evidently been withdrawn.
[908] Est., ll. 8369-86; Itin., l.c.
[909] Itin., l.c.
[910] Est., ll. 9387-94; Itin., 356, 357.
[911] Cf. Est., ll. 9395-407, and Itin., 357, 358. For Cassaba, see G. Paris, note in Glossary to Estoire, s.v. “Canoie as Estornels.”
[912] Est., ll. 9408-32; Itin., 358.
[913] The first version is Bohadin’s, 301, 302; the second, that of Imad-ed-Din, apud Abu Shama, 54. Bohadin calls the castle Mejdel Yaba; in Abu Shama’s compilation the name appears as Mejdel Djenab, but the compiler adds: “This is the name given by El Imad in the Book of the Conquest, but in The Lightning we find ‘Mejdel Yaba’”; while the text of Imad-ed-Din published by Count Landsberg has “Mejdel el Habab” (footnote to Abu Shama, l.c.). Of these Arabic names only one has been located—Mejdel Yaba, called by the Franks Mirabel, which is so far from the Wady el Hesy that it cannot possibly be the place meant (G. Paris, Glossary to Estoire, s.v. “Fiier”). I am indebted to a distinguished Arabic scholar for the information that Mejdel Yaba means “Glory of Yaba,” Mejdel Djenab “Glory of the district,” Mejdel el Habab “Glory of the lover”; and that the Arabic for Castle of Figs or Figtrees would be Kalat-el-Tinat. It is possible that a place bearing one of the three former Arabic names might be called Fig or Figtree Castle by the Franks for some reason quite independent of its native appellation, and that the narratives of the Christian and Moslem writers may be only two different versions of one event; but there is also another possibility. Imad-ed-Din dates the disaster of the Franks at Mejdel Djenab (or Yaba, or El Habab) 14 Jomada I, i. e. May 28, the date given by Ambrose and the Itinerarium for the capture of Figtree Castle; but Bohadin says it occurred “when the host had spent the fourteenth day of Jomada I” at El Hesy. This should apparently mean that it took place on the following day, i. e. 15 Jomada I = May 29. To me it seems more probable that this version is the correct one, and that the Frank and the Moslem writers are here relating two distinct events, one of which took place on May 28 and the other on May 29. If so, it would not be unnatural that of two expeditions made within such a short period, each party should record only the one which terminated in their own favour.
[914] Est., ll. 9433-508; Itin., 358-61.
[915] “E dist a sei: S’or ne retornes, Veirement as terre perdue.” Est., ll. 9464-5.
[916] Lib. xiv. c. 22.
[917] “Ço fu en juin” (“intrante jam mense Junio,” Itin.) “Lors s’esmut l’ost de la Canoie Par mi les plains tut contre val Vers Ybelin de l’Ospital, Joste Ebron,” Est., ll. 9509-14; Itin., 360. Bohadin places this movement a little earlier; after mentioning an event which he dates 17 Jomada I (= May 31) he continues “The enemy meanwhile had moved from El Hesy, and was at the diverging-point of the ways of which one leads to Ascalon, one to Beit Djibrin, another to the tents of Islam” (303). Stubbs (note to Itin., 360) suggests Galatia, in Arabic Keratieh, as the place indicated. As Bohadin frequently antedates by a day or two the movements of the Franks, he may have done so in this instance. “El Hesy” here, as in a later passage, seems to stand for the Wady el Hesy as a whole; thus including of course the Canebrake.
[918] Est., ll. 9519-52; Itin., 361.
[919] Est., ll. 9553-680; cf. Itin., 361-4. On one passage, omitted in my summary of William’s speech, one would like to have more light. “Remembre te de l’aventure De la riche descomfiture E de Haltfort que rescussis, Que li cuens de Seint Gile assis Aveit, que tu desbaretas E vileinement l’en jetas” (ll. 9609-14). The editors of Bertrand de Born and of the Estoire know nothing of the event here alluded to, and there seems to be no mention of it elsewhere and no clue to its date.
[920] Est., ll. 9681-90. The last line is: “Devant les barons d’Escalone.” Barons here is nonsense. G. Paris suggests “bailles,” a possible equivalent for the Latin, “extra pomoeria Ascaloniae foris,” Itin., 365.
[921] Est., ll. 9692-720; Itin., l.c., giving the date, June 4.
[922] Bohadin, 299, 300.
[923] Ib., 303.
[924] Est., ll. 9817-21; Itin., 369.
[925] Bohadin, 310.